|
Post by xveganx on May 10, 2005 22:30:49 GMT -5
Just wondering how many folks on these forums abstain from drugs or are interested in straightedge?
I find that drug-use (particularly alcohol and marijuana) does almost as much damage to the revolutionary movement as the police do. When this system already harms us with pollution, on the job accidents, police violence, and stress, why would we want to destroy ourselves further?
|
|
|
Post by RedWinter on May 11, 2005 2:00:47 GMT -5
i'm down with the point of discipline, "don't use drugs or get drunk." i do encourage everyone to quit smoking (tobacco and weed) too, because that shit fucks your body up. i don't think i even need to say anything about other drugs. i don't think a glass of beer or wine is necessarily harmful once in a while, if it's used in moderation. alcoholism seems to be a symptom of oppression and alienation that occurs under class society, people won't be forced to resort to such extremes once we get the capitalist system over with. in a socialist society i hope that we'd be able to psychologically help ourselves and each other to get over drug use. actually i think c. clark kissinger wrote a great article about the near-total elimination of drug addiction in china: rwor.org/a/china/opium.htm
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 11, 2005 9:59:26 GMT -5
xveganx wrote: I find that drug-use (particularly alcohol and marijuana) does almost as much damage to the revolutionary movement as the police do.And redwinter joined in: I'm down with the point of discipline, "don't use drugs or get drunk." I do encourage everyone to quit smoking (tobacco and weed) too, because that shit fucks your body up.The way things are going, it wouldn't really surprise me to learn that some revolutionary group or another now mandates a piss-test before you can join...and random tests for all the members (though not the leaders, of course). Just what we really need! The left historically has always suffered from a puritanical obsession with people's sexual and chemical behavior...though in the 60s, a lot of that was summarily rejected. But puritanism (like religion) is a "tough old bird" and seems to be making a come-back of sorts -- in the U.S., one would have to look long and hard for a meeting where people were permitted to smoke cigarettes. People are different, of course, and one person's harmless indulgence is another's "noxious habit". But consider the kind of society that you want to substitute for capitalism. Are you going to keep fighting "the war on drugs"? Perhaps adding tobacco and alcohol to the list of "forbidden substances"? And building ever larger and more numerous prisons? Or will you admit the obvious: people use drugs because life is better with drugs than without them.Humans have been intoxicating themselves for pleasure for a very long time -- pots have been discovered with residues of wine and beer that are not less than 7,000 years old.See what you're up against? Rational people no longer shun pleasure because it is a "sin". But the modern secular version of puritanism conveys the same message. If you get sick, it's because you did drugs, or smoked, or didn't exercise enough, or ate too much junk food -- it's your own damn fault, sinner!Overlooking the fact that no matter what you do or refrain from doing, you are going to get old, and get sick, and die.I do not imagine that any serious revolutionary movement in history ever suffered any significant damage from chemical (or sexual) indulgences...though some small sects, I've heard, did suffer from excessively drunken leadership. But these considerations are not really relevant to the neo-puritan -- what really torments them, as H.L. Mencken noted early in the last century, is the realization that "somewhere, somebody is having a good time". Horrors! New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by RedWinter on May 11, 2005 13:21:45 GMT -5
saying that life is better with drugs is a pretty bold statement, redstar. i don't think i was writing with any tinge of puritanism when i said that i am against the use of drugs and intoxication, and that i encourage people to not use these substances. i certainly am not saying that you cannot smoke and be a revolutionary, not at all. how do you come to this conclusion?
i think, in my opinion, it's simply better for a revolutionary's mind not to be clouded by drugs. it is a bad example for the people, it can also put you at risk as a revolutionary if you can't be 100% aware at all times. what if you're shooting up or high on dope and the pigs bust into your place?
i think it can be a good thing that people can't smoke cigarettes in meetings. some people don't want to inhale tobacco smoke. doing it in their presence, especially in a closed area, is a form of coercion and is frankly disrespectful. some people are also allergic to smoke.
