Double standards in the analysis of Marxist scholarship: A reply to Reidy's critique of my work

This article is a reply to Reidy's critique of my work, published under the title, 'Marxist Functionalism in Medicine: A Critique of the Work of Vicente Navarro'. The first part of Reidy's article contains a lengthy list of what she defines as "the symptoms of the disease" and the second part includes the analysis and "definition of the disease; Marxist Functionalism". Her conclusion is that human liberation requires the elimination of my disease: Marxist Functionalism. She refers to my writings on Chile as yet one more proof of my disease. This article is an answer, case by case, and symptom by symptom, of Reidy's accusations and shows that (1) it is the accuser--Reidy--rather than the accused--Navarro--who is guilty of misrepresentation and inaccurate reporting and (2) her target of criticism is not Marxist Functionalism but Marxism. My article shows that Reidy's piece is an outcome of her (1) maliciousness, (2) limited knowledge of Parsons', Marx's and my own work and (3) own political beliefs, intolerant of Marxist revolutionary positions. The article concludes that Allende's Chile proved me right, rather than wrong, as she indicated.