So I was reading through @sunaurus@lemm.ee 's comment about Estonian demographic history and felt intrigued by some of the claims, so I did a teeny tiny bit of digging to see what I could find. So here goes:
-
The Estonian population expanded rapidly during the industrial revolution right up to the 1910s.
-
World War 1 and the Great Depression manage to suppress population growth for the next decade.
-
Nazi occupation of Estonia (marked RKO) coincides with WW2. The vast majority of ethnic Jews flee to the USSR, and those whl stayed behind were exterminated. The nazis and their Estonian collaborators built concentration camps. This coincides with a dip in the graph.
-
After WW2, Estonia is back under the USSR. The first Estonian SSR was established in 1940-1941 when nazi occupation started. After some lag, the population begins climbing on the same curve it did before. The population of the country peaks in 1989.
-
20000 people were deported to Russia very early in the existence of the SSR
-
The nazis aimed to remove 50% of the population on paper but only had 4yrs to do so. This means using concentration camps on ethnic Estonians for germans to take their homes/land as in palestine today.
-
20k is not the same as sunaurus’s 20% claim, not even close. 20% does however match the proportion of modern estonians who are russian. The obvious conclusion one can gather from this comparison is that this is not dissimilar to Great Replacement propaganda. The assumption here is that ethnic Russians are taking up Estonian space, because the evidence points to massive population growth under the ussr rather than a contraction like the one that occurred with German occupation.
.png){kind=link}
Immigration was highest during that huge growth period, so I’m curious where all those excess deaths and gulags occurred to have not slowed or stopped said growth. It sounds to me like this person is just intimidated by people they consider foreign.
Capitalism is not addressing the tragedy of the commons, fascism is addressing it by stealing the resources from others, communism is a transgender polycule having an orgy behind the dumpster at dennys after a 3am rave party.
There is no tragedy of the commons. The coiner of the phrase as well as the concept of “lifeboat ethics”, Garrett Hardin, was a fascist and white supremacist who used environmentalism as a tool to smuggle and propagate anti-immigrant and eugenicist ideologies.
Much like barter, the Tragedy of the Commons is an extrapolation based on modern economic orthodoxy, yet either did not exist or was solved out of existence from the dawn of human society.
The commons were communally managed for centuries by the people. The tragedy was the enclosures that destroyed communal village economies.
yeah they are purely theoretically possible but with literally no actual evidence from history because guess what, people are not mindless psychopaths unable to engage in social reasoning and compromise. Like bourgeois economists keep on assuming that in a prisoner’s dilemma situation that you would always have the participants behave selfishly instead of showing a more enlightend social reason.
The actual tragedy is that capitalism, which ideologically uses the argument from the Tragedy of the Commons to justify itself, in fact makes such social breakdowns as described by the Tragedy of the Commons more likely due to the fact capitalism destroys healthy, organic social relations and community.
Of course this doesn’t change that there is nothing stopping us from refuting it again. It’s a classic example of capitalism recreating the world in its own satanic image.
Comrade that 3rd article is unironically supportive of trophy hunting. Also ecofascists don’t own the concept of “tragedy of the commons”. We don’t disagree with malthusians that resources are limited, we disagree on how to allocate resources.
I heard 40 billion was the theoretical carrying capacity for earth, if human consumption was minimized. As communists we don’t really want to stop technological or population growth, we want people to stop eating meat and driving cars and living in single family houses and yes we want people to choose to have less kids but we generally don’t agree with forced population control measures. We believe that we can allocate the finite resources of earth in a manner conductive towards human existence.
Malthusians and ecofascists want to stop technological and:or population growth so that western levels of consumption can be maintained. A malthusian would rather have a world with half a billion people not asking how it gets down that low, meanwhile a communist wants more people, they want humanity to flourish and grow, maybe not exponentially, maybe they want humanity to reach an equilibrium where births and deaths are equal.
What I’m saying is, resources are limited and there’s a regressive and progressive approach to the issue, and the malthusian approach is the regressive one. And communism is naturally the antithesis to malthusian. And off in the corner wearing a dunce cap drooling is capitalism which does not believe we will run out of fossil fuels.
What does any of this mean, idk fuck Ted Kaczynski.
And I’m not allowed to any of them. :/