devrim's group and the communist league

Worrying about the pernicious impact of the social management of drug use in contemporary capitalism would surely entail resistance to that criminalisation of our class, and to the social, economic, legal and physical violence done to those sections of our class whose lives are systematically worsened by the intersection of drug use, capitalism and its state violence. In Australia prisons are to a large extent concentration camps for impoverished junkies and other drug users, while some economies survive on the forms of exploitation made possible by drug-dependent people needing a criminalised and expensive commodity (various forms of sex work, substantial stolen/'second hand' good industries, anything where a desperate need for immediate cash makes drug-users more willing to perform the labour in question, to the profit of others). I would maintain, and I'm ure you agree, that the primary forms of 'damage' to which I assume you refer are consequences in large part of the forms of existence which have emerged within contemporary capitalism: I don't find the act of drug use in and of itself unacceptable, now or after a revolution, and mostly concentrating on this per se is opposed to attempts to confront the social forces that in some circumstances make a disaster of drug use.

Of course that is talking about (hard) drug-use and not drug-dealers. Opposing the commodification of drugs means opposing the existence of drug-dealers, obviously. Nonetheless, where I am, drug dealers at the lowest level are often/increasingly directly on wages, working for others, and something like hyperexploited if that term can apply to distributive work. That the business in question is illegal has a big impact on the nature of the work, but it remains a relation of labour and capital in many ways. The industry may be harmful to our class, but in many ways the lowest dealers can be of our class. On a daily basis I think it is absurd to say that dealers shouldn't be 'tolerated': what are you going to do to my pot dealer, exactly?

Of course, Australia is remarkably free of violence between drug dealing gangs, and in particular of territorial fights and armed conflict of that sort - for quite specific socio-historical reasons related in part of struggles over the relation of the state to the proletariat and to drug-use/rs.

I don't know enough about the struggles over alcohol in Poland and Russia. But no, I don't find theories of decaying capitalism, social rot or decadence very useful in understanding what is happening. But that is another and much much longer debate, I think.

I see your point, but the latter is a rare exception to the rule, whereas the former is actually pretty representative of small time dealers in soft drugs.

... is a good point.

Context has to be taken into account - a certain left communist once wrote an interesting article on shamanism and their ritual use of drugs to induce trance states.

If you lump all users and dealers into one category it detracts from rather than aids understanding. For example; for a long time Rasta communities, while smoking industrial quantities of weed on religious grounds, kept heroin and other hard drugs firmly out of black working class areas as a matter of principle - eventually yardies, guns etc were too much to resist.

Ah, don't mock Alf.

Devrim

I'm not mocking - it was interesting, and I was even polite enough not to blow his cover.

a link to the article por favor

First, I agree with all those who have shown why it is impossible for dealers to be part of a communist organisation. First, because it represents an intolerable security threat to the organisation. Secondly, because it involves the dealer in a moral situation which is also incompatible with communist activity.

On the wider question of the effects of different 'drugs', I would certainly agree that the question needs to be posed historically. The benefits or harms associated with particular psychotropic plants can't be separated from their social context. In primitive communist societies in particular, there was a social context for using varieties of such plants which made it far more possible for their medicinal and 'spiritual' benefits to outweigh their dangers. We have more or less reached the diametrical opposite of this in the dying days of bourgeois society, where virtually every form of intoxicant is more and more turned into a source of enormous social damage.

Alibadani; the article on shamanism isn't online because I am no longer distributing it (it was a personal and not an organisational product). I want to develop, correct and clarify certain parts of it and will return to it in future.

People seem to think this is fine, and not just in relation to dealers, but also to people who might be subjected to police repression on a basis of use.

In places in which being gay massively increases the chances of state violence, would people not want people to be actively gay, for the same reason? I know risk isn't the only reason people are giving to want to restrict membership in this way, but it seems a pretty prominent one, at least rhetorically.

Relativist bollox - but then if you rely so heavily on decadence you are a peddler of historical relativism. I managed to take acid without causing social damage. The leftcoms' insistence on groups all drugs together despite occasionally admitting relevant differences is bizarre. The addictive property of certain drugs is really the only important one in your criteria of "involving the dealer in a moral situation which is also incompatible with communist activity.", but you still insist on grouping them all together.

This whole rot and decay train of thought leads to the justification of some stupid ideas - I'm sure you could apply it to condemn violent films and computer games: "in the dying days of bourgeois society, virtually every form of entertainment is more and more turned into a source of enormous social damage."

