Do you think that cancer is caused by capitalism. Would socialism lower cancer rates?

[MarxistMan]

Hello all, i would like to ask an important question about a killer. And that killer that is killing millions of people in USA and in many other capitalist countries is cancer, and of course diabetes, heart diseases, AIDS and many other diseases.

But i would like to know what do you guys think of cancer. And would cancer levels in America and the world go down in a socialist system?

Thanks

.

[The Man]

It would go down as much as breaking your leg would go down in a socialist system. I really don't see any change.

[Paulappaul]

I got a good suspicion this is some wacko conservative looking to bait us into some equally wacko"conspiracy" theory.

[Amphictyonis]

Work place conditions would be less hazardous. Products would be less hazardous. So yes, people would probably develop less cancers. Take the gold miners in South America for instance. The workers stomp barrels full of silt/water and mercury to mash up or lump gold flakes together with the mercury. Workers then, with no mask, use a blow torch to separate the mercury and gold. The leftover mercury laden silt is then poured in the river. This is just one example of millions. Industry in more advanced regions cuts all manner of corners in teh name of profits. It is capitalism which drives these businesses/businessmen to shit all over the world. Why do you think the recent oil spill happened? Cutting corners/regulations.

5abRD9h78BI

I mean, it's not just cancers it everything. Everything from cancer to the sudden rise in autism probably has some link to industrial pollution and or some fucked off pharmaceutical/pesticide. The world will in fact be healthier without capitalism. For those who say "well capitalism has given rise in human quality of life" to them you say they are correct but human history is not a history of stagnation. Meaning, capitalism gave us the means to provide abundance (industrialization) but it's by no means the be all end all of human development. Capitalism is chaotic, exploitative and uncontrollable. A step from feudalism no doubt but wouldnt serfs who defended teh feudal system seem to be a tad idiotic? It's time to look to the future.

[The Man]

Work place conditions would be less hazardous. Products would be less hazardous. So yes, people would probably develop less cancers. Take the gold miners in South America for instance. The workers stomp barrels full of silt/water and mercury to mash up or lump gold flakes together with the mercury. Workers then, with no mask, use a blow torch to separate the mercury and gold. The leftover mercury laden silt is then poured in the river. This is just one example of millions. Industry in more advanced regions cuts all manner of corners in teh name of profits. It is capitalism which drives these businesses/businessmen to shit all over the world.

5abRD9h78BI

Can you see into the future? :D

But seriously, now that you bring it up, in a socialist system I think lung and mesothelioma cancers would probably go down.

[MarxistMan]

Hello my friend, how are you? haha i am not right-winger. I meant to ask an honest question about cancer and other diseases. Because remember that we should care for people and cancer is killing millions of people. And why do you label me as right-wing conservative? When conservatives are in favor of a privatized health care system which literally kills people. Compared with socialist free health care system, and with a more scientific health care system, based on low-carb diets.

Don't you think that science can cure diseases? and don't think that capitalist medical corporations only cares about profits and not curing people?

You sound like you are defending capitalist health care system. The other guy who posted a comment might be wrong, because he wrote that socialism won't have any negative or positive impact on the health of the population of USA. I think that he is a bit wrong there. Because how the hell can he claim that a system that gives free medical care to all americans won't have any effect on the 300 millions of americans?

.


.


I got a good suspicion this is some wacko conservative looking to bait us into some equally wacko"conspiracy" theory.

[The Man]

I never said it wouldn't affect anyone. However, I don't see certain cancer rates going down.

[MarxistMan]

Hello again my friend. This is just an opinion about a preventive measure that a socialist government could apply in USA, and that is to offer gym memberships at much lower prices than they are in the current capitalist system of America. And you know exercising is a good preventive medicine for many diseases. Having free gyms or gyms at real low fees would increase the numbers of americans participating in a regular exercising and fitness program.

Thanx

.


I got a good suspicion this is some wacko conservative looking to bait us into some equally wacko"conspiracy" theory.

