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
>