[Marxism] Mythery and Misery: "the clinical" as a category of economic calculation

Jeff Rubard jeffrubard at fusemail.com
Tue Feb 17 14:12:37 MST 2004


> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:47:29 -0500
> From: Frank Lusardi <flusardi at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Manmade AIDS: A *Mutable* Feast (also: Lenin
> 	and	Computation?)
> To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Message-ID: <1939617158.20040217104729 at panix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:34:32 -0500
>>> From: Frank Lusardi <flusardi at panix.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Marxism] RE: The Manmade Origin of AIDS
>>> To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
>>> 	<marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
>>> Message-ID: <18055131174.20040216003432 at panix.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>
>
> Ah, there's the rub. On the comfortably white continents
> there is no pandemic, never was, never will be. After twenty
> years of an incurable plague, the infection rate in the the
> U.S. is well below 1/2 of one percent, and over 60 percent
> of U.S. AIDS "sufferers" are perfectly healthy. You'll have to
> actually read the loopy CDC definition of AIDS to understand how
> one can have AIDS and be perfectly healthy. Another of the
> many, many inexplicable anomalies in AIDS "science".

This is a little wishful (although I have a rule about that).  Firstly,
it seems to me to be fundamentally unsound to use chauvinistic
or crypto-chauvinistic concepts like "comfortably white" to
indicate that large-scale social dynamics do not integrate
the world system such that judgments of this nature can be
well-advised rather than happening to be true.  Secondly,
the loopy CDC definition is more or less "stipulative": that
is to say, constitutive *globally* of what we are talking about here if
not a physical illness (compare to African "slim", which could involve
being unhealthy in other ways).  You're giving a factually
unsound account of what it is to meet that definition (i.e., be very much
less healthy than you were during an asymptomatic phase of
infection); in other words, you're allowed to have all these
thoughts but in general they partake of the psychological mechanism
of "denial", that is to say anticipation of countervailing results.
So unhealthy? No.  Not really an indictment of "junk science",
though.

> This AIDS business (big, big business) is on-topic for this
> list because the left has been woefully AWOL in critiquing
> what is perhaps the greatest and most destructive blunder in
> the history of science. Over the years Marx's great respect
> for science has evolved into an uncritical genuflection
> before any white-coated member of what is today an immense,
> and immensely corrupt, state/corporate complex, far, far
> removed from any form of genuine science.

This is true, and there is really some question about whether
recent and fairly substantial shifts in US mores concerning HIV
infection have quite a bit to do with the "medical-scientific complex":
i.e., that homosexual and bisexual men as well as IV drug users
(although *not necessarily* other risk groups) are actually being
interpellated as future triple-therapy *customers* in a way which
would have been downright shocking to medical professionals of
an earlier generation, i.e. receive the same prudential advice but
with collateral discourse which weakens its imperatival force (that
is, its interactional bindingness as "face" for the patient).  So
shocking?  Only in its implications for the "standard of care"
as a concept independent of the profit-motive and other system
imperatives of the medical field (Personally, my advice today
is to think twice about anything other than a trip to the emergency
room -- and aren't you glad you can do that?  Maybe not).

Rubard






More information about the Marxism mailing list