What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[Revoltingest]

No, this isn't our first rodeo. Every single time, clarifications don't seem to make a difference to you, and you end up repeating the same arguments that don't remotely represent my position.

Back at ya. As I've oft said, you & I don't communicate well.
It always strikes me that you see a fraction of my intent.
And I find your position unclear because of contradictions.
But we persist.

You seem to think that any socialist position has to be lumped in with the USSR and the rest of the list of 20th-century communist dictatorships.

Going by every dictionary definition of "socialism",
USSR indeed was. It wasn't communist because there
was private property, but not private ownership of
the means of production.
Odd it is that the official RF definition of "capitalism"
includes the USSR. So that capitalist regime was
communist? We live in the post-dictionary age.

See? If I ask you what those "sins" of socialism are, I suspect you'll bring up the USSR and the same list of countries. Never mind that those have nothing to do with my own position; they must be "socialist" and therefore representative of what other socialists believe.

Socialism is as it is defined, & as it's been instituted.
It has a record.
Your position (as I understand it) is an imagined
set of utopian consequences that differ from what's
actually happened.
in reality.

On an individual level, people see that only the big two win and understandably believe their vote will be practically useless if they don't vote for either. It's a collective effect; you would need significantly large groups to vote for a third party before the rest could see that doing so wouldn't be a waste of their voice, since they would finally be able to see a real third party that could effect change.

If these same people vote time after time solely
for the Big Two because they feel 3rd parties are
wasted votes, I don't see them replacing capitalism
with socialism.

That's one-party, big-state communism. Yet again an example of the conflation I'm talking about.

What is your definition of "communism"?

Have you talked to any socialist anarchists before and asked them what they think of a one-party system? Or libertarian socialists? Democratic socialists? Market socialists? If you haven't, perhaps doing so might prove informative and show you that they're not some uniform group of fans of the USSR and North Korea.

Most people I talk to don't give me a label.
But it's not possible for a country to be socialist and anarchist.
Anarchism would lack the authority to enforce socialism, &
ban capitalism. And a libertarian country could not be socialist
because of the prohibition of free economic association.
Those terms are like the "world's shortest giant"...rather
mutually exclusive when applied to a country.

It needs to happen before I can criticize it.

I'm confused again.
Does this mean that you believe there've been no socialist countries?

I think democratic socialism would be ideal, but I don't believe it should be imposed on state law by force or authoritarianism. Instead, I lean toward social democracy....

What is the difference between those terms?

Mainly, I believe in addressing present issues using empirically optimal solutions without pulling from a predetermined, ideological playbook. What matters is what works, not what the playbook prescribes. If or when they match, that's fine. If they don't, what works should always take precedence. It's also fine if society never voluntarily adopts socialism; it should be a means to an end (i.e., prosperity and peace), not an end by itself.

The empirical approach requires looking at both
socialist & capitalist systems, & comparing the results
with desired goals. I see no attempt to examine the
socialist countries throughout history...just criticism
of capitalism.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe we're experiencing an unprecedented era of human history. We will have to test and figure some things out for the first time as we go instead of assuming that previous systems will necessarily work out well. This is why I'm more in favor of an open and experimental approach rather than a formulaic one. Each country is different to one extent or another and has its own circumstances, too, so what works in, say, India or the US may not work in Saudi Arabia or France. They would each need to figure out their optimal solutions too.

Experimenting has long gone on. Socialism has been tried.
Capitalism has been tried. There are many results to consider.
It makes no sense to want to steer the boat in the direction
of the system with the worse record.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are using Ukrainians as human shields to fight a proxy war against Putin.
They want to:
1)dethrone Putin
2) destabilize Russia
3) dismember the Russian Federation
4) steal Gazprom from the Russian State

Do you need more?

Whence comes this insight to USA's secret plot?

Reminds me of what @Wirey once said here....
"Why is it always the janitor who knows that the CIA killed Kennedy?"

Can ya believe that the RF search function now works so
well that I actually found that quote in less than 30 seconds?

 

[Stevicus]

OK, so let's first be clear on the issue we were discussing: Putin did intend to take the whole of Ukraine and we do know he has an agenda of reversing, at least in part, the break-up of the USSR, of which Ukraine is just one element.

