From discussions online and articles from communist or “leftist” publications, I’ve seen an increase of anti-vax/mandate thinking, either being framed as
- Pro-vaccine means you’re pro-big pharma
- Pro-vaccine is inherently racist
- Pro-mandate is bourgeois authority meant to dissuade organizing
- Pro-COVID “hysteria” is a way to further oppress the working class
Other than a psyop meant to discredit the left, what about those that are genuine? I’ve seen online communists with seemingly good politics fall to this line of thinking, and even sources like Greyzone and MintPress have pushed out similar drivel. And of course I’ve only seen this from Western “leftists”, mostly from the US but not limited to them.
The pandemic has been a serious issue since the beginning, and now that rates of infection and hospitalizations are spiking well past the highs during the “peak” of the pandemic in the US, these voices have grown. The irresponsibility of these supposed comrades spouting out their hurtful rhetoric despite AES countries like China taking the necessary steps to continue to contain the pandemic speaks volumes to those privileged enough to be anti-health of the working class.
That’s not my reasoning. But for those people who disagree with me, they’re point is always “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.” So if these people want to trust liberal science, of course it should be pointed out when that science even contradicts the points they are making.
And yes, with the vaccine technology we have today, it is impossible to completely eradicate covid. All means of preventing covid are based on increasing the correct antibodies to identify spike proteins on covid. The reason this doesn’t work for certain diseases is because these spike proteins are always changing through mutation. With covid, it is changing VERY quickly. With waves every 3 months, it suggests your immunity only lasts for 3 months. And in the case of Omicron, people seem to be getting reinfected after only 2 months. This is why we don’t vaccinate against the common cold either. Because it mutates too quickly.
If you have a plan to eradicate covid worldwide, let’s hear it! Because our epidemiologists have nothing. Until you come up with something, you can stop being rude to me and stop calling me a defeatist and anti-marxist when the entire world is already working on this and has come to the same conclusion that I have. I’m just a realist. The sooner you see reality as it is, not as it should be, you will be best equipped to handle its challenges. But if you can’t, then you are the anti-marxist.
Thanks for completely missing my point. The point was that you shouldn’t rush to conclusions in the field of science, whether it be vaccines or any other field of endeavor in the sciences, because it is unscientific and therefore anti-marxist to do so. You also pretty much undermined your (apparent) point with ‘with the vaccine technology we have today’. Solidifying one of my own points, which is that science is never set in stone. You never know what science is truly capable of. I have never claimed to have a solution to covid, that is for the great scientists of the world who have actual training to figure out, so you are appearing to poison the well on that front.
You don’t seem to have a consistent point of your own, it seems: “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.” and then you followed it up with why we shouldn’t trust ‘liberal science’? So which is it? I also love the presupposition that people who follow science are basically sheep. If that were the case, we couldn’t do literally anything without ‘being a sheep’. That just reeks of Alex Jones-level craziness.
I’m not rushing to conclusions! These are the conclusions that have been reached after a hundred years!
True, science is not set in stone, but it also takes years to develop new technologies, and these have to be in the realm of imagination first before they put billions into development. So where is even the hypothetical or proposed path to eradicate covid? You believe in magic! You are a magical thinker!
Reading comprehension bro. Why don’t you reread the context of where I put that quote carefully.
So would you trust the eugenicists of the early 20th century? If “science” told you that certain races are worse would you believe them uncritically? I’m not anti-science, you are, because you wouldn’t know what science is if it hit you in the face. Every real Marxist understands historiography, the history of philosophy and the history of science, and knows that the study of these things serves the interests of the ruling class. If science could reveal something disadvantageous to the ruling class, it would never be funded in the first place. REAL science, relies on criticism, and not just an appeal to authority FALLACY which you are invoking. It’s you who doesn’t believe in science.
‘Reading comprehension bro. Why don’t you reread the context of where I put that quote carefully.’
The ‘context’ is that you uttered two incoherent points. The entirety of what you said in that bit is all the context you need. ‘Context’ seems to be a word you like to throw around when losing an argument.
‘So would you trust the eugenicists of the early 20th century? If “science” told you that certain races are worse would you believe them uncritically? I’m not anti-science, you are, because you wouldn’t know what science is if it hit you in the face. Every real Marxist understands historiography, the history of philosophy and the history of science, and knows that the study of these things serves the interests of the ruling class. If science could reveal something disadvantageous to the ruling class, it would never be funded in the first place. REAL science, relies on criticism, and not just an appeal to authority FALLACY which you are invoking. It’s you who doesn’t believe in science.’
So many things to unravel from this trainwreck of a paragraph. Who is arguing ANY of this? This is a straight-up strawman. I have never argued for eugenics, science is not just limited to criticism, and Marxists can study all of the sciences you listed without being ‘anti-marxist’. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are philosophers, I guess they served the ruling class then, guess that means we have to ignore everything they said, which means I guess everything we’ve ever accomplished is history, and you continue to superimpose the western situation onto science as a whole, which includes Chinese science, so I don’t know what else to infer from this other than you are an arrogant western ‘leftist’ who believes in the superiority of the western world over nations like China.
OK. Let’s break down what I said so we can all see what a fool you are.
The first statement in question:
But for those people who disagree with me, their point is always “trust the science, don’t think critically and do your own research.”
So clearly, what this means is that I am QUOTING someone, because it is in QUOTES. I didn’t say that myself and clearly disagree with this, because I said exactly that. So the meaning of this statement is that I think “trusting the science” is an oxymoron. If you trust something uncritically, you are not thinking scientifically.
The second thing in question, which you paraphrased:
“and then you followed it up with why we shouldn’t trust ‘liberal science’”
Yes, so my second statement could be summed up as “don’t trust liberal science”
So explain to me how the statements
contradict each other? When they have identical meaning?
I bet you feel embarrassed now, you can still delete your comment.
I never said you did! You are the one strawmanning me! My point was that it follows from your way of thinking. If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.
You said ‘trusting the science’, not ‘trusting the liberal science’. If you had said the latter, you would have been right on that occasion. You did not. You saying the former implies you do not trust science at all, and is generally too vague of a statement.
EDIT: I was also well aware you were quoting somebody. You quoted him in a manner which suggested you did not agree with science. That still is a contradiction because you went on to say that liberal science is the issue. Herein lies the issue: is it science that is the problem or is it liberal science?
‘I never said you did! You are the one strawmanning me! My point was that it follows from your way of thinking. If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.’
How does anything of what you claimed I said ‘follow from my way of thinking’ when you clearly cannot understand my way of thinking? Not that my way of thinking is bad, but you can’t infer it properly somehow. How do you arrive at that point where you know me that much?
Because I used “trusting the science” in quotes, I am referring to what those people believe to be science, which is just liberal science in reality. Simple. Also, even if it is good science, “trust the science” is still an oxymoron. Because skepticism is a cornerstone of science.
I already explained this. “If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.”
Why would you bother even quoting them then? If they supposedly don’t know anything about science, they are a waste of time so why bother? Also you seem to talk about trust like it is an inherently bad thing. If there was no trust in this world, we would never advance as a species.
Skepticism comes with the territory when you’re talking about science, so you’re complaining about an oxymoron that doesn’t really exist (and an oxymoron that no one actually entertained to begin with), because if there was no skepticism involved, it wouldn’t be science.
I already explained this. “If you believe in “trusting the science” uncritically, this is where that thinking would have led you in the early 20th century.”
But you still cannot understand me. Your conclusions on me being ‘uncritical’ and ‘anti-science’ are way off, seeing as how I have demonstrated that in many other threads before this, such as the climate change threads, so perhaps your process is flawed?