[Amphictyonis]

Can you see into the future? :D

But seriously, now that you bring it up, in a socialist system I think lung and mesothelioma cancers would probably go down.

It's common sense worker controlled means of production would cut down on hazardous waste and exposure to hazardous chemicals. Ya! Lets all vote to kill ourselves! ;) It doesnt take Nostradamus to figure out the likely evolution of workplace conditions/standards under communism. Thats kinda the whole point you know.

[The Man]

It's common sense worker controlled means of production would cut down on hazardous waste and exposure to hazardous chemicals. Ya! Lets all vote to kill ourselves! ;) It doesnt take Nostradamus to figure out the likely evolution of workplace conditions/standards under communism. Thats kinda the whole point you know.

I know, and work place conditions would definitely go up during socialism/communism, were fighting for the workers aren't we?

I just had to say that one comment above about the seeing into the future... I couldn't resist ;)

[MarxistMan]

cool, another thing that a socialist government could do in favor of the health of people is to change the high-carbohydrate philosophy of the US department of health into a low-carbohydrate philosophy. I read in the book "Protein Power" by Dr. Eades, that there are certains cancers that could be cured even with a zero carbohydrate diet.

We would also have to wage a propaganda to teach americans how to eat the right way, a philosophy of less junk food, less calories and getting their carbohydrates from green vegetables and some low sugar fruits, instead of getting their carbohydrates from starchy carbohydrate sources like bread, pasta, rice etc.

There could also be a destruction of corporations that kill people like Nabisco, Kellogs, Sara Lee, Duncan Hines, taking them over and offering cakes, pancakes and cookies made with soy protein powder, and whey protein powder (low-carb, low calorie)

Remember that socialism is a pro-life system without wars, without heart attacks, without cancer, and without diabetes where people would live to 150 years. Of course Republicans say they are pro-life, but denying health services in the state of Arizona is not really pro-life

Mortuary funeral services would collapse in socialism haha

thanx


.


It's common sense worker controlled means of production would cut down on hazardous waste and exposure to hazardous chemicals. Ya! Lets all vote to kill ourselves! ;) It doesnt take Nostradamus to figure out the likely evolution of workplace conditions/standards under communism. Thats kinda the whole point you know.

[Amphictyonis]

Remember that socialism is a pro-life system without wars, without heart attacks, without cancer, and without diabetes where people would live to 150 years.


.
Not sure about that.

[smk]

gWIy9-cfMIo

To show one example, the Iraq war is a direct result of capitalism, and the extreme spike in cancer and birth defects in Fallujah and other parts of Iraq are direct results of the Iraq War.
I think that overall, disease would go down as pubic health and standard of living increase, but once capitalism is through, that doesn't at all mean the eradication of disease, especially cancer (we dont even know its biology that well, how could we know if it is caused by capitalism alone?).

[FreeFocus]

We should also consider the effects of environmental pollutants in poor communities, particularly in ghettos. Breathing and living in shit is in no way conducive to good health, and definitely doesn't help prevent cancer.

[MarxistMan]

Hello, i love health and nutrition a lot. By the way we could also use the help of transhumanism technology applied to health. Here is a good site about it from a British Philosopher David Pearce: http://www.hedweb.com/

Thanx


Not sure about that.

[Antifa94]

Is this a joke.....

[MarxistMan]

Hello, my friend cancer is not a joke, and the capitalist health care system denies health care service to millions of people. Tons of people in USA die as a result of denied health services. That is damn real, not a joke at all, and also how the wrong way of eating, and almost 75% of americans are obese because of the pro-junk food capitalist propaganda is not a joke. The US capitalist governmnet is mass murdering people with cancer, diabetes, obesity and heart diseases. that's no joke my friend.

.



Is this a joke.....

[synthesis]

Hello, my friend cancer is not a joke, and the capitalist health care system denies health care service to millions of people. Tons of people in USA die as a result of denied health services. That is damn real, not a joke at all, and also how the wrong way of eating, and almost 75% of americans are obese because of the pro-junk food capitalist propaganda is not a joke. The US capitalist governmnet is mass murdering people with cancer, diabetes, obesity and heart diseases. that's no joke my friend.