Even assuming that it was Putin's intention, are we clear on the reasons why? Is it just to reconstitute the USSR, just because? Is that the West's contention here? Putin isn't communist anymore or even a socialist, so how does anyone believe that he's going to reinstate a communist government in Russia? A big supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church, it doesn't seem likely that he'll make everyone become atheists again.

If he's comparing himself to Peter the Great (which that article you posted said he was, but from reading what he actually said, it was clear he had a different meaning), that would hearken back to the days of the old Russian Empire, not the USSR. There's a distinct difference which should be noted, even if Westerners obstinately refuse to make that distinction.

On the point about buffer zones etc, it comes down to a legal question of rights: whether or not free countries should accept they belong to a "sphere of influence", determined by someone else for historical reasons dating back to the Cold War, and be thereby permanently constrained in their choice of alliances. Ukraine is part of Europe and would like to join the EU to develop itself. Who is to tell them - and the EU - that they can't ever do that, because Russia wouldn't like it?

Russia is also part of Europe. And there are valid historical reasons why Russia would have reason to feel encroached upon and threatened. It's not just because they wouldn't like it. You seem to be painting Russia as some impulsive nation which does things frivolously and based on whimsy.

What if Mexico decided to align itself with China? What if they opened up their territory to Chinese bases and troops? What if China placed nuclear weapons in Mexico, aimed at the United States? How do you think the U.S. government should or would respond to that? Should we tell them they can't do that because we don't like it? We came close to a similar situation during the Cold War with Cuba, and later on to a lesser extent, with Nicaragua.

As an American, I can understand how protective Americans are of their own territory and can become alarmed at any hint of political instability or possible outside threats close to our own homeland. It's because of this that I can understand that the Russians might feel the same way.

When have we had troops in Russia, by the way? Are you thinking of the Crimean War?

No, I was thinking of the Allied interventionism on the side of the Whites in the Russian Civil War.

Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

@atanu , what are your thoughts on this?:

Russian troops raped and tortured children in Ukraine, U.N. panel says

The findings by the United Nations experts are the latest allegations of war crimes against Russia since its invasion of Ukraine.

www.nbcnews.com

Also, apparently India gets on it's knees to lick Putin's boots. Why?

War crimes are a part of every war. Even in wars like WWII, Korea and Vietnam US soldiers committed war crimes. There is an issue of the extreme Russian war crimes in much greater proportion than anything Ukraine troops have done.

Concerning the Ukraine war Russia undertook a brutal no holds bared invasion of Ukraine with primary targets as civilian targets such as hospitals schools and apartment buildings. Direct ethnic cleansing of Ukrainian civilians was carried out witnessed by mass graves found in liberated cities. Large numbers of uncounted children were kidnapped and sent to Russia. Russia is using Hitler like tactics such as attacking civilian rargets like Hitler's blitz of London.

The reasons for US supporting Ukraine is more a world issue of trying to stop Russian manifest destiny of the Czarist claim of domination of Eastern Europe and Asia as well control over energy resources. Russia has been picking off and subjugating one country at a time to fulfill this plan of conquest.

China has the same plans for the domination and control of the Pacific region.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even assuming that it was Putin's intention, are we clear on the reasons why? Is it just to reconstitute the USSR, just because? Is that the West's contention here? Putin isn't communist anymore or even a socialist, so how does anyone believe that he's going to reinstate a communist government in Russia? A big supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church, it doesn't seem likely that he'll make everyone become atheists again.

If he's comparing himself to Peter the Great (which that article you posted said he was, but from reading what he actually said, it was clear he had a different meaning), that would hearken back to the days of the old Russian Empire, not the USSR. There's a distinct difference which should be noted, even if Westerners obstinately refuse to make that distinction.



Russia is also part of Europe. And there are valid historical reasons why Russia would have reason to feel encroached upon and threatened. It's not just because they wouldn't like it. You seem to be painting Russia as some impulsive nation which does things frivolously and based on whimsy.

What if Mexico decided to align itself with China? What if they opened up their territory to Chinese bases and troops? What if China placed nuclear weapons in Mexico, aimed at the United States? How do you think the U.S. government should or would respond to that? Should we tell them they can't do that because we don't like it? We came close to a similar situation during the Cold War with Cuba, and later on to a lesser extent, with Nicaragua.

