Re: Global AIDS war chest
The social factors of capitalism, colonialism, etc... are not to be overlooked in the numerous tragedies of sub-Saharan Africa. Nevertheless, we should not overlook geography. As the biologist Colin Tudge asserts in Time Before History, the fact that humans have lived in this particular region of the world longer than anywhere else means that numerous microbial predators have evolved specially to attack humans in the climate and environment unique to sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, numerous diseases are uniquely threatening to humans in sub-Saharan Africa. River blindness is just one example. Science may eventually conquer these diseases, but the microbes' highly evolved nature are so far resistant to science's tried and true methods. River blindness and other diseases have a limiting effect on capitalism and economic growth as styled by the Western powers. This is not to say that sub-Saharan Africa can't be developed. It can be. Many civilizations developed in Africa prior to colonization. Many civilizing forces remain, although they are in retreat. The current problems and tragedies are mostly symptomatic of colonialism and capitalism, only partially symptomatic of geography. The solution to Africa's local problems, however, needs to be locally conceived. A solution, combined with an abeyance of rapacious exploitation, will restore to the region the glory it is heir to. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Global AIDS war chest
At 29/04/01 18:27 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: Chris: 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. And I was trying to get you to understand AIDS as a socio-economic phenomenon. I very much agree that is true. Unless poverty is eliminated, AIDS and diseases engendered by it like TB will remain pandemic. We do not know until it has been tried. There are many diseases made worse by poverty and fragmented social conditions which can still be brought under greater control. For example one wonders if AIDS has been spread in Africa, among other factors, by the rapid expansion of capitalism and the use of long distance lorries carrying goods, through more traditional societies. If so, and I only give it as a possible example, attention to these workers in the distribution industry, with better conditions at the equivalent of motorwary stations, rest rooms, education and publicity, could certainly help reduce the spread. Or again in South Africa, if the incidence is particularly high in the all-male dormitories supplying migrant labour to the mines, again better conditions combined with a health education campaign and the right to have wives living with them, might reduce the amount of random sexual contact. Just as diarrhea will continue to kill the infants of Africa, or alcoholism will kill American Indians, etc. Campaigns against such diseases will remain ineffective as long as the average income of somebody living in the Congo is 1/100th of a typical inhabitant of the USA. I do not think that argument can literally be sustained. It is a defeatist argument when AIDS is a very concrete issue that can capture the imagination of people in developed countries that we are in one world. Besides the great wage differential in the world can only be reduced step by step, with global policies. That would be so even if there was a socialist revolution in all countries of the world next week. The richest fifth of the world's people consumes 86 percent of all goods and services while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent. Nothing the UN can do will have an impact on AIDS until there is a modicum of equality world-wide. I too want a modicum of equality world wide. That is one of the reasons why I want a precedent created of some form of global taxation. If it is not a Tobin tax, can the left please support another form of tax? 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). I would support the reform of abolishing the debts of all third world nations to the IMF and other imperialist financial institutions. I am encouraged by this statement both for its specific content and also because it makes it clear that Louis Proyect is in favour of campaigning for certain global reforms. This would enable us to debate whether the particular reform or the particular campaign helps to mobilise progressive working people to achieve real changes, or whether it demobilises them. This is much more constructive than an argument for reforms or against reforms. This, not charity, is what is required. Yes a key yardstick in judging present international campaigns is whether they are treated essentially as a form of charity. Without using the words, they should be judged against the test of proletarian solidarity, by which I mean ultimately of mutual self-benefit. 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? Why waste time trying to discuss this on PEN-L. I would take this up with you on one of the Marxism lists, but certainly not mine. By giving a good example of a specific reform which could be won under the existing global capitalist system, Louis Proyect has answered my concerns on this point. Nevertheless some marxists, or would be marxists are influenced by the theory of transitonal demands. As I understand it, this makes the unattainability of the demand under capitalism one of its merits. While this could be discussed on lists that claim to specifically marxist, broader lists, just like broader political movements, may find themselves listening to revolutionary calls from would be marxists. If the calls do not make sense, it may be that one's own unsatisfactory class position makes it impossible to understand their revolutionary merits, or arguably it may be that the would be marxists are being highly manipulative.