And don't forget reality TV shows. Now, there's a clear sign of decadence, if you ask me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3yY8q7kM3E

Considering the latest reality TV show (in Holland) is about patients competing for a dying woman's kidney, I'd say it certainly is a clear sign of decadence!

I wouldn't say that violent films and games are a causal factor in social damage in themselves, although they are certainly a reflection of it. Having said that, the general cultural ambience generated by such seeps into consciousness, reinforcing the idea that everyday violence is acceptable.

As far as "drugs" go, for me, the security aspects of this (although important) are secondary. As others have said, the simple fact that an activity is illegal and draws the attention of the state is not sufficient to support its condemnation. This is first and foremost a social and moral question. Having seen firsthand the destruction of several friends because of heroin and cocaine, I cannot see how anyone can possibly defend drug culture as being compatible with the interests of the proletariat. Individuals abuse these substances primarily to escape the agony of life in modern capitalism and many others deal to support their own habits. I can understand this and even sympathise to some extent but how anyone can say this is compatible with militant activity is simply beyond me.

Why is my view 'relativistic'? Relativism is an ideology which says one society's views are as good as another's, who are we to judge, etc. I am saying that in primitive communism the approach to hallucinatory experiences is more human, less alienated than under capitalism. For a start they had the notion that if you are going to profoundly alter your state of consciousness, you need some proper training for it, and they had the social framework to provide it.

Neither did I lump all substances together. Cannabis, in my view, can have a number of benefits, both as a medicine and an aid to exploring the unconscious. I can't see any benefits at all in crack, which is a real product of 'rot and decay', designed to enslave you as quickly as possible. But this doesn't prevent capitalism turning cannabis into profitable commodity and an instrument of social control (either by making it illegal and subject to police powers, or by peddling it as a soporific) Viewed at a general social level, capitalism has turned cannabis and the trade in cannabis into a social problem just as it has with alcohol and 'hard' drugs

yeah, well, dope smoking isn't what it was in my day.

From now on, I'm going to check Alf's pupils every time I meet him!

aye, left-communists can't be trusted around kids

Joseph, I'm not sure if its your joke or the appalling document I've just had to compile at work, but I now have a blinding headache!

it's decadence mate, i've got the headache too

That's a brilliant analogy. In no way is it completely fucking tonto.

Actually, I think that analogy makes a decent point.

No, it's absolutely rediculous. You can't compare something that is an essential part of who you are (like your sexuality) to selling drugs. The two aren't even remotely similar.

A better analogy might have been selling copied DVDs or dodgy tobacco, but even that doesn't carry the same level of serious risk, both to yourself and organisations that you are associated with, as drug dealing.

The paragraph I wrote immediately before the sentences quoted from my post was: "People seem to think this [risk as the basis for exclusion] is fine, and not just in relation to dealers, but also to people who might be subjected to police repression on a basis of use." I may be wrong about what people are saying, but I actually wasn't comparing selling drugs, but drug use. So how about this as an analogy: in societies in which being known as queer subjects one to state surveillance, violence and general repression, would people advise that revolutionaries respond to the risk by insisting that people stay in the closet or be excluded? I'd hope and largely assume not, certainly not as some blanket, eternal norm which we would treat as obvious. The difference here, then - as I was pointing out - isn't about what is essential, but rather in ethico-political judgements concerning the practices.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahhahahh!!!!!!!

Stay tuned: Left Communists take on burning CDs, underage drinking, downloading music off the internet, small time shoplifting, not wearing your seatbelt, skateboarding on the pavement, and forgetting to indicate with your hand when turning a corner on your bike! Take that decadent bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletarian dregs - SuperProletarian will make you pick up your sweet wrappers and wait for the green light!

Thank you SuperProletarian! Gee, I don't know what we'd do without your dialectical materialist analysis of decadent capitalism and hard internationalist, anti-union, proletarian camping trip line! If I couldn't read your position papers I don't know what i'd do!

So the cannabis trade is not run by murderous gangsters? It's still run by Mr Nice types like in the good old days? And I'm the hippie!

It's interesting that in the US, police use intense violence and mass imprisonment against people of color regardless of whether or not struggle is really 'kickin off'.

Not sure what your point is. Obviously, cops do that in many places against various groups based on colour, age, ethnicity etc - but I was referring more to situations in small communities like mining villages and other less policed areas where people without much experience of daily cop repression get a sudden shock via a strike or other exceptional experience. Particularities rather than generalities.