As an American, I can understand how protective Americans are of their own territory and can become alarmed at any hint of political instability or possible outside threats close to our own homeland. It's because of this that I can understand that the Russians might feel the same way.





No, I was thinking of the Allied interventionism on the side of the Whites in the Russian Civil War.

Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

this view negates the reality of the designs of Russian and Chines manifest destiny to physically and economically control the world. Therir plans are open and very real. Putin has openly stated his plans to take over every country in Eastern Europe one at a time by what ever means necessary.

Russia and China were never truly Communist nor Socialist, and not an issue today They are brutal dictaterships State control Mercantilism China is There plans and methods of domination have no regard for human rights and are willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goals.

Your view resembles Chamberlain pacifism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ukraine

. and prevent the conquest and domination of Eastern Europe and Asia. Russia and China will be partners in dividing the pie and control the world physically and economically.

 

[Revoltingest]

A big supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church, it doesn't seem likely that he'll make everyone become atheists again.

Contrary to popular belief, there's nothing about
communism that requires atheism. Conversely,
atheism has nothing to do with communism.

 

[Father Heathen]

Contrary to popular belief, there's nothing about
communism that requires atheism. Conversely,
atheism has nothing to do with communism.

In fact, Jesus' teachings and examples appear to mesh rather well with it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Contrary to popular belief, there's nothing about
communism that requires atheism. Conversely,
atheism has nothing to do with communism.

In reality the existence of a truly Communist or Socialist economy or government is an urban myth as well as any association with atheism.

In history there has only been one socialist/communist entity that I know of that existed. It is the Canal Zone Company owned and operated by the US government. Virtually all property, Medical Care, Movie theaters, bowling allies, schools and businesses were owned by the government, Housing and vehicles were provided by Pan Canal Company.

Pan Canal Company was successful operating the canal, but ended for political reasons returning the canal to their rightful owners.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Going by every dictionary definition of "socialism",
USSR indeed was. It wasn't communist because there
was private property, but not private ownership of
the means of production.
Odd it is that the official RF definition of "capitalism"
includes the USSR. So that capitalist regime was
communist? We live in the post-dictionary age.

It was a regime based on Marxism-Leninism, and since that variant of Marxism and its offshoots (e.g., Maoism and Stalinism) are especially violent, authoritarian, and utopian, it was doomed to fail without achieving classlessness or any of its stated goals to the benefit of the people.

Socialism is as it is defined, & as it's been instituted.
It has a record.
Your position (as I understand it) is an imagined
set of utopian consequences that differ from what's
actually happened.
in reality.

Again, you're using the same 20th-century regimes as your benchmark even though they're completely disconnected from what I'm talking about. I've already addressed this, so I won't go into it again.

If these same people vote time after time solely
for the Big Two because they feel 3rd parties are
wasted votes, I don't see them replacing capitalism
with socialism.

I don't know how that follows. I don't see the US replacing capitalism with socialism anytime soon, but that's a different topic from whether there are any viable third-party options to vote for. Some people who claim to champion socialism like Bernie Sanders and AOC have already decided to run as Democrats anyway.

What is your definition of "communism"?

This:

communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

Emphasis on "aims to." The USSR officially "aimed to" do this but was in reality a one-party tyranny. Since communism is an extremely utopian vision contradicted by evidence of how psychology, the economy, and politics work, I see the emergence of totalitarianism from attempts to brute-force it into large-scale practice as an inevitable consequence.

Most people I talk to don't give me a label.
But it's not possible for a country to be socialist and anarchist.
Anarchism would lack the authority to enforce socialism, &
ban capitalism.

The idea in some variants of socialist anarchism is that people would voluntarily adopt and enforce socialism without the need for a state. Whether this is realistic (I don't think it is) is beside the point; anarchist socialism (or social anarchism) exists:

Social anarchism is opposed to all forms of social and political power, hierarchy and oppression, including (but not limited to) the State and capitalism.[1] Social anarchism therefore sees liberty as interconnected with social equality,[2] and considers the maximization of one to be necessary for the maximization of the other.[3]
Social anarchism envisions the overthrow of capitalism and the state in a social revolution, which would establish a federal society of voluntary associations and local communities,[4] based on a network of mutual aid.[5]

Social anarchism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To be continued in the next post due to the character limit.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Continued.