Re: Global AIDS war chest
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
Re: Re: Global AIDS war chest
Chris: 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. And I was trying to get you to understand AIDS as a socio-economic phenomenon. Unless poverty is eliminated, AIDS and diseases engendered by it like TB will remain pandemic. Just as diarrhea will continue to kill the infants of Africa, or alcoholism will kill American Indians, etc. Campaigns against such diseases will remain ineffective as long as the average income of somebody living in the Congo is 1/100th of a typical inhabitant of the USA. The richest fifth of the world's people consumes 86 percent of all goods and services while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent. Nothing the UN can do will have an impact on AIDS until there is a modicum of equality world-wide. This is how Paul Farmer describes the problem in Infections and Inequalities: --- But one can be impressed by the power of modern medicine and yet dejected by our failure to deliver it equitably). For me, one of the quickest ways to burst the One World, One Hope bubble was to return to Haiti, where HIV unhampered, has continued to spread. And this is as true in certain U.S. settings as it is in Haiti. AIDS is already the leading cause of death of young adults in many U.S. cities, as it is in most cities in the developing world. Moving along the fault lines of society, HIV continues to entrench itself among the worlds poor and marginalized, making enormous gains in parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Some fairly sober scholars estimate that by the year 2000 as many as forty to one hundred million people will be infected with HIV. What accounts for our failure to prevent the spread of HIV? What forces promote its transmission? As Ive argued throughout this book, social inequalities are central to the distribution of HIV infection. In the United States, as elsewhere, the disease is settling into poor or otherwise marginalized communities; previously bounded risk groups have in some settings melted into insignificance. The incidence of AIDS among women is increasing more rapidly than the incidence of AIDS among men: between 1985 and 1994, AIDS cases among women increased threefold. Of cases of AIDS among women, 77 percent are registered among black and Hispanic women, most of them poor. Structural violencegender inequality, racism, and povertyis at the very heart of these trends. There are not only striking differences in the distribution of HIV but also a great inequality of outcomes among those living with AIDS. In the United States, survival after a diagnosis of AIDS varies enormously, with women and people of color having shorter life expectancies than white men In the United States in 1994, death rates from HIV disease among black men were almost four times as high as for white men; for black women, death rates from AIDS were nine times as high as for White women. --- 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). I would support the reform of abolishing the debts of all third world nations to the IMF and other imperialist financial institutions. These debts are used to bludgeon governments into adopting austerity programs, whose first victim is the national health systems. This, not charity, is what is required. 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? Why waste time trying to discuss this on PEN-L. I would take this up with you on one of the Marxism lists, but certainly not mine. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Global AIDS war chest
At 27/04/01 17:01 -0400, you wrote: Actually, nothing will stop the AIDS epidemic except total eradication of the capitalist system and the kind of aggressive public health system that exists in Cuba today. This sounds like revolutionary catastrophism. It has got to get worse until there is a revolution. And in fact we want it to get worse because that will sharpen the contradictions, or some similar strategy. Or do I misunderstand? In fact under admittedly favourable conditions at the end of the 1945 war, a semi-communistic national health service was set up in the UK. It is not impossible. There is certainly the under capacity in the world economy and the need for a financial boost, to present the capitalists with no great problems about helping a global AIDS budget which will funnel resources to the most vulnerable areas like Africa. Besides the profits will go to the advanced drug companies. 