i don't think a society where people are compelled to ingest poisonous substances to make their lives "better" (as you say) is a society i'd want to live in. drugs are often just a form of escapism for people mired in fucking despair at the conditions of life under capitalism (or even looking further into the past, feudalism and slave-based societies). i can't blame people for using drugs in an attempt to numb their own pain. however, when we are able to change the superstructure of society, i think that we can implement programs like those in China described in the Kissinger article that I linked to in my previous post. i think the comrades over in china handled the problem pretty well, considering the fact that there were over 70 million opium addicts in china. they did not throw addicts into prison! they struggled with addicts and won them over to a correct line of smashing the addiction at hand, then helped them kick the habit. small time dealers like the guys on the street corner would be given a chance to quit their ways without punishment. only the big time drug dealers (today, the CIA) and their most die-hard accomplices who wouldn't budge were punished.
the "war on drugs" waged today by the government is nothing but a war on the oppressed people, almost totally the proletariat and is concentrated on black and latino communities. drugs are used as a pretext for all kinds of injustice. this is in no way similar to what happened in china and what must be done all over the world.
also, redstar, you seem to be saying that drugs are harmless and even beneficial. this is wrong, scientifically. as marxists (scientific socialists), we should uphold science and look at the biological and chemical effects that come from regular ingestion of tobacco smoke, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, coke, etc. since these things have found to be harmful to humanity, we should struggle to abolish their use and find something better for us as humans to use in their place. does drug use or alcoholism benefit us? no, it harms us. just because humans 7,000 years ago did something does not make it justified or part of some kind of idealist "human nature" - positing such an opinion would be directly opposite to dialectical materialism and the interests of revolution in general.
|
|
RedFlagOverTrenton guest
Guest
|
Post by RedFlagOverTrenton guest on May 11, 2005 13:46:47 GMT -5
Generally speaking, no, I don't abstain from various substances or another because of any kind of personal conviction. Obviously I don't do anything illegal or walk around with a blunt in my pocket while I'm "on the job" (i.e. doing some kind of revolutionary political work), but that's just good common sense, and that's what I've always interpreted that particular point of discipline as meaning. Don't do anything that could endanger yourself or others, or interfere with the larger goals you're trying to work towards.
I think RedStar is kind of confusing what people are saying though. I don't think redwinter or xveganx are necessarily prohibitionists, but they are acknowledging that drug abuse can be a serious problem that goes beyond simple 'personal choice'. There's a middle ground between just allowing the worst effects of drug use to run rampant and the bullshit 'war on drugs' we have going on now, where poor communities that are actively oppressed with a steady flow of poison like crack and heroin are treated like the bad guys instead of the victims (I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone here where all this shit came from originally).
People can use substances in moderation and never have this seriously affect their ability to function, or they can become addicted and become a danger to themselves and anybody else. And for those people who've suffered because of this, the necessary services to overcome that in socialist society would be made freely and readily available to anybody who needed it. That's the kind of society I want to see substituted for capitalism, not some kind of puritanical prohibitionist nightmare with more prisons and more narco-enforcers. And I don't think vegan or redwinter want to see that either, though I'm sure they can speak for themselves on that question.
For the record, this is from one smoker to another, heh. So I suppose I'm a bit biased against the straightedge position.
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on May 11, 2005 19:01:43 GMT -5
I find that life is a lot better when I am sober and can think clearly. Living drug-free is certainly better than life shackled down to addiction and self-destruction.
I'm not trying to regulate the choices people make. We all have our preferences. Personally, I prefer experiencing life without clouding my brain with chemicals.
The person who posted about revolutionaries trying to control people's drug-use and sexuality surely hasn't met many 'revolutionaries'. Drug use and sexual diversity are more common amongst radicals than amongst any other 'group of people'. I'm queer and edge btw.
