this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2023
-3 points (20.0% liked)
Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations
1283 readers
1 users here now
The purpose of this community is sort of a "work out your frustrations by letting it all out" where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So we've touched on the decolonizing the US part of this article a lot, but I want to talk about the drugs for a moment.
Comrade Shea is 100% based on this imo and as well I would like to add a sort of 'other side of the coin' aspect to this conversation.
While drugs which illicit an extreme response such as hard illegal ones do are undoubtedly harmful to our cause as currently the contradictions are so that drugs are not required to "wake" a liberal prol out of their fantasy (they do have their uses in certain scenarios), prescription psychoactive drugs of a mild variety can play a limited beneficial role.
Antidepressants and other medications, while in many cases are damaging to the body, can artificially stabilize a prol enough to be able to study, plan, and learn. However, this does cause dependence upon the pharmaceutical industry and in turn upon legal society which could become detrimental later on although there are ways around this issue.
I think these should be used wisely and phased out over time if appropriate as deemed by scientists under socialist economy.
These topics being brought up in this article should be addressed as should all other aspects of neoliberal culture which have largely gotten grandfathered into our own as our base model. We know for sure where we stand on minority worker's needs, I believe we should work to iron out the logistics of what exactly 21st century predominately western proletarian culture is, and reject outright what has been dictated to us by the bourgeois class. Yes it will be controversial but so long as we show each other respect, solidarity, and participate in good faith we will gain more answers than headaches.
this is a reductive distinction. There are drugs, like heroin and crack cocaine, that participate in a dialectic of addictive disease. But these drugs themselves are derived from plants (poppies and coca, specifically) and these plants have been used for their medicinal properties for millennia. Those medicinal properties are not limited to the Western concept of "physical" diseases as opposed to "mental" diseases. Indigenous medicine does not make this artificial and harmful distinction. The problem isn't the drug, nor is the solution prescriptions. The problem is human ailments which themselves are dialectical in nature. Solving those humans problems, historically, have always included medicines like cannabis, opium, coca leaf, psilocybin, etc.
Hard drugs as you and I know them are primarily a Western concept and they were mostly developed as a form of dominance of colonized peoples. Under communism, instead of banning heroin, we focus on healing addictive diseases. Instead of require prescriptions from authorized doctors for cannabis, we provide education and social support.
Remember that this drugs only have effects on humans because they participate in a dialectic with human animals. The cannabis plant produces cannabinoids. The human body ALSO produces cannabinoids. Cannabinoids play an important part in the human endocrine system. As every single person develops idiosyncratically, the idea that a communist society, or even a doctor, would be able to determine exactly what every individual should be prescribed at every stage in their life is chauvinism. Instead, individuals must be educated and supported while they experiment with their own body and their relationship to the world, which will include what we in the west call "drugs".
The drugs cannabis, psilocybin, coca, and opium have been used for a long time in medicine and religious practices this is true, however cocaine, heroine, LSD, and condensed cannabis such as dabs or keif have not. These are not the same drugs of yester years.
As well, we have created medicines which surpass these in their abilities to aid in medicine save for cannabis. My personal issue with cannabis is it's negative effects on memory, it's diverse methods of activity which vary from positive to negative depending on the person's necessity vs what they are consuming, and ultimately the drug's tendency to create a pacifist and deradicalized culture around it which damages revolutionary capability within our class. Basically, it works too well; it becomes a crutch as opposed to an aid. This is not in every case, many can consume cannabis without an issue however one cannot deny the prevalence of this culture nor the tendency cannabis in general let alone condensed cannabis has towards pacification within a certain percentage of users.
This is the primary issue with hard drugs, one cannot function as a member of society while high on cocaine, mushrooms, heroin, etc... If one doubts this statement please refer to the countless video evidence of workers too high to function which is available on mainstream platforms for consumption.
Hard drugs (those which are so potent either in their action and/or their addictive properties) impair and greatly reduce a worker's competency and indeed traps the worker into a vicious cycle of addiction. One cannot be seriously defending hard drug use.
