Ginger Ninja, I’ll begin by requesting that you be patient; I’ve just spent an amazing and hectic week at an anarcho-communist squat in Glasgow, a highly unfamiliar environment for me, and I need time both to reflect, and to indulge in some reassuringly more familiar behaviours, so I am not yet in an appropriate mood to consider in detail what you have written and write a properly structured reply.
So for now I’ll just write the following. In your thinking, try replacing “them” with “it”, “it” referring to the profit-seeking, expenditure-minimising nature required of nearly all organisations if they are to survive within the overarching capitalist-neoliberalist system.
Vague example: individual scientists and scientific teams do some brilliant work finding substances that can modify biological chemistry so as to help people with health problems. But that is never the primary objective to which their employer puts their work. Their employer is a structure not an individual, and to thrive in the capitalist-neoliberal environment it has to use its employees work to maximise profit.
Any pharmaceutical thus developed must be deployed to maximise profit rather than health, or the company (which is a structure) will begin to lose out against its competitors, and will eventually be subsumed by one of them. The companies are subject to evolution within the capitalist economic environment, so the ones we currently see thriving are the ones that most effectively maximised profit – maximising health is somewhere lower on their priority list if it appears at all. However, maximising the appearance of improving patients’ health is relatively high on their priority list, in order to maximise profit.
– – – – – – – –
“9/11 was a false flag”…
What is meant by this? The 9/11 attacks carried no flag, no one claimed responsibility for it, and no one made any demands based upon it. The attacks seemed more of a statement, made via the symbolism of the chosen targets – US militarism, and US capitalism.