Below is another take on this subject:
The history of civilization is the history of beer. In every era and area untouched by civilization, there has been no beer; conversely, virtually everywhere civilization has struck, beer has arrived with it. Civilization--that is to say, hierarchal social structures and consequent relationships of competition, unbridled technological development, and universal alienation--seems to be inextricably linked to alcohol. Our sages, who look back and ahead through time to see beyond the limits of such pernicious culture, tell a parable about our past to explain this link: Most anthropologists regard the beginnings of agriculture as the inception of civilization. It was this first act of control over the land that brought human beings to think of themselves as distinct from nature, that forced them to become sedentary and possessive, that led to the eventual development of private property and capitalism. But why would hunter/gatherers, whose environment already provided them with all the food they needed, lock themselves in place and give up the nomadic foraging existence they had practiced since the beginnings of time for something that they already had? It seems more likely--and here, there are anthropologists who agree--that the first ones to domesticate themselves did so in order brew beer. This drastic reorganization for the sake of intoxication must have shaken the tribal structure and lifeways to the root. Where these “primitive” peoples had once lived in a relaxed and attentive relationship to the providing earth--a relationship that afforded them both personal autonomy and supportive community as well as a great deal of leisure time to spend in admiration of the enchanted world around them--they now alternated periods of slavish labor hard labor with periods of drunken incompetence and detachment. It’s not hard to imagine that this situation hastened, if not necessitated, the rise to power of masters, overseers who was to it that the toilsome tasks of fixed living were carried out by the frequently inebriated and incapable tribespeople. Without these chiefs and the primitive judicial systems they instituted, it must have seemed that life itself would be impossible: and thus under the foul auspices of alcoholism, the embryonic State was conceived. Such a pathetic way of life could not have been appealing to the peoples who neighbored the aboriginal alcoholic agriculturists; but as every historian knows, the spread of civilization was anything but voluntary. Lacking the manners and gentleness of their former companions in the wild, these savages, in their drunken excesses and infringements, must have provoked a series of wars--wars which, sadly, the lushes were able to win, owing to the military efficiency of their autocratic armies and the steady supply of food their subjugated farmlands provided. Even these advantages would not have been enough, if the brutes hadn’t had a secret weapon in their possession: alcohol itself. Adversaries who would otherwise have held their own indefinitely on the field of battle fell before the cultural onslaught of drunken debauchery and addiction, when trade--one of the inventions of the agriculturalists. who also became the first misers, the first merchants--brought this poison into their midst. A pattern of conflict, addiction, defeat, and assimilation was set in motion, one which can be traced throughout history from the cradle of civilization through the Roman wars for empire to the holocaust perpetrated upon the natives of the New World by the murderous European colonists.
|
|
|
Post by repeater on May 11, 2005 20:50:32 GMT -5
I think the idea that beer was the motivating factor for sedentary life is rather silly and contradicted by the realities of nomadic life.
Alcoholic drinks were and are produced using many substances including milk and wild plants. The mongols fermented their horses milk to make kumiss. This is only one example that contradicts the idea that getting drunk was the motivating factor for sedentary life.
The description, both of nomadic and sedentary life, in the article you've posted is based on idealism and not reality.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 11, 2005 23:11:35 GMT -5
redwinter wrote: Saying that life is better with drugs is a pretty bold statement, redstar.Seems rather obvious to me...otherwise, why would people ever use them? Suppose you tried a drug that made you feel like shit...would you go back for a second try? Much less a third try! No, people use drugs because they enjoy them...they like the way that their favorite drugs make them feel. (Exception: professional athletes use steroids to enhance performance and make more money...but that's a special case and not relevant to this thread.) redwinter wrote: I think, in my opinion, it's simply better for a revolutionary's mind not to be clouded by drugs.Well, some drugs actually enhance mental acuity (nicotine is one)...but it's true that most recreational drugs have a depressing effect on the central nervous system. I'm not sure why people find that pleasurable...but it cannot be denied that they do. Even a revolutionary with "straightedge" (Mormon) principles (no tobacco, no alcohol, no coffee, no tea) will have his mind "clouded" by sleep for about 1/3rd of every single day. redwinter wrote: It is a bad example for the people.That suggests that you view revolutionaries as "morally superior" to ordinary people; a revolutionary who uses drugs is like a priest that visits a brothel. It sets "a bad example". redwinter wrote: I don't think a society where people are compelled to ingest poisonous substances to make their lives "better" (as you say) is a society I'd want to live in.Compelled? It seems to