Now there is a separate question in your response - what is to be done regarding workers and drugs. You seem to be under the impression that I am advocating we simply ban drugs and not treat the underlying addictive disease, this is not at all what I am advocating. I agree we must treat the worker with permanent concrete solutions to relieve them of their susceptibility to addiction. I am saying that as Marxists, we should not encourage hard drug usage. That we meet the worker where they are if they are indeed addicted, but not to encourage further drug usage, instead assist them in getting clean.
Suggesting that a more educated person including a government decide what is and is not safe for the consumption of their society of which they are assigned to oversee is in no way chauvinism, this is an anarchist argument which is a pette bourgeois tendency - the rejection of class for individual politics.
This is a liberal metaphysical perspective. They are the same compounds, from the same plants, that have been subject to the same processes of production that all commodities have gone through. It doesn't make them "illicit drugs" suddenly. And if you don't know about hashish, I don't know what to tell you.
In some ways, we have, in some ways, we haven't. Psilocybin and LSD are clearly under intense research still for their therapeutic effects. But that's not even the point. The point is that plants that humans have been cultivating for millennia specifically for the effect they have on the human body, whether those compounds are taken in small doses or in concentrated doses, is part of a dialectical process and banning their consumption is a near impossibility.
Why are we working on your personal issues with anything. You are not the only judge here. Your problem with the negative effects on memory have almost no basis in understanding the reality that cannabis produces over a dozen different compounds that each interact with the endocrine system in different ways. Combine all those possibilities with the unique biochemistries of individual humans, and then multiple that across time as individual human bodies go through change, and you really don't have any meaningful stance here.
What the fuck are you talking about? You think the DRUG causes this? You think the bourgeoisie are out there being like "ooh, let's give people pot because it pacifies them!" You are ridiculous.
A crutch IS an aid! Self-medicating is a tool for managing the harm caused by capitalism on the worker. You are literally saying you would rather people suffer so that they can be more revolutionary. Sure, you believe you're better than that, because you say that we can all go to doctors and get "real" medicine that works better, if you're really suffering, which is determined by the doctor. But you are literally saying that it helps people too much and that's bad for the revolution. You may as well say we should be pulling social safety nets so that we can have a revolutionary movement. This is a fundamentally anti-worker accelerationist position.
Why do you think people use these types of drugs? It's like you haven't even bothered to analyze the world before you start pontificating about your morally superior position based on "logic, reason, and the countless video evidence". What is wrong with your ability to self-critique? Why is it so broken?
People use drugs because they are suffering. Addicts are expressing massive amounts of suffering and trapped in a literal disease called addiction. You don't solve that problem through criminalization. You solve that problem by address the root cause of their suffering and by providing support for people suffering from addiction.
You're such a boss. Your only argument against drugs is that it impacts productivity. You're the worst Marxist I know.
This is absolutely chauvinism of the highest degree when entire national cultures involve drug use. The only thing that's liberal here is your moralizing and focus on the individual.
"This is a liberal metaphysical perspective. They are the same compounds, from the same plants, that have been subject to the same processes of production that all commodities have gone through."
The drug processes have indeed evolved as with everything else but the drug processes of today are not the same as those of yesterday. You've overwritten your own argument.
"The point is that plants that humans have been cultivating for millennia specifically for the effect they have on the human body, whether those compounds are taken in small doses or in concentrated doses, is part of a dialectical process"
Right but as in the last point you seem to not understand the dialectical process. Evolution isn't in a straight line of "better -> best", dialectical materialism holds that contradictions meet and are resolved not according to which is better but which is more appropriate for the conditions of which the conflict occurs. This is why one cannot simply go from slavery to socialism as the material conditions which predeceases socialism are not present yet because this hypothetical system has not developed through the various middle stages of development yet.
