I also identify as a communist. A militant one if you want
I really hate that political spectrum graph. It is as unscientific and misleading as IQ tests. But I gived it a try for curiosity
this is what I get:
By the way, I'm also glad to see I wasn't alone. Also I noticed It's quite common to find communists at international debates, forums, conferences, but quite unusual to find when you are in a american dominated debate. This points out to different history than Europe or South America, or at least a very different interpretation and education.
Source of the post
I think these issues have very little to do with which system of government is in place. Communist China isn't exactly a gleaming symbol of clean air and water or of protecting the environment. Neither was the Communist Soviet Union.
Communism is not only about goverment is about economics. I wouldn't say communist China nowadays considering their economic system. The vast majority of communists parties in the world dont' consider it like that. It has the name and part of its history, but today the communist party of china has even a neoliberal and right-wing dominant current inside. China is a very good example in fact of a capitalist economy in many senses, in the exportation, in the aproach to the explotation of natural resources, in the aproach to labor rights and in the incomes.
The issue with the Soviet Union is simple, countries make bad decisions and worst decision when there's scarcity (the aral sea drainage provided a powerful cotton agriculture in uzbekistan, something that has a been very important for their economic growth and resource soverainty), in that times there was little counciousness about the enviroment at that scale.
There is no modern communist party in the world that don't care about the enviroment, new problems, new ways of learning about the issues humanity has to overcome, and therefore more adapted politics and programs.
The Soviet Union made a mistake. A big mistake. Is it relatable to the communist ideology or economic framework? no.
But in the capitalist society a great number of hazards to the enviroment is quite relatable indeed to the economic system. The fact that a firm has to grow and compete in a voracious anarkist market has generated a lot of mechanisms that incetivize the local explotation of resources and a very narrow view of the future needs of the company. Only the state intervention has allowed to create mechanism that make companies to adhere to the ecological view, and even with that the vast majority of states are well more fragile than certain corporations. The coorporations that can avoid those mechanism would avoid them, simply because they would have incentives to do so, gaining predominance in the market. A way to avoid been sanctioned by the government is to deploy your industry in a third world country with way less expense and the capability to exploit more easily certain resources, where there are less problems in doing so because there is a diferent legal framework or directly because there is little law enforcement against these actions. And what If they decided in a gesture of kindnes not to do so? well doesn't matter because that coorporation would be less advantageous than other one that do so, and therefore by simple natural selection the companies that have certain behaviours get selected and dominate the population of companies of that industry. This is a system not a metter of god and evil. If there are mechanisms that allow these kind of behaviours then they would occur systemically.
Sorry for my bad english, I realize that I explain myself better in more physics-related debates hahaha