I know the Republican party doesn’t care as much about the environment as the Democratic party, but what about Communists, Fascists, Socialists, etc.?



  1. 0 Votes

    There is no political ideology that embraces the environment, except the Green Party (environmentalist party). As a whole, the American Democratic party is more receptive to environmental causes than the Repiublican party. It is not so much a party issue as it is an individual issue for members of the party, and as a whole more individual Democrats care about the environment than Republicans.

    Looking at history, let’s examine communist, fascist, and socialist movements globally. Example one, communist Russia, like the United States the USSR (United Socialist States of Russia) was guilty of nuclear testing. Nuclear testing is *very* bad for the environment, this leads one to assume that the USSR did not care about the environment very much. Example two, Nazi Germany, the Nazi’s were a fascist/socialist party, they also were trying to develop nuclear arms. Additionally Nazi Germany conducted massive air raids which destroyed much of the European countryside. In general, any regime involved in war is not environmentally friendly, war creates destruction and war generally creates a ramping up of industrial production (also not eco-friendly).

    Example three, modern European socialism, the modern European socialist countries are some of the most environmentally friendly in the world. Norway has banned ads for cars that use greenwashing, such as ads for the Toyota Prius that claim it to be “environmentally friendly”. The Norwegian government is so dedicated to the environment that they are considering banning ALL fossil fuel cars.

  2. 0 Votes

    To answer one part of your question, Russian Communists did not have the environment in mind while they pursued their political agenda. A prime example of this is the Aral Sea. The Soviet government decided to irrigate the deserts surrounding the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan by diverting water that would have normally flowed into the Aral Sea. As a result of nearly a century of dehydration, the Aral Sea has almost completely dried out.

  3. 0 Votes

    The Premise is false, it is not true that republicans care less than democrats about the environment. The Governor of California is a republican and an environmentalist. Maybe the fact the republicans support big business and denied global warming as a PARTY leads to the assumption that democrats have a superior environmental stance.

    Socialism (and one of its flavors, communism) is not based on endless economic growth like capitalism is it supports modest material ownership and full employment. If socialist democracies are any example, they have an easier time enacting and enforcing strict environmental regulations than a republic has.

    Fascists can impose their will, so if they will environmentalism they have it. Sorry truth is that fascists are often exploiters, of everything. Unless of course they’re eco-fascists… that’s what some pundit types call eco-extremists like Earth First.

  4. 0 Votes

    Actually, fascism is typically quite environmentally friendly. It’s really very interesting, well, I’m speaking as someone who studies in a political field, so maybe not for everyone, but if you look at the history of dictatorships, there are a surprising number of leaders that were environmentally conscious. Perhaps the only thing Nazism ever did correctly was the environmental and animal rights programs it produced, which were remarkably progressive for the time period.

    Basically, fascism, totalitarianism, and other similar forms of government typically allow for more efficient decision making, as there are less strange loopholes and arguments to deal with. Ideologically speaking, though, there is no inherent position on the environment.

Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!