.

The government isn't "mass murdering" anyone. Well, okay, they are, but not in the sense you're talking about, and phrasing it as such means you're missing the point.

[smk]

Hello, my friend cancer is not a joke, and the capitalist health care system denies health care service to millions of people. Tons of people in USA die as a result of denied health services. That is damn real, not a joke at all, and also how the wrong way of eating, and almost 75% of americans are obese because of the pro-junk food capitalist propaganda is not a joke. The US capitalist governmnet is mass murdering people with cancer, diabetes, obesity and heart diseases. that's no joke my friend.

.

Could you explain what stake the US government has in making its citizens obese?

[Amphictyonis]

Could you explain what stake the US government has in making its citizens obese?
The government is making trillions of dollars pushing/advertising/selling triple bypass cheeseburgers to infants.

[MarxistMan]

Hello my brother/sister: well the US corporations and capitalist system in most nations are not forcing people to eat a lot and to eat junk fattening foods. However the TV advertising of fattening unhealthy foods have a psychological effect on people. Jim Morrison said: "Did you know that we are ruled by television?"

Hey by the way i love anarchist-communism. If all people were real smart, they would try to welcome a state-less world

thanx


.


Could you explain what stake the US government has in making its citizens obese?

[Tommy4ever]

:laugh:

What a silly question.

[smk]

The government is making trillions of dollars pushing/advertising/selling triple bypass cheeseburgers to infants.

Wait, I thought McDonalds pushed/advertised/sold cheeseburgers....
I think you are mixing up corporations and the government (indirectly, corporations are the American government, but you can't say the US government actually is making any money off french fries.)

[MarxistMan]

Hi, cancer kills and last time i checked the capitalist health care system denies poor people a cure, which leads to poor people dying because they can't afford privatized health care insurance

.





:laugh:

What a silly question.

[smk]

Hi, cancer kills and last time i checked the capitalist health care system denies poor people a cure, which leads to poor people dying because they can't afford privatized health care insurance

.

The question which was originally posed is:


Do you think that cancer is caused by capitalism. Would socialism lower cancer rates?

A few instances of cancer can be attributed to capitalism (see my post on Fallujah), however, if you think of the most common source of cancer, smoking, why would people stop smoking in a communist society? Most sources of cancer have nothing to do with capitalism.
Socialism would not lower cancer rates, but it would probably increase cancer survival rates.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No. Socialism has no direct impact on cancer. However, you could ask several other completely relevant questions.

(1) Could socialism negate some of the economic incentives to spread carcinogens into the environment? Yes

(2) Could socialism offer better education regarding cancer prevention? Perhaps, although considering the ability of the bourgeoise and various historically leninist societies to smoke/drink too much, I don't see anything necessarily opposed to cancer here.

(3) Could socialism offer better health care? Probably, but not necessarily either. A business is no more successful than its business model, likewise socialism is no more successful than its socialist model. If you have a socialized christian science hospital, it won't help vs cancer rates much because prayer has limited efficacy in curing actual cancer.

So it does contribute, but I wouldn't say capitalism "causes cancer".

[Amphictyonis]

Wait, I thought McDonalds pushed/advertised/sold cheeseburgers....
I think you are mixing up corporations and the government (indirectly, corporations are the American government, but you can't say the US government actually is making any money off french fries.)

Jest my friend jest.

[Hoplite]

Hello all, i would like to ask an important question about a killer. And that killer that is killing millions of people in USA and in many other capitalist countries is cancer, and of course diabetes, heart diseases, AIDS and many other diseases.

But i would like to know what do you guys think of cancer. And would cancer levels in America and the world go down in a socialist system?

Thanks

.
Correlation does not equal causation.

Additionally, the medical community is unaware of any information that supports your theory.