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. And as for Proyect's correct points that of course a disease exists in an economic and social environment, I am in favour of a development and reparations fund for Africa. Anyway Africans are no stupider than the rest of the human race and are quite capable of responding to public health information if it is presented in a way that is relevant to their own lives. I have to suggest Proyect's comments really amount to another variant on the same theme - nor reforms, no compromises. If he could produce a reasoned marxist source for this, it might be more compelling, but we know that Marx did not eschew the victory of the 10 Hours Bill, just because it had to wait for a split between the capitalists to win it. We are facing an all-out assault on wages, health, peace and the environment by the imperialist ruling classes. Nothing will stop this except resolute, principled and intelligent class struggle on all fronts. That is why the Quebec protests were so important. Struggle on all fronts *is* important. But as a student of state theory Proyect knows that protests are not revolution. A revolution is the overthrow of the armed forces of the existing social order by the armed forces of its successor. How ever many more Quebec protests could lead to that? None. If they get more militant they could effectively get the message across that the leaders of the world cannot meet without a much more radical programme of charity towards the poor of the world. It will accelerate condescending reforms, that will however have a material content. Capitalism has never been opposed to a bit of charity to bolster its right to continue to exploit. What Proyect does not address is that on a world scale, as Lenin indicated, the revolution cannot be a one off act. It will include a whole range of compromises, reforms, struggles and tumult, in which different class forces will play different roles at different times. It will stretch over say 30 years. Proyect refers to the need for struggle on all fronts, but his main purpose is to oppose any reforms including people such as Kofi Annan, or, inevitably, tools of history like Clinton, who needs to present himself as an elder statesman. The real point is whether it is necessary to tail behind these people, and I said nothing to suggest it is. Only that the opportunity is there to switch a degree of the global products of labour to a health goal with social foresight. After all it is not going to help the AIDS programme in the UK or USA if the continent of Africa is seething with the virus. Are they going to ban all air travel? Or cull them like cattle to eradicate foot and mouth disease? A new generation is coming along that lacks the boot-licking, kow-towing temperament of a burnt-out 1960s left that has grown too old and too clever to struggle. I await Proyect's action report from Quebec mark two. And what it leads on to if not reforms. But the value of determination is not at issue. The question is whether it is possible to see a line of revolutionary advance, perhaps stretched over 20-30 years, which will of course have to establish some beach heads through struggles involving reforms, as well as militant protest. As an even more resolute champion of marxist purity, than Proyect, Lenin, wrote, The most powerful enemy [and I think we are very much agreeing about the power of the enemy - CB] can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and *without fail*, most thoroughly, carefully, attentively, and skilfully using every, even the smallest, 'rift' among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeosie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass
Re: Re: Re: Global AIDS war chest
Chris: In fact under admittedly favourable conditions at the end of the 1945 war, a semi-communistic national health service was set up in the UK. It is not impossible. It was possible because Great Britain was an imperialist power. So was Sweden and all the countries with socialised medicine. There was nothing semi-communistic about it all, that term is meaningless. Communism addresses the modes of production, not how government welfare programs are administered. There is certainly the under capacity in the world economy and the need for a financial boost, to present the capitalists with no great problems about helping a global AIDS budget which will funnel resources to the most vulnerable areas like Africa. Besides the profits will go to the advanced drug companies. The above two sentences lack clarity. 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. And as for Proyect's correct points that of course a disease exists in an economic and social environment, I am in favour of a development and reparations fund for Africa. You are in favor of a development and reparations fund for Africa? Very good. I am for wiping every last trace of the capitalist system from the continent, starting with the murdering/polluting Shell Oil company down to the diamond pirates who are making hell of Sierra Leone and Angola. You can't have development as long as this kind of rats have freedom to do business. They must be treated like rats. I have to suggest Proyect's comments really amount to another variant on the same theme - nor reforms, no compromises. I can understand reforms and compromises wrested in the course of struggle. What I am opposed to is fostering illusions in the capitalist system. If he could produce a reasoned marxist source for this, it might be more compelling, but we know that Marx did not eschew the victory of the 10 Hours Bill, just because it had to wait for a split between the capitalists to win it. Marx never wrote about the problems of underdeveloped countries. Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky did. Their basic point is that basic structural bourgeois-democratic reforms can not be carried out by the comprador bourgeoisie. That analysis basically explains the fecklessness of the entire African governing classes, beginning with the awful Thabo Mbeki who thought that AIDS could be cured by herbs. Struggle on all fronts *is* important. But as a student of state theory Proyect knows that protests are not revolution. A revolution is the overthrow of the armed forces of the existing social order by the armed forces of its successor. How ever many more Quebec protests could lead to that? None. The important thing is not the size of the protests nor the number of workers involved (and it turns out this was sizable.) What is important is the rejection of the kind of groveling found in Stalinist, postmodernist, social democratic third way politics since the decline of the 1960s mass movement. A new generation wants to storm heaven. They are the true heirs of Marx, not those who are always trying to join hands with the bosses. If they get more militant they could effectively get the message across that the leaders of the world cannot meet without a much more radical programme of charity towards the poor of the world. Sorry, do not understand the above sentence. It will accelerate condescending reforms, that will however have a material content. Capitalism has never been opposed to a bit of charity to bolster its right to continue to exploit. Nor this one. What Proyect does not address is that on a world scale, as Lenin indicated, the revolution cannot be a one off act. It will include a whole range of compromises, reforms, struggles and tumult, in which different class forces will play different roles at different times. It will stretch over say 30 years. Lenin considered reforms as necessary within the course of a revolutionary struggle. There is nothing that you have ever written that strikes me as revolutionary. Mostly it comes across as Fabian Socialism with some occasional ritual genuflection before the historical Lenin or Stalin. I suppose that there is a long tradition in Great Britain of this sort of thing, with the Webbs, et al. Proyect refers to the need for struggle on all fronts, but his main purpose is to oppose any reforms including people such as Kofi Annan, or, inevitably, tools of history like Clinton, who needs to present himself as an
Re: Global AIDS war chest
At 28/04/01 09:18 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote. To allow Louis to catch up on sleep (!) and to avoid the risk of the speed of e-mail accelerating the pace and the temperature of the discussion, when obviously we won't change each other much personally, I will restrict myself today to observing that I agree with his comment: I can understand reforms and compromises wrested in the course of struggle. What I am opposed to is fostering illusions in the capitalist system. Tomorrow I will try to clarify the issue of how in order to maintain struggle and avoid it being caught in the trap of smash windows, get noticed, it is necessary to explore the pretensions of the oppressors to morality, and challenge them to deliver. Chris Burford London
Re: Global AIDS war chest
Actually, nothing will stop the AIDS epidemic except total eradication of the capitalist system and the kind of aggressive public health system that exists in Cuba today. Even with the breakthough against imperialist drug company patent rights, AIDS medicine is far out of reach of the average African. With reduced costs nearing $300 per year, this is more than many people in Gabon make each year according to the NY Times. There are also economic factors driving the epidemic which are not addressed by the cost of medication. Even though prostitutes know they are infected, they will frequently have unprotected sex since men prefer that. With 25 percent of all Africans stricken with the disease, it is probably too far gone to even be treatable given the existing social and economic realities. I suspect that India and much of Southeast Asia, as well as the former Soviet bloc, faces similar problems. With such a staggering economic/medical crisis, it is totally obscene for somebody like Clinton or Blair and their stooge Kofi Annan to be talking about AIDS warchests. Under Clinton, cutbacks in public health have created a higher incidence of TB and other infectious diseases related to AIDS since the 19th century. We are facing an all-out assault on wages, health, peace and the environment by the imperialist ruling classes. Nothing will stop this except resolute, principled and intelligent class struggle on all fronts. That is why the Quebec protests were so important. A new generation is coming along that lacks the boot-licking, kow-towing temperament of a burnt-out 1960s left that has grown too old and too clever to struggle. At 09:01 PM 4/27/01 +0100, you wrote: This appears to be the start of global budgets for health. Chris Burford The leaders supported U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call at the opening of the conference for a global AIDS war chest of between $5-10 billion. Clinton has just called on the US to provide 1.5billion $ a year. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