And a libertarian country could not be socialist
because of the prohibition of free economic association.
Those terms are like the "world's shortest giant"...rather
mutually exclusive when applied to a country.

"Libertarian" refers to enshrining liberty or freedom as a core value. It doesn't mean they're capitalists.

Libertarian socialism, also known by various other names, is a left-wing,[1] anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian[2] political philosophy within the socialist movement which rejects the state's control of the economy under state socialism.[3] Overlapping with anarchism and libertarianism,[4][5] libertarian socialists criticize wage slavery relationships within the workplace,[6] emphasizing workers' self-management[7] and decentralized structures of political organization.[8][9][10] As a broad socialist tradition and movement, libertarian socialism includes anarchist, Marxist, and anarchist- or Marxist-inspired thought and other left-libertarian tendencies.[11]

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm confused again.
Does this mean that you believe there've been no socialist countries?

No country has ever achieved socialism, yes, but also, no country that has called itself "socialist" since the 20th century until now has adopted any kind of system except Marxism-Leninism or one of its offshoots. Lenin established that ideology. Stalinism is an offshoot thereof. So is Maoism. Castro and Guevara were both Marxist-Leninists. Ho Chi Minh was as well. When we talk about the "history of socialism" in the 20th century, we're almost exclusively talking about Marxism-Leninism or one of its branches.

What is the difference between those terms?

In a very brief nutshell, social democracy maintains capitalism and only establishes robust welfare systems. It doesn't abolish private ownership of all necessary services such as energy and food, but it has extensive regulation.

Democratic socialism involves a lot more nationalization and collective ownership of necessary services, and it doesn't seek to maintain capitalism. It's usually envisioned as a replacement of it.

The empirical approach requires looking at both
socialist & capitalist systems, & comparing the results
with desired goals. I see no attempt to examine the
socialist countries throughout history...just criticism
of capitalism.

See my points above about Marxism-Leninism and its offshoots.

Experimenting has long gone on. Socialism has been tried.
Capitalism has been tried. There are many results to consider.
It makes no sense to want to steer the boat in the direction
of the system with the worse record.

Again, see above.

Also, this is now only remotely connected to the OP, so I'll instead get back to the main topic:

I see the interest of the US in Ukraine as one of pragmatic foreign policy where the US aids an ally and fends off the threat of an expansionist, aggressive enemy at the same time. It's possible that some American policymakers are genuinely concerned for the liberty and independence of Ukrainians, but without the overarching geopolitical interests, I doubt the US would be so committed to helping Ukraine.

The aid for Ukraine is a good and necessary thing, though, and in my opinion, providing it is the ethical thing to do whether or not it also serves American interests.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Capitalism is compatible with responsibility...
Most Environmentally Friendly Countries 2023

I just saw this edit. Such claims about sustainability often don't go into the nuances of what defines "sustainability": does it only include domestic sources of production and consumption, or are imports and their environmental footprint also factored in?

For example:

The problems associated with today’s consumption patterns are also about social aspects – working conditions in production, the impact on the health of both producers and users and welfare diseases such as stress and obesity. If we look at what is produced in Sweden, compared to other countries we are adept at sustainability because the relatively small proportion of production we have in Sweden is conducted with relatively sustainable production methods and we have access to energy with low climate emissions.

On the other hand, if we also include the environmental impact that occurs in the rest of the world as a result of Swedish consumption of goods and services, we are significantly worse because our consumption level is high internationally. This means that we have shifted our environmental impact to other countries, where residents often have fewer resources and are more affected by the environmental impact.

Sustainable Consumption - MISTRA Sustainable Consumption

Sustainable Consumption - MISTRA Sustainable Consumption

www.sustainableconsumption.se

Also:

You might not notice it at first glance. Their air is crisp and fresh. Their parks are free of litter. Waste collection works like a charm. Much of the region is covered in forests. And Scandinavians tend to be environmentally conscientious.

But the data tell a different story. The Nordic countries have some of the highest levels of resource use and CO2 emissions in the world, in consumption-based terms, drastically overshooting safe planetary boundaries.

