WI: A Green Soviet Union

1. That doesn't answer the question.

2. And... they still were a major food exporter even in the 80's when things were going to shit. Now are we going to rehash ideology or can I go?[/QU

1. Yes, it does. The Soviets either starved or imported food.

2 NO, THEY WEREN'T the Soviets they were major net food importers. You will have to show me figures on exactly WHEN in the 1980s the Russians were major net exporters of food.
 
1. That doesn't answer the question.

2. And... they still were a major food exporter even in the 80's when things were going to shit. Now are we going to rehash ideology or can I go?[/QU

1. Yes, it does. The Soviets either starved or imported food.

2 NO, THEY WEREN'T the Soviets they were major net food importers. You will have to show me figures on exactly WHEN in the 1980s the Russians were major net exporters of food.

2. Actually, even during Stalin's era that exported a lot of food, namely because that's how they afforded industrialization.

Besides that, that says nothing about Communism's efficiency at agriculture, only Stalinist, as the Soviet Union never really got rid of Stalinism, with Brechev rolling back De-Stalinization.
 
2. Actually, even during Stalin's era that exported a lot of food, namely because that's how they afforded industrialization.

Besides that, that says nothing about Communism's efficiency at agriculture, only Stalinist, as the Soviet Union never really got rid of Stalinism, with Brechev rolling back De-Stalinization.

They exported food under Stalin because Stalin didn't give a damn if his people starved. The Chinese starved under Mao as well. Name one Communist country that did well in agriculture which is defined by being a major food exporter without a starving population.
 
Well, what if the Soviet Union placed emphasis on avoiding ecological damage, and preserving ecology? Now, how... I don't know, Marx for some reason adopts proto-green ideals perhaps.

With that said, would this Soviet Union have done better in the long run? Could avoiding ecological damage allow it to adapt better in the Cold War? Additionally, what impact would this have on Green movements elsewhere.

This is unrealistic on many levels. Let's start with the obvious.

Being eco-friendly is something that is easy for a rich, almost post-industrial nation. This is why the environmental preservation movement sprang up in the West. The infrastructure to provide 'green' alternatives exists. Because of all the factories built on fossil-fuels and strip-mining, solar panels can be produced economically, for example.

Russia was anything but rich or industrialized immediately after the revolution. She has always been poorer than the west, due to a combination of bad administration and...yeah, pretty much bad administration before the Soviet Revolution. When Lenin took over, and Stalin after him, they set about industrializing the Soviet Union for the sake of making her competetive with the West (Central Planning being necessary for skipping at least a century of development as would occur under capitalist progression).

If the Soviet Union frets about how 'environmentally friendly' her tractor factories and hydroelectric dams are in the 1920s, she'll just get overrun by fascist invaders a few years later. If she frets about making all her nuclear reactors Generation IV in safety level in the 1950s, the technology will never be developed. If she insists on filtering the emissions from coal-burning plants and oil wells, the industry that allowed her to sustain her own bloc without much trade with the west won't exist.

You can have one or the other: Rapid Industrialization, or Environmental Friendliness. With the first, you get OTL. With the second, all the Slavs die as Generalplan Ost is enacted due to the Soviet Union getting overrun.

You think Capitalists and Stalinists polluted for shits and giggles? Of course not. It was just cheaper (read: more efficient) to not bother with environmental maintenance until it became a problem that was big enough for them to notice, and until the technology to replace dirty methods of production emerged.
 
This is unrealistic on many levels. Let's start with the obvious.

Being eco-friendly is something that is easy for a rich, almost post-industrial nation. This is why the environmental preservation movement sprang up in the West. The infrastructure to provide 'green' alternatives exists. Because of all the factories built on fossil-fuels and strip-mining, solar panels can be produced economically, for example.

Russia was anything but rich or industrialized immediately after the revolution. She has always been poorer than the west, due to a combination of bad administration and...yeah, pretty much bad administration before the Soviet Revolution. When Lenin took over, and Stalin after him, they set about industrializing the Soviet Union for the sake of making her competetive with the West (Central Planning being necessary for skipping at least a century of development as would occur under capitalist progression).

If the Soviet Union frets about how 'environmentally friendly' her tractor factories and hydroelectric dams are in the 1920s, she'll just get overrun by fascist invaders a few years later. If she frets about making all her nuclear reactors Generation IV in safety level in the 1950s, the technology will never be developed. If she insists on filtering the emissions from coal-burning plants and oil wells, the industry that allowed her to sustain her own bloc without much trade with the west won't exist.

You can have one or the other: Rapid Industrialization, or Environmental Friendliness. With the first, you get OTL. With the second, all the Slavs die as Generalplan Ost is enacted due to the Soviet Union getting overrun.

You think Capitalists and Stalinists polluted for shits and giggles? Of course not. It was just cheaper (read: more efficient) to not bother with environmental maintenance until it became a problem that was big enough for them to notice, and until the technology to replace dirty methods of production emerged.

Two problems with this.

1. Everyone seems to assume that I automatically mean smog reduction primarily, when that isn't the case. Soil conservation is something that benefits ALL countries, regardless of income levels. Hence, agriculture is what would benefit the most from this, while industrialization will be at first untouched, as you're right, they can't afford to be ecological in that way.

2. Going along with the first, what level of Green do you assume to be at from this? This is something they do IF THEY CAN AFFORD, which is for agriculture because it actually IMPROVES how agriculture does. Unlike industrialization, you can't brute force farming to work, something BOTH capitalism and socialism failed at in OTL. For the former, the Dust Bowl, and agricultural issues today(latter has a subsidy to help cause issues, but that subsidy was caused by big business).

Perhaps I should've said GREENER rather than Green, as it's something they keep in mind, not something obsessive. While they'll reduce smog at times, they won't obsess over it, while with agriculture, it will bring improvements to agriculture, as things like the Dust Bowl came from ignoring ecology, among other things.
 
This isn't really plausible until after the 1960s. The modern environmental movement wasn't born until then. Conservationism is a different animal, however. Maybe you could have a successful Prague Spring in '68 be exported around the Soviet sphere? Ecological leftism could come out of that.
 
This isn't really plausible until after the 1960s. The modern environmental movement wasn't born until then. Conservationism is a different animal, however. Maybe you could have a successful Prague Spring in '68 be exported around the Soviet sphere? Ecological leftism could come out of that.

Interesting concept. Honestly, while I jumped on the other bandwagon, I'd be just fine with the Soviet Union reforming itself into being Green after WW2, if that's much more plausible and doable. Again, if it cleaned out its smog, and implemented things like soil conservation... well, you'd get a much better Soviet Union that would do much better in the long term to say the least.
 
There won't be any "we is gonna dump radioactive shit into the lake, motherfucker cause I just dont give no fuck" type disregard of safety you saw with Chelyabinsk/Mayak reactor. Which will be good, meaning lower death tolls from radiation there and bettern quality-of-live for industrial belts.
 
Top