That they are often reasonable and quick to adjust to market conditions to maintain the quality of life of employees because they care deeply!?!?! Is it that?!
The first therapeutic insulin was developed by University of Toronto. However, they did not have the money or means to mass produce it and thus the patent was sold to pharmaceuticals. Cuba and USSR are also pretty impressive with their biotechnology but unable to scale up their ideas.
I always see this narrative of “ceasefire with socialists” but the end of the day, you still need money. Even China abandoned pure socialism/communism and instead went to state capitalism. But at least China tax and rein their billionaires unlike the rest of the spineless world.
I think the problem is that with the rise of the middle class in the mid-20th to 21st century, everyone had become NIMBYs and complacent, after having been spoiled by the post-war economic boom and globalisation. Much of the world have gotten private property and benefitted from deregulation and thus unwilling to give a helping hand. Instead, the ladder is kicked down. The 19th and early 20th century still had a large amount of working class who are brave to mobilise against wealth inequality. However, that demographic shrunk and both the left and centre-left had to cater to the now larger and wealthier, but admittedly, pretty selfish professional, managerial middle class. In other words, uplifting the society has, paradoxically, created an unequal society because many have now gotten a piece of the pie but unwilling to give even a small piece to the remaining few left behind.
The first therapeutic insulin was developed by University of Toronto. However, they did not have the money or means to mass produce it and thus the patent was sold to pharmaceuticals. Cuba and USSR are also pretty impressive with their biotechnology but unable to scale up their ideas.
The insulin example proves you need resources and manufacturing capacity, not capitalism.
Banting and the others gave the patent to the University of Toronto for $1 each because they didn’t want insulin monopolized. Production was then scaled through a mix of public institutions and private manufacturers.
The original patent expired, but drug companies built new patents around insulin analogues, formulations, and delivery devices, while the market became heavily concentrated.
So “you still need money” misses the point. Of course large-scale production needs funding, factories, workers, and logistics. The actual political question is who controls those resources, who owns the patents, and who gets the benefits.
You have a point about the patent. However, since you mentioned about production, my own point that “you still need money” still stands, because operating cost is still the major sticking point in running any businesses.
Sure, “you still need money”… nobody is arguing that factories run for free.
Your claim that Cuba and the USSR were “unable to scale” is incorrect. Cuba built a state-funded biotech sector that handles research, manufacturing, and exports, while the USSR also operated major vaccine, pharmaceutical, and biotech production programs.
Cuba has faced decades of embargo-related restrictions on equipment, reagents, finance, and advanced technology, including in biotech and pharmaceuticals. The USSR also faced Western export controls on advanced technology and equipment during the Cold War.
Yes, you need money, but you don’t need capitalists.
The early 20th century labor movement negotiated a ceasefire in the class war. Here we are now.
What have we learned about negotiating with capitalists?
That they are often reasonable and quick to adjust to market conditions to maintain the quality of life of employees because they care deeply!?!?! Is it that?!
Narrator: it was not that
The first therapeutic insulin was developed by University of Toronto. However, they did not have the money or means to mass produce it and thus the patent was sold to pharmaceuticals. Cuba and USSR are also pretty impressive with their biotechnology but unable to scale up their ideas.
I always see this narrative of “ceasefire with socialists” but the end of the day, you still need money. Even China abandoned pure socialism/communism and instead went to state capitalism. But at least China tax and rein their billionaires unlike the rest of the spineless world.
I think the problem is that with the rise of the middle class in the mid-20th to 21st century, everyone had become NIMBYs and complacent, after having been spoiled by the post-war economic boom and globalisation. Much of the world have gotten private property and benefitted from deregulation and thus unwilling to give a helping hand. Instead, the ladder is kicked down. The 19th and early 20th century still had a large amount of working class who are brave to mobilise against wealth inequality. However, that demographic shrunk and both the left and centre-left had to cater to the now larger and wealthier, but admittedly, pretty selfish professional, managerial middle class. In other words, uplifting the society has, paradoxically, created an unequal society because many have now gotten a piece of the pie but unwilling to give even a small piece to the remaining few left behind.
Edit: clarity
The insulin example proves you need resources and manufacturing capacity, not capitalism.
Banting and the others gave the patent to the University of Toronto for $1 each because they didn’t want insulin monopolized. Production was then scaled through a mix of public institutions and private manufacturers.
The original patent expired, but drug companies built new patents around insulin analogues, formulations, and delivery devices, while the market became heavily concentrated.
So “you still need money” misses the point. Of course large-scale production needs funding, factories, workers, and logistics. The actual political question is who controls those resources, who owns the patents, and who gets the benefits.
You have a point about the patent. However, since you mentioned about production, my own point that “you still need money” still stands, because operating cost is still the major sticking point in running any businesses.
Sure, “you still need money”… nobody is arguing that factories run for free.
Your claim that Cuba and the USSR were “unable to scale” is incorrect. Cuba built a state-funded biotech sector that handles research, manufacturing, and exports, while the USSR also operated major vaccine, pharmaceutical, and biotech production programs.
Cuba has faced decades of embargo-related restrictions on equipment, reagents, finance, and advanced technology, including in biotech and pharmaceuticals. The USSR also faced Western export controls on advanced technology and equipment during the Cold War.
Yes, you need money, but you don’t need capitalists.