"Stigweard, as a self confessed "marxist", what is your view on China's recent acceptance and adoption of "capitalism"?"

Good question.

For one thing, China pays lip service to Marx and Engels as the founding fathers of Communism but practice something entirely different. China has long been a brutal dictatorship ruled by a privileged elite, which as you say has been long opposed to democracy. China is not an example of Marxism (or Communism as conceived by it's creators) in practice - it's an example of oppression and enslavement in practice. I think Marx would be horrified to see the working citizens of China being treated as they have been over the years, and as they continue to be.

The adoption of capitalism in recent years has led ordinary Chinese to believe they are experiencing freedom, when they are in fact experiencing consumerism; they are still subject to censorship and other tools of state oppression and have no say in the running of their country. Combined with this oppressive police state, capitalism shows it's true colours; as in the rest of China workers on the new Olympic stadium have no rights at all, no health and safety etc. In some senses, it the capitalist system in it's rawest form and isn't pretty to look at, as it freely pollutes the local environment and displaces those who live where these factories are built. Profit over people.

Those working to death in the laogais and state factories with no protection or workers rights are the living proof that without regulation capitalism serves no-one but the board and shareholders - this is as far away from what Marx and Engels envisaged as it's possible to get.

China is a nightmare waiting to happen. As you say, not signed up to Kyoto, significant human rights issues across the board, bringing it's exclusive brand of

"So "capitalism" is the source of "global warming" and climate change is it Stigweard"

Whether it's the source or not is irrelevant; it's the fact unregulated capitalist economies can't provide the solutions because they only respond to market forces, and market forces are not interested in what's good for individuals and society as a whole. There is no collective responsibility.

I'm not against capitalism per se, but I believe it needs to be regulated, and I would start by returning the machinery of state to the people, reclaim the infrastructure and essential services from the private sector and review how we operate these systems.

You ask me to back the statement of capitalism failing to regulate itself - where do you want to start? Well, let's take healthcare. I've worked in med comms for years (full of state-trained doctors who have abandoned clinical practice), and my wife worked in the NHS for 14 years before she had enough. The slow privatisation of healthcare in this country has left many people (including myself) utterly unable to afford to be treated adequately for a massive range of problems. Clinical heads of department have given way to a new breed of staff whose main aim is not benefit of the patient or the quality of service offered to them, but the financial implications of the decisions for the Trust. Meeting targets is now the priority.

Even in the private sector this application of capitialist principles to patient care is having an effect; a friend told me this morning in the private hospital where she works the main source of income (and focus for the company running it) is stomach stapling operations for obese people who can't be arsed to diet - because they'll pay.

Regulation is the key.