This kind of overconsumption is driving a global crisis of habitat destruction, species extinction and climate change. You will not see much evidence of this in Norway or Finland, but that is because, as with most rich nations, the bulk of their ecological impact has been outsourced to the global South. That is where most of the resource extraction happens, and where global warming bites hardest. The violence hits elsewhere.

Of course, Scandinavia is not alone in this. Many high-income countries pose just as much of a problem. But as we wake up to the realities of ecological breakdown, it becomes clear that the Nordic countries no longer offer the promise that we once thought they did.

The dark side of the Nordic model

Scandinavian countries may top every ranking on human development, but they are a disaster for the environment.

www.aljazeera.com

One could debate whether the data on the consumption-based ecological footprint are entirely accurate or properly calculated, but the general point I'm making here is that determining environmental sustainability is far more difficult than merely citing domestic sources of energy or country-specific air quality as a metric.

 

[atanu]

Who is “we”?

Humans.

 

[Stevicus]

this view negates the reality of the designs of Russian and Chines manifest destiny to physically and economically control the world. Therir plans are open and very real. Putin has openly stated his plans to take over every country in Eastern Europe one at a time by what ever means necessary.

Russia and China were never truly Communist nor Socialist, and not an issue today They are brutal dictaterships State control Mercantilism China is There plans and methods of domination have no regard for human rights and are willing to use any means necessary to achieve their goals.

Your view resembles Chamberlain pacifism.

Yes, I've heard all about these supposed "plans" for world conquest. I'm not sure what you mean by China's plan for manifest destiny, but as to Russia, I've studied a fair bit of their history, and I don't see that there was any great plan for world conquest as part of their "manifest destiny." More often than not, it was just the opposite, with multiple nations throughout history wanting to invade and conquer Russia. Their historical long-term foreign policy objectives have mainly revolved around aligning themselves with other Orthodox states, particularly those under Turkish rule, along with a desire to retake Constantinople for Orthodoxy. That, and having permanent, ice-free, safe access to the sea.

I'm find your comparison to Chamberlain to be completely off base. It's a different world now, and a completely different situation, with different countries and different ways of looking at the world. We have also have more advanced weapons of war, including nuclear weapons. This is not a game we're playing. There are real lives hanging in the balance on what our government and military choose to do.

You speak of pacifism, but who's being the pacifist? The US is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. If they attack a NATO country, that's a different matter, but right now, there is no state of hostilities between us. So, that's where it stands. I'm neither a pacifist nor a warmonger; I'm just a spectator commenting from the sidelines like you and everyone else.

I will ask you a question, to you and anyone else who regards Russia and China to be grave threats with intentions towards world conquest: What are you prepared to do? How far are you willing to go in this struggle to stop these dangerous, nuclear-armed powers with supposed designs on world control? How much are you willing to sacrifice? How much will it cost, and most importantly, who is going to do the fighting? The Ukrainians are already fighting, but they seem to need help. The Russians might need help, too, and China and India have large populations and can also make nuclear weapons.

That's what I would ask. Because if what you're saying is true, if I believed it, then I would advocate for much more military spending, armaments production, and recruitment. If we're dealing with that kind of enemy with some kind of "manifest destiny" dream of global conquest, then we could potentially have a serious problem on our hands if we don't start buckling down and getting with the program.

But along the same lines, perhaps a better way might be to build better bridges among present alliances we might already have. That's why I've always advocated for stronger ties and better relations with Latin America and the nations of our own hemisphere. I believe the best way to defeat these "evil empires" is by reducing the vulnerabilities and weak spots within our own supposedly "good empire."

Well, actually, we shouldn't even have an empire, which would be an important first step to take in strengthening our own position and better enabling ourselves to stand against the more dangerous powers. We would do far better if we acted as an alliance, rather than "just another empire."

 

[Stevicus]

Contrary to popular belief, there's nothing about
communism that requires atheism. Conversely,
atheism has nothing to do with communism.

Still, I seriously doubt that Putin is a communist. He's certainly not a member of that party. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a dead entity. It will never rise again. Whatever Putin may be planning or whatever he may want, it's definitely not that. It wouldn't be called that, anyway. Maybe he'll call it Potsylvania. Or perhaps Putinsylvania.

 

[Revoltingest]

In reality the existence of a truly Communist or Socialist economy or government is an urban myth as well as any association with atheism.