[MarxistMan]

How can you claim that a socialist government doesn't have impact on diseases. How can you say that socialism won't change the wrong high carbohydrate philosophy of the current US department of health, and the excess of junk fattening, destructive foods offered by the capitalist market in USA like fried foods, french fries, pizzas, burgers, unhealthy snacks like Doritos, pancakes, donuts along with their profit based medicines that won't cure people at all.

You need to read books about the effects of diets high in calories and high in carbohydrates, and how cancer, diabetes, obesity and other diseases are caused by this way of eating and how can low calorie, low carb diets can prevent many diseases. Along with the whole current medical philosophy in USA that kills people, that doesn't cure people at all, because its a profit based medicine. And not a scientific medical system at all.

Damn, i thought you were socialist and hated capitalism. But by your argument that capitalist health care system is the same as a socialist health system you are saying that there won't be any change in the stupid paradigm of the current medical, health, and physiology of USA

A nation that is sick, with high cancer rates, 75% obese, depressed and physiologically decadent wont be able to be a happy productive self-realized society with high levels of human development

No wonder people still vote for Democrats and Obama because people think that the current capitalist system can increase their living standards, when we all know that americans are going down on every level, physiologically, economically, on education, literacy and mentally. The USA is doomed with this excess of conformism, of people conforming to this shitty life of America of just 3 meals a day, and a car, but no good health, and no opportunity to join a university because universities and colleges are privatized and very expensive for the masses of workers of USA

By the way the Bolshevik Government, had a very short life to determine its consequences and impact on health levels of the population. Because it was quickly betrayed by Stalin, and even the USSR-Stalinist Russia had better health levels than capitalist neoliberal nations with privatized health care system such as Mexico.

Another thing i wanna point out is that medical care was a lot less developed 100 years ago, than today. So judging the health of the people of the Bolshevik government in Russia to determine if socialism has an impact on the health people is not right. It would be better to judge the health levels and longevity of the people in Cuba and compare them with the health levels of the population of neoliberal capitalist nations like Mexico, Colombia and Nigeria

.
.

.



No. Socialism has no direct impact on cancer. However, you could ask several other completely relevant questions.

(1) Could socialism negate some of the economic incentives to spread carcinogens into the environment? Yes

(2) Could socialism offer better education regarding cancer prevention? Perhaps, although considering the ability of the bourgeoise and various historically leninist societies to smoke/drink too much, I don't see anything necessarily opposed to cancer here.

(3) Could socialism offer better health care? Probably, but not necessarily either. A business is no more successful than its business model, likewise socialism is no more successful than its socialist model. If you have a socialized christian science hospital, it won't help vs cancer rates much because prayer has limited efficacy in curing actual cancer.

So it does contribute, but I wouldn't say capitalism "causes cancer".

[Catmatic Leftist]

How can you claim that a socialist government doesn't have impact on diseases. How can you say that socialism won't change the wrong high carbohydrate philosophy of the current US department of health, and the excess of junk fattening, destructive foods offered by the capitalist market in USA like fried foods, french fries, pizzas, burgers, unhealthy snacks like Doritos, pancakes, donuts along with their profit based medicines that won't cure people at all.

You need to read books about the effects of diets high in calories and high in carbohydrates, and how cancer, diabetes, obesity and other diseases are caused by this way of eating and how can low calorie, low carb diets can prevent many diseases. Along with the whole current medical philosophy in USA that kills people, that doesn't cure people at all, because its a profit based medicine. And not a scientific medical system at all.

Damn, i thought you were socialist and hated capitalism. But by your argument that capitalist health care system is the same as a socialist health system you are saying that there won't be any change in the stupid paradigm of the current medical, health, and physiology of USA

A nation that is sick, with high cancer rates, 75% obese, depressed and physiologically decadent wont be able to be a happy productive self-realized society with high levels of human development

No wonder people still vote for Democrats and Obama because people think that the current capitalist system can increase their living standards, when we all know that americans are going down on every level, physiologically, economically, on education, literacy and mentally. The USA is doomed with this excess of conformism, of people conforming to this shitty life of America of just 3 meals a day, and a car, but no good health, and no opportunity to join a university because universities and colleges are privatized and very expensive for the masses of workers of USA

By the way the Bolshevik Government, had a very short life to determine its consequences and impact on health levels of the population. Because it was quickly betrayed by Stalin, and even the USSR-Stalinist Russia had better health levels than capitalist neoliberal nations with privatized health care system such as Mexico.

