New Critisticuffs text on Vaccine Imperialism

Another nice short, if dull piece of common sense observation from our friends that cuts through the liberal media chit-chat comparing the role of various states policies on vaccine distribution.

Yet another example of the Left (of which its so-called "libertarian" variants have, especially since Covid, shown themselves to be a part) focuses only on the most obvious, the most easy criticisms which don't require questioning anything fundamental. In this case - praise the new " super-cool science", as if these new mRNA vaccines are somehow objectively progressive and not to be questioned.
As Marx said

“It was thenceforth no longer a question whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful or harmful to capital, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested enquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic”

- Preface II of Capital.
And as Josef Weber said

“Scientists expose themselves as ideologists until, at the end of a long chain of prize-fighting, eclecticism, syncretism, evil apologetic and so on, sham-science appears … and the scientific “ideal” is presented in the image of the stock-market, where gambling decides our fate”

- The Problem of Social Consciousness In Our Time (1957).
For anyone who wants to see a critique that shows the dubious nature and danger of this new form of vaccine, see "Better to be sorry than safe..." - https://dialectical-delinquents.com/covid1984-latest/deus-ex-vaccina/ - and, in particular, check out the translated text "Deus ex vaccina".
And, libcom party fellow travellers, no need to worry that I may drag out a long time-wasting discussion on this site in response to the ad hominem irrelevancies, falsifications and amalgam techniques that will possibly follow this. My lips and keyboard, at least following this post here on libcom, are sealed.

It was thenceforth no longer a question whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful or harmful to capital, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested enquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic.

Marx is referring more specifically to the ideas of vulgar economists (Bastiat, Say, Senior and others; which is what the "useful or harmful to capital", "apologetic" is referring to) who were less interested in understanding economic phenomena than serving the interests of capital (as opposed to people like Ricardo, Smith and others who Marx regarded more highly; which is what "genuine scientific research" is referring to). Rubin's history of economic thought is helpful in shedding light on the political economy Marx was critiquing (see particularly "The Disintegration of the Classical School").

What is the "fundamental" thing not being questioned? The science behind vaccines? How is it useful for capital or anyone to give us "dangerous vaccines"? It doesn't make any sense... Even given the antagonism between producers and consumers [1] and the fact that pharmaceutical companies exist to profit, an all out opposition to vaccines is just dangerous nonsense itself. The spgb article in the other thread is worth a read and makes a valid point here:

If vaccine sceptics think that because Big Pharma is bent, we should avoid their drugs, they need to take a wider look. The food industry is easily as corrupt as Big Pharma. Does that mean we shouldn’t eat food? The oil and gas industry are dishonest propagandists (see October Pathfinders) and have propped up tyrannical regimes. Should we not heat our houses or turn on our lights? Think mobile phone industry, which caused the Congo civil war. Think Apple, where employees threw themselves off buildings in despair. Think clothing industry, and quasi-slave armies of women locked in collapsing fire-traps. Think plastics industry. Think any industry. Which of these should you boycott? Is the only answer to live naked in caves and eat grass?

[1] speaking of Bastiat, and actually related to this discussion, see his Economic Sophisms where he undermines himself by noting this antagonism between producers and consumers:

Are we physicians? We cannot avoid seeing that certain physical ameliorations, improving the sanitary state of the country, the development of certain moral virtues, such as moderation and temperance, the progress of knowledge tending to enable each man to take better care of his own health, the discovery of certain simple remedies of easy application, would be so many blows to our professional success. In as far as we are physicians, then, our secret wishes would be anti-social. I do not say that physicians form these secret wishes. On the contrary, I believe they would hail with joy the discovery of a universal panacea; but they would not do this as physicians, but as men, and as Christians. By a noble abnegation of self, the physician places himself in the consumer's point of view. But as exercising a profession, from which he derives his own and his family's subsistence, his desires, or, if you will, his interests, are anti-social.

NA

And, libcom party fellow travellers, no need to worry that I may drag out a long time-wasting discussion on this site in response to the ad hominem irrelevancies, falsifications and amalgam techniques that will possibly follow this. My lips and keyboard, at least following this post here on libcom, are sealed.

Thanks, I'm sure we've all been worried sick about that (and thanks for not letting your grandiose self-importance get in the way of your concern). As for "libcom party fellow travellers" - thanks for giving an example of an "amalgam technique". Presumably encompassing all regular users of the site – except, of course, the ideologically superior NA - who are amalgamated within the fictitious unity of the "libcom party fellow travellers" category. (NA knows as well as anybody that anyone – excepting fascists etc - of varying views can submit content here, even him.) Yet NA still comes here to comment and advertise his wares far more than, eg, Cristicuffs do. Funny that NA still feels the need to try to boost his readership by regularly appealing to these same detested libcom fellow travellers. NA remains as loyal to libcom in his opposition as ever.

Btw, the present steady downward trend of infection & deaths as vaccination progresses would seem to contradict the claims of NA's cited articles that the Pfizer vaccine would or did cause massive spikes in infection.

And a piece from 1919, the new journal of the North American affiliates of the ICT: Vaccine nationalism