*But the socialist future WILL be "green" for that matter*

So you claim, but it is not for you to say, Groky. For you won't
matter in the bigger scheme of things.

So we have to look what happened under socialist Govts in East
Germany, China etc. Both a disagrace, for in the real world,
resources were spent on othet things. Just ask the West
Germans what they have had to spend in East Germany, to
rectify things.

*How old is capitalism in its many guises then, huh?*

People have been trading with each other since as long as we know.
People have been making decisions about their own affairs for
as long as we know. So free market principles have been around
for as long as we know. Once again Groky. I don't need you to
tell me what is good for me, I know what is good for me.
Most sensible people agree with that concept.

But once again, today we don't have a capitalist system. We have
a mixed system, which can change to benefit all. So we have
huge social welfare programmes, financed by the wealth created
by a free market economy.

Take away the free market, you take away innovation, you take away
wealth creation potential. So you land up with little to
distribute, everyone apart from a few leaders, lands up poor.

Just look at Cuba.

Since Yabby is not in the least interested in addressing any issues we bring up here which will cause this crude ideolog any problems -- morally, intellectually, factually or otherwise -- I'll just retort instead, in a manner not unlike his:

How many people has anglo-american imperialism -- including its australian running dogs -- simply murdered outright SINCE WWII..?

How do we put a dollar-price on the endless slavery -- "waged" or otherwise -- practiced by these monsters and their bloodthirsty goons, as a result of the above war crimes and crimes against humanity..?

>Looking a little more at materialism, descartes split between
the obviously non-material human mind and everything else
messed us up

Nothing obvious about it at all, Gilbert Holmes. The clearly perplexing 'divide' between human consciousness and the material world in which it sits, which has been dividing thinkers (and doers) for millennia, is *not* a REAL divide at all: it is simply a PERCEIVED one, based on false premises. Understanding "materialism" in a proper scientific -- and therefore marxist -- sense entails understanding that ALL functioning of the brain (or any brain; even a rudimentary one, for that matter), including even (especially) our perceptions and reflective consciousness, are simply emergent behavior of very real and concrete processes having their material basis in the concrete reality all about us and inside us.

But this all gets us back only to where we started from here (seemingly ages ago at that); and I assume we will only go around in impotent, sterile circles by continuing in this vein -- instead of rising to higher and higher levels of understanding of the issues at hand.

So Grok, are you suggesting that, if capitalism and its stooges have killed as many people as 'socialism' in all its false guises, then it is much the same to support one or the other ? Neither is any better than the other ?

Or do we calibrate each ideology more finely, and support 'socialism' just a little bit more because it has killed just a little bit fewer people ? Is that your logic ?

Or do we say 'a pox on both their houses', neither has worked to the benefit of the people, and keep looking for a third way ?