Another thing i wanna point out is that medical care was a lot less developed 100 years ago, than today. So judging the health of the people of the Bolshevik government in Russia to determine if socialism has an impact on the health people is not right. It would be better to judge the health levels and longevity of the people in Cuba and compare them with the health levels of the population of neoliberal capitalist nations like Mexico, Colombia and Nigeria

.
.

.

We understand and empathize with your outrage at this garbage capitalist system, but no need for baseless ad hominem attacks...

[Die Rote Fahne]

It is very likely to reduce with the easy and wider avaliability of healthcare, prevention, healthier dietary and lifestyle habits that communism will likely bring. As well as cleaner environment.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There would certainly be more focus on preventing and curing life threatening diseases when the profit motive is replaced by the quest to satisfy human wants and needs.

"There is more money put into baldness drugs than into malaria. Now, baldness is a terrible thing and rich men are afflicted. That is why that priority has been set." - Bill Gates

[The Idler]

If I didn't have to work so much I would eat better and exercise more.

[ComradeOm]

Global cancer rates would probably go up under socialism. This is because cancer is an age-associated disease; the longer a person lives then the higher the likelihood of developing it. The primary reason that cancer rates have rocketed in the past two centuries is not because people are now smoking more or eating the wrong food, but because people are living longer and no longer dying of other diseases. Cancer kills so many in the West today because smallpox, diphtheria, TB, typhus, etc, do not

Now while cancer is a notoriously difficult disease to prevent (and it wasn't until the 1980s that we actually understood the mechanisms that caused it) there are a host of other diseases that can more effectively treated, and on a global scale, in a post-capitalist society. When people in underdeveloped nations are not dying by the millions annually of malaria, cholera, dengue fever, leishmaniasis, AIDS, etc, and are enjoying much higher life expectancies due to improved living standards, then the number of people killed by cancer is going increase. As strange as it may sound, this is not a bad thing

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And of course increased focus then would also be put on preventing/curing cancer, heart disease and other "diseases of the rich."

[MarxistMan]

Hello my great friend, thanks, well i was just saying that we need a strong preventive medical care in the health care department of a socialist government in USA and the world.

thanx

.


We understand and empathize with your outrage at this garbage capitalist system, but no need for baseless ad hominem attacks...

[Delirium]

Global cancer rates would probably go up under socialism. This is because cancer is an age-associated disease; the longer a person lives then the higher the likelihood of developing it. The primary reason that cancer rates have rocketed in the past two centuries is not because people are now smoking more or eating the wrong food, but because people are living longer and no longer dying of other diseases. Cancer kills so many in the West today because smallpox, diphtheria, TB, typhus, etc, do not

Now while cancer is a notoriously difficult disease to prevent (and it wasn't until the 1980s that we actually understood the mechanisms that caused it) there are a host of other diseases that can more effectively treated, and on a global scale, in a post-capitalist society. When people in underdeveloped nations are not dying by the millions annually of malaria, cholera, dengue fever, leishmaniasis, AIDS, etc, and are enjoying much higher life expectancies due to improved living standards, then the number of people killed by cancer is going increase. As strange as it may sound, this is not a bad thing

This is definatly true, over time dna naturally suffers mutations. Other factors such as diet, genetics, and environmental influences also have an effect. Now as industrial civilization has progressed we have created a massive number of synthetic chemicals that have never occured in nature. Some of these have been tested for hazardous effects on humans and the environment. The vast majority has not.

Capitalism isnt interested in creating safe or durable or environmentaly friendly goods. They will make the cheapest product with the highest profit margin possible no matter what health or environmental effects.

With a democratic economy we could have different priorities.