In history there has only been one socialist/communist entity that I know of that existed. It is the Canal Zone Company owned and operated by the US government. Virtually all property, Medical Care, Movie theaters, bowling allies, schools and businesses were owned by the government, Housing and vehicles were provided by Pan Canal Company.

Pan Canal Company was successful operating the canal, but ended for political reasons returning the canal to their rightful owners.

"Truly", "true", & "pure" are words commonly applied
to things for the purpose of denying their existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was a regime based on Marxism-Leninism, and since that variant of Marxism and its offshoots (e.g., Maoism and Stalinism) are especially violent, authoritarian, and utopian, it was doomed to fail without achieving classlessness or any of its stated goals to the benefit of the people.



Again, you're using the same 20th-century regimes as your benchmark even though they're completely disconnected from what I'm talking about. I've already addressed this, so I won't go into it again.



I don't know how that follows. I don't see the US replacing capitalism with socialism anytime soon, but that's a different topic from whether there are any viable third-party options to vote for. Some people who claim to champion socialism like Bernie Sanders and AOC have already decided to run as Democrats anyway.



This:

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

Emphasis on "aims to." The USSR officially "aimed to" do this but was in reality a one-party tyranny. Since communism is an extremely utopian vision contradicted by evidence of how psychology, the economy, and politics work, I see the emergence of totalitarianism from attempts to brute-force it into large-scale practice as an inevitable consequence.

"Based on" =/= "is"

The idea in some variants of socialist anarchism is that people would voluntarily adopt and enforce socialism without the need for a state. Whether this is realistic (I don't think it is) is beside the point; anarchist socialism (or social anarchism) exists:

Social anarchism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To be continued in the next post due to the character limit.

"Socialist anarchism" exists as a concept, but not
in the reality of a country having it as a system.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was a regime based on Marxism-Leninism, and since that variant of Marxism and its offshoots (e.g., Maoism and Stalinism) are especially violent, authoritarian, and utopian, it was doomed to fail without achieving classlessness or any of its stated goals to the benefit of the people.

"Based on" =/= "is"

Again, you're using the same 20th-century regimes as your benchmark even though they're completely disconnected from what I'm talking about. I've already addressed this, so I won't go into it again.

Have you not noticed that Cuba & N Korea are 21st century regimes?

I don't know how that follows. I don't see the US replacing capitalism with socialism anytime soon, but that's a different topic from whether there are any viable third-party options to vote for. Some people who claim to champion socialism like Bernie Sanders and AOC have already decided to run as Democrats anyway.



This:

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

Emphasis on "aims to." The USSR officially "aimed to" do this but was in reality a one-party tyranny. Since communism is an extremely utopian vision contradicted by evidence of how psychology, the economy, and politics work, I see the emergence of totalitarianism from attempts to brute-force it into large-scale practice as an inevitable consequence.

The problem with socialism is that tyranny
is an emergent property 100% of the time.

The idea in some variants of socialist anarchism is that people would voluntarily adopt and enforce socialism without the need for a state. Whether this is realistic (I don't think it is) is beside the point; anarchist socialism (or social anarchism) exists:

It's not reasonable to say that all people would want
socialism. It would be imposed upon the unwilling.

Social anarchism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To be continued in the next post due to the character limit.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just saw this edit. Such claims about sustainability often don't go into the nuances of what defines "sustainability": does it only include domestic sources of production and consumption, or are imports and their environmental footprint also factored in?

The existence of "nuances" disproves the possibility that
environmental responsibility can exist under capitalism?
I'm not seeing greater responsibility in socialist countries.
Again, you're just giving my your bias confirmation.

The dark side of the Nordic model

Scandinavian countries may top every ranking on human development, but they are a disaster for the environment.

www.aljazeera.com

One could debate whether the data on the consumption-based ecological footprint are entirely accurate or properly calculated, but the general point I'm making here is that determining environmental sustainability is far more difficult than merely citing domestic sources of energy or country-specific air quality as a metric.

OK.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still, I seriously doubt that Putin is a communist. He's certainly not a member of that party. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a dead entity. It will never rise again. Whatever Putin may be planning or whatever he may want, it's definitely not that. It wouldn't be called that, anyway. Maybe he'll call it Potsylvania. Or perhaps Putinsylvania.

I know he's not a communist.
But he's part socialist.