At 28/04/01 09:18 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
>Chris:
> >It is simply not credible, let alone revolutionary, to assert, when
> >diseases like small pox and polio are near eradication, that a massive
> >assault on AIDS could not drastically reduce the global death rate.
>
>Astonishing coming from somebody who is a medical professional. There are
>vaccinations for polio and smallpox, but none for AIDS and none likely in
>the near to medium term. This is the main reason it is a pandemic. It is a
>disease that is a function of social and economic backwardness. To get rid
>of it, you need to uproot social and economic backwardness.
There are a number of health measures that could be used, and are used in
developed countries. Furthermore AIDS medication can now stop the illness
killing. The point I was making was about "drastically reducing the death
rate."
I would ask Louis Proyect to say whether there is *any* reform at all in
the global management of this disease that he would support, if he does not
like a Global AIDS "war chest" supported by a mixture of well intentioned
people and opportunists (like most reforms).
Or is he and others of a similar mind, specifically arguing that the only
reforms that should be demanded now are "transitional" ones, ones that do
not bring any material benefit to ordinary working people and whose only
goal is to lead people to see the necessity of socialist revolution?
If the latter is the case, I would argue that that has obvious
disadvantages of leaving people to die in large numbers. However in
addition strategically it will demoralise more people than it will inspire,
bearing in mind that the world revolution cannot be one decisive
simultaneous act of overthrow of the capitalist class world wide, but will
have to proceed through a series of reforms which weaken its power.
Chris Burford
London