me that what you offer is a society in which people are compelled not to ingest "poisonous substances"... even if they want to.You want to coerce people for their own good! The inevitable sign of the puritanical despot. redwinter wrote: I think that we can implement programs like those in China described in the Kissinger article that I linked to in my previous post.News Flash: America is NOT CHINA.One of the most distressing things about American Maoists is that, when faced with a problem, they show a marked tendency to "fall back" on something like "we'll do what Mao did!". No you won't...because conditions here are profoundly different from those of China in 1949. redwinter wrote: They struggled with addicts and won them over to a correct line of smashing the addiction at hand...Puh-leeze. They cut off the supply. The addicts suffered.That was it. redwinter wrote: Also, redstar, you seem to be saying that drugs are harmless and even beneficial. This is wrong, scientifically.Actually, all drugs have both beneficial and harmful aspects...depending on a great number of factors (including the effects of different combinations of drugs ingested). The "science" of the anti-drug warriors is, in my opinion, dubious. It is clearly motivated by a desire to "find more bad stuff about drugs". After the revolution, I would be in favor of throwing it all out and starting over with new and more objective research. xveganx wrote: The history of civilization is the history of beer.A most amusing "parable"...and there could even be something to it. Not a whole lot...but something. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
|
Post by RedWinter on May 12, 2005 0:40:55 GMT -5
redwinter wrote: Saying that life is better with drugs is a pretty bold statement, redstar.Seems rather obvious to me...otherwise, why would people ever use them? Suppose you tried a drug that made you feel like shit...would you go back for a second try? Much less a third try! No, people use drugs because they enjoy them...they like the way that their favorite drugs make them feel. People enjoy a lot of things...not all of which are good. The idea that anything that feels good is good, or anything that works is right, is pragmatism and diametrically opposed to marxism. A rapist might say that rape feels good, and that they enjoy the experience and the way it makes them feel. Does that justify it in any way? Does it mean that "life is better with rape", as you are trying to say that "life is better with drugs"? for the record, i don't claim to be "straightedge." i do consume some of the aforementioned substances from time to time. that doesn't mean that i can't self-criticize and say that it is incorrect and unhealthy, and that in a socialist society it would be great to have better alternatives to that kind of stuff. saying that everyone should just quit smoking, drinking alcohol and consuming caffeine immediately under capitalist society would be lifestyle politics. i don't think such deep-rooted social practices as drug and alcohol use should be left untouched or uncriticized simply because they are deep-rooted. women have been oppressed since time immemorial but as communists we still uphold "breaking tradition's chains" and liberating the oppression of women. as revolutionaries, yes, we should strive to be exemplary in everything we do. is there something wrong with that? if you grew up with any brothers or sisters, especially younger ones, wouldn't you want to set a good example and not do fucked up things (like drugs), even just for their sake, so as not to see you doing it? Where did I say that I wanted to coerce people to not use drugs, redstar? I said that I didn't want to live in a society where i would be compelled to use drugs to feel good, maybe it's too fucking utopian an idea, but i want to live in a society where life will be worth living on its own without killing myself with poisonous chemicals. do you think i am and always have been a puritanical saint myself or something? whatever the case, this is a question of improvement and not staying stagnant in the same sewer of drugs and bullshit your whole life, rising out of this sewer and reaching for something greater. What's so bad about learning from the past? The Chinese objectively accomplished the abolition or near-abolition of all drug use in their country. Are you denying the fact that we have anything to learn from the rich experiences in China? I never said we should do exactly the same thing as in China, but the basic process makes sense, doesn't it? Drug addiction is probably worse here than it was in China - and I'm not even talking about alcoholism, tobacco or marijuana use here. It's going to take a major struggle to fight this shit. If that was all that happened, the addicts would have found a way around the supply cut-off. Did you check out the article and read about what happened in China? Or are you just basing your assumption off of your own conjecture? I actually disagree with this, xveganx. Drug use hasn't been as big a problem as the police in my experience in the revolutionary movement nor in any movements I've read about, it seems pretty negligible to me. The police do an unmeasurable amount of damage in killing, jailing, torturing, and going after revolutionaries. You can't compare this to any drug use that revolutionaries might go about doing.
|
|
Mischa
New Member
Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist
Posts: 16
|
Post by Mischa on May 12, 2005 8:14:00 GMT -5
((Why does nobody ever seem to log in on this board??))
My personal opinion on this matter is, drugs, like any thing, are a tool. They can be used for good, they can be used for evil. More often than not, they're used for evil. Alcoholism runs deep within