[syndicat]

It depends on the particular cancer. There are cancers that are derived from work-related exposures. For example, the semi-conductor industry has 3 times the occupational illness rate of industry in general, because it is a highly chemical intensive industry. This includes many cancer clusters that have shown up, from exposures to solvents and the various chemicals used to treat materials in the semi-conductor process.

A worker-managed socialism could be expected to have a more organized approach to prevention of such illnesses through re-design of work processes and so on. In general, a greater protection in workplaces and in neighborhoods from exposures to toxics, such as elimination of pesticides in favor of organic farming. There is a higher incidence of cancers among people who work in agriculture in the U.S, including farm owners and managers.

based on the experience of the soviet union, there is no reason whatever to believe that these problems would be any less under statist "socialism."

[ComradeOm]

based on the experience of the soviet union, there is no reason whatever to believe that these problems would be any less under statist "socialism."Yes, because all Marxists secretly want to recreate the Soviet Union down to the last health and safety regulation. You forgot to mention that we also want to force children to work in the 'Dangerous Chemicals Mines' for 17 hours a day! :rolleyes:

[Scarlet Fever]

It is very likely to reduce with the easy and wider avaliability of healthcare, prevention, healthier dietary and lifestyle habits that communism will likely bring. As well as cleaner environment.

Exactly.

In addition to that, a question worth asking is, what if the treatment is more profitable than the cure? Would Big Pharma make a cure available if it hurt their bottom line?

I'll try not to wax too wackily conspiratorial here, but it's a legitimate question. I've heard (admittedly the operative word is "heard," I can't say for sure that it's true) that the industry would lose huge amounts of money if a cure to cancer were found. If human need instead of profit were the catalyst driving medical advances, this clearly wouldn't be an issue.

[syndicat]

1. state socialism inevitably generates a bureaucratic dominating, exploiting class.

2. workers direct management of industry is a necessary condition for workers changing the methods of production to ensure their health and safety and move away from toxic exposures that generate illnesses like cancer.

3. hence state socialism is unlikely to lead to changes that will do the best job of protecting the health and safety of workers

QED

[ar734]

Socialist production would be rational, based on the needs of people rather on profit and greed.

[ar734]

1. state socialism inevitably generates a bureaucratic dominating, exploiting class.

2. workers direct management of industry is a necessary condition for workers changing the methods of production to ensure their health and safety and move away from toxic exposures that generate illnesses like cancer.

3. hence state socialism is unlikely to lead to changes that will do the best job of protecting the health and safety of workers

QED

Well, if workers can go from capitalism to direct management, that is obviously the best way. However, they tried it in Russia for a few years, then the bureaucracy took over. Then, China, Cuba, Vietnam, all of which seem to be in a bureaucratic stage yet provide far greater worker safety than the capitalism which existed in those countries before the revolutions. In Argentina there are some industries which are owned by workers (Sin Patrone.

[syndicat]

Well, if workers can go from capitalism to direct management, that is obviously the best way. However, they tried it in Russia for a few years, then the bureaucracy took over. Then, China, Cuba, Vietnam, all of which seem to be in a bureaucratic stage yet provide far greater worker safety than the capitalism

you're mistaken on two points:

1. direct workers management was only tried on a very limited scale in Russia and was ended because of entrenched power of the Bolshevik party over the state. this supports what I say about statist socialism.

2. according to the ILO, China has the highest rate of industrial injuries and illnesses of any country on earth. they have laws that are nominally similar to Western capitalist countries, such as requiring the material data safety sheets being available to workers, but the laws are routinely ignored. with a dicatorial one party state and a corrupt relationship between the caiptalists and the bureaucratic class this is what one should expect.

[MarxistMan]

Hello, i think by "state socialism" i think you really mean "state capitalism", like the political systems of USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Norwa and Venezuela right now (Although Venezuela is a nation in transition toward 100% socialism (workers-control of the 100% of businesses of Venezuela).

.



1. state socialism inevitably generates a bureaucratic dominating, exploiting class.

