> For instance, AIDS cocktails (as well as nearly all other drugs we
> may make use of) have been invented & marketed by corporations,
> drawing upon research subsidized by capitalist states. Corporations
> have primary interest in making profits & capitalist states have
> primary interest in supporting the conditions of capital
> accumulation. Does that mean we should reject AIDS cocktails (and
> other drugs that have been found beneficial sometimes) as hopelessly
> "bourgeois" & therefore necessarily harmful? Your doctor has an
> interest in getting money from you or your insurance company or the
> state. Does it necessarily make his or her diagnosis, prescription,
> etc. always wrong, since s/he is "petty-bourgeois," interested in
> money-making?
>
> We are not against effective knowledges that have been produced by
> scientists, nearly all of whom have been either directly or
> indirectly employed by corporations or capitalist states; we are
> against intellectual properties & the capitalist system of
production
> that make only the privileged few beneficiaries of science. The
> distinction is crucial.
>
> Yoshie
=========
This is great, Yoshie. However, the problems begin with drugs that
directly target emotional and cognitive dynamics; then the boundaries
begin to blur in a big way. Pot/Alcohol, Prozac/Ecstasy etc....
Ian