While in theory it might be easier to control pollution under socialism, reality
seems to suggest the opposite.  Maybe this is because the apparatchiks cut corners
and don't accurately report failures to meet standards, etc. because they are
driven by wants of prestige, authority, and special perks as much as capitalists
are driven by the accumulation motive.  Perhaps these are just two different
manifestations of human nature (or weakness?).  But capitalist regimes can and have
changed to avert disaster (the Great Lakes, for example, versus the Ariel Sea, as
well as  the reduction of tobacco usage -- among its own population at least).
There is no question that market economies are subject to abuse, particularly when
olgopolistic control becomes acute.  They need to be checked to minimize such
abuses (I don't think they can be completely eliminated), as has been being done in
opposing the MAI, IMF and WTO proposals.  I am no cheerleader for U.S./U.K.
militarism and conglomerate capitalism (or fascism?), but I think that the
environmental record of the former USSR and its satellites is much worse than that
of NATO countries.  To that criticism one can add the stifling grayness of life
under an oppressive regime and the loss of many freedoms (in particular of
conscience, speech, assembly, or right to join associations -- labor unions in PRC
for example).  Dan K

William Meecham wrote:

> That there is pollution under communism (see below) is of course true.
> But the great difference is the rich corps. control most of the govt.
> here, and make correction extremely difficult.  Whereas under socialism
> there is no such super rich class promoting profit at the expense
> of the health and life of the population as a whole.  That is socialists
> can correct the evils of industrialization, whereas in the US we
> see it is almost impossible.
> wcm
> >
> > In a message dated 2/15/00 3:59:39 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:
> > <snip>
> > > Before ATB use, people often died of pneumonia in their 30s and 40s.
> > >  Now, they live into their 70s and 80s.     But here's the catch,
> > >  infections follow entry more often into the body, because air
> > >  contaminants are considerably more common now, than in the time of
> > >  Charles Dicken's London.
> >
> >      Given that the London of Charles Dickens' time was coal powered, I would
> > question the accuracy of this statement.  And I would have to ask, "to what
> > extent did the relatively unsanitary personal and public conditions play in
> > the AVERAGE age of death in the London of Dickins?"
> >
> > >  Whereas people without ATB died quickly without treatment, now people
> > >  suffer repeated infecton from chronic respiratory ailments.      People
> > >  begin in their childhood to get what are called allergies and asthma,
> > >  but in fact are diseases of pollution that is not brought about by pure
> > >  chance.
> >
> >     There is nothing new about allergies ans asthma.
> >
> > >  It is not chance,  that today more people are smokers, or that internal
> > >  combustion is so common, or industrial pollution so wide spread.
> > >  Capitalism has created a permanent population of chronically ill people
> > >  that did not exist in previous times.
> >
> >     One need only look to the communist empires of the former Soviet Union
> > and communist China to recognize that it is INDUSTRIALIZATION with the
> > absence of democracy and not capitalism that has resulted in  wide-spread and
> > routine polluting of the habitat.  So, whereas industry under capitalism
> > results in pollution, it is no more than and apparently much less than under
> > communism.
> >
> > >  The capitalist medical community calls this advancement.       In
> > >  reality, increasing the number of chronically ill is making the health
> > >  of society increasingly unstable for all.
> >
> >    So, because advances have been made that result in people not dying at as
> > early an age and because the older a population gets the more susceptable its
> > members become to illness's usually associated with aging, we must conclude
> > that it is a conspiracy of capitalist doctors and other members of the
> > medical community?
> >
> > >  With each advance in the ability to "cure", has come  a corresponding
> > >  advance in societal irresponsibilty in acceptance of a more degraded and
> > >  dangerous environment.      The capitalist development of ATB, has
> > >  combined with advanced capitalist mass production techniques, to produce
> > >  smokers of 100+ cigarettes a day.     If these people die at 65, instead
> > >  of age 25, we can hardly call this an advance.
> >
> >    I suspect they would call it an advance - even if America's smoke nazis
> > don't.;-)
> >
> > >  The reality is that people didn't smoke a fraction of what they do now,
> > >  even 100 years ago.      This is not double the health.      I key in on
> > >  smoking to illustrate the point, but there are many other similar
> > >  processes that have a cumulative effect.
> > >
> > <snip>
> > >  Dr. Levy had no proposal that even begins to provide society a fighting
> > >  chance to gain better health ahead.
> >
> > Your screed seems to be less concerned with accuracy and more concerned with
> > advancing a socio-political agenda.
> > Yours,
> > Issodhos
> >