2. workers direct management of industry is a necessary condition for workers changing the methods of production to ensure their health and safety and move away from toxic exposures that generate illnesses like cancer.

3. hence state socialism is unlikely to lead to changes that will do the best job of protecting the health and safety of workers

QED

[syndicat]

Hello, i think by "state socialism" i think you really mean "state capitalism", like the political systems of USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Norwa and Venezuela right now (Although Venezuela is a nation in transition toward 100% socialism (workers-control of the 100% of businesses of Venezuela).



well, we don't get to run our language. the language we're using here is English. and in English what existed in the USSR, Cuba, etc. was called "socialism" and the social democratic welfare state systems were also called "socialism" by some people. when Americans use the word "socialism" these are the two things they think of.

by "state socialism" i mean certain ideologies, social-democracy and "Communism" (as this term is popularly understood in English). This includes all forms of Marxism-Leninism.

I argue that this type of socialism, when it gets past capitalism, produces a bureuacratic class-dominated mode of production. when there are no private wealth accumulators, it's not properly called "capitalism". it's something else.

an authentic socialism or communism (small "c") would be a mode of production characterized by generalized self-management. We could call this "self-managed socialism" to differentiate it from "state socialism."

[MarxistMan]

Socialism has a good thing called "Nationalization under worker's control". And in a socialist-USA Golds Gyms, GNCs, weight loss centers, clinics and hospitals would be nationalized under worker's control. And nationalized health clubs, nationalized nutrition stores and nationalized hospitals, would offer the public goods and services at much cheaper, and lower prices, thereby increasing the buying-power of citizens to acquire those goods and services from gyms, and health food stores.

So i think that would have a positive impact on the preventive-health of people. which would lead to lower cancer levels, lower heart disease levels, lower obesity levels, and higher longevity rates.

.


It is very likely to reduce with the easy and wider avaliability of healthcare, prevention, healthier dietary and lifestyle habits that communism will likely bring. As well as cleaner environment.

[syndicat]

Socialism has a good thing called "Nationalization under worker's control". And in a socialist-USA Golds Gyms, GNCs, weight loss centers, clinics and hospitals would be nationalized under worker's control. And nationalized health clubs, nationalized nutrition stores and nationalized hospitals, would offer the public goods and services at much cheaper, and lower prices, thereby increasing the buying-power of citizens to acquire those goods and services from gyms, and health food stores.


"workers control" has always had, at best, an ambiguous meaning among state socialists. it does NOT mean complete management power in the hands of workers. as with Lenin's concept, it meant mere "checking" and surveillance of management, not the elimination of the management hierarchy. for some socialists it hasn't meant much more than schemes like job enrichment or stronger unions.

nationalization=state ownership and management. it's not obvious why this would lead to the benefits you claim.

[gorillafuck]

Remember that socialism is a pro-life system without wars, without heart attacks, without cancer, and without diabetes where people would live to 150 years.This baiter is clever:laugh:

[MarxistMan]

Hello my friend, I thought that 100% real socialism in USA meant that all businesses of USA would be owned by workers, thru a workers-ownership system, and at the same time the executive branch, judiciary branch and legislative branch, and military and other government sectors would be managed by workers, by members of the working class.

I thought that "Worker' control", meant businesses to be completely owned by the people who work in it.

.


"workers control" has always had, at best, an ambiguous meaning among state socialists. it does NOT mean complete management power in the hands of workers. as with Lenin's concept, it meant mere "checking" and surveillance of management, not the elimination of the management hierarchy. for some socialists it hasn't meant much more than schemes like job enrichment or stronger unions.

nationalization=state ownership and management. it's not obvious why this would lead to the benefits you claim.

[syndicat]

Hello my friend, I thought that 100% real socialism in USA meant that all businesses of USA would be owned by workers, thru a workers-ownership system, and at the same time the executive branch, judiciary branch and legislative branch, and military and other government sectors would be managed by workers, by members of the working class.


then why call for nationalization? nationalization means state ownership and management.