Drugs too have dialectically developed, that is taken on features which match it's conditions under the resolution of contradiction but not necessarily taken on ideal characteristics for their assigned social role according to the needs of our class - safe and beneficial consumption. Instead they have taken on characteristics which match the economic mode of production under which they must conform to - consumption to satisfy competition within the market. As we know quality has been forgone for quantity to satisfy the rate of profit's ever growing needs, and as such our commodities have become less and less satisfactory to our needs as a class as this is not our system, we do not control it and as such we are not it's designers nor it's primary beneficiaries.
"the unique biochemistries of individual humans"
This is nonsense. Morphine does not act as a cognitive enhancer on some humans, nor does testosterone develop wings on some humans. There is variance yes but the underlying effects of memory displacement (which is well documented and is not my personal belief on the matter) is universal by high majority.
"What the fuck are you talking about? You think the DRUG causes this? You think the bourgeoisie are out there being like “ooh, let’s give people pot because it pacifies them!” You are ridiculous."
Yes I do and your retort to this argument is the only thing that is ridiculous here.
"A crutch IS an aid!" A crutch is no more an aid than "racial revolution" is at being legitimate Marxist position to aim towards. The phrase means to differentiate an aid that assists and an aid that transfers dependency from the individual's abilities onto the aid itself to perform the job. This is a well-known phrase also.
"You are literally saying you would rather people suffer so that they can be more revolutionary"
You should read reform or revolution and various critiques on social democracy. This is far from a niche or odd concept within Marxian history. The key point is "suffer more" not "suffer in general", suffrage is subjective, one can claim if we are not all under socialism we are suffering, and this would be true however materially social democracy has only served to impede revolution it has never once lead to it. As well, to whom are we measuring suffrage of? The imperial core with it's ability to create a privileged middle class to the suffering of the world proletarian class as a whole, or the relief of suffrage of the entire proletarian class? Which you concern yourself with determines if you are a Marxist or a Menshevik.
"Why do you think people use these types of drugs?" Poverty, of which only socialism can alleviate.
"It’s like you haven’t even bothered to analyze the world before you start pontificating about your morally superior position based on “logic, reason, and the countless video evidence”. What is wrong with your ability to self-critique? Why is it so broken?"
Yet another dodge of my points for preference of liberal ad-hominism. This shows your inability to utilize Marxist theory to engage in productive debate among your peers. Once again I advise you study further.
"People use drugs because they are suffering." No, this is a distortion of concrete for subjectivity. Poverty is why people use drugs, suffrage to the point of poverty, not suffrage in general.
" You don’t solve that problem through criminalization, You solve that problem by address the root cause of their suffering and by providing support for people suffering from addiction."
Considering I agree and always have you've clearly stopped listening.
"You’re such a boss. Your only argument against drugs is that it impacts productivity. You’re the worst Marxist I know."
You're clearly not a sufficiently capable Marxist as you still participate in debate as a liberal. Yes this debate has been long however refusing to recognize when one has dug past 6ft is no excuse in my book, at that point it only invites the inevitable conclusion.
You lack a solid Marxist foundation as I've had to explain basic Marxist line such as the path towards revolution and other aspects from other arguments we're currently in but are irrelevant to this present one. One must put aside their ego and look towards the best solution for the working class, which is following the most revolutionary and scientific theory available - Marxism.
Again, just a completely head up the ass response. People use drugs because of poverty? You're ridiculous. Do you need me to do the research for you, personally, and hand you the report of how many fully rich people are engaging in large scale drug use and full on addiction? You just make shit up, hold a moralistic position, pretend it's Marxist but not violently accelerationist, and proceed to tell people that they aren't Marxist enough when they get exasperated with your opportunism.
Seriously, Mouse. You're in for a ride awakening when you finally figure out that your bullshit doesn't match reality. But as long as you stay in your bubble and believe absolutely ridiculous garbage like only poor people use drugs, and that because you know white people you understand racism, you are going to continue sniffing your own farts and imagining it's chocolate cake.
I'm writing you off as a lost cause.