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.
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.
.png){kind=link}
Another important facet of this: Communism doesn't have any malthusian elements in its ideology. There is no marxist theory which purports states are more efficient when they commit genocide.
Naziism very boldly and forwardly posits ethnic cleansing as one of its aims. Genocide is attractive to fascists because it frees up resources and capital for those considered deserving of them. In fascism, death balances the budget and every prominent fascist writer was not shy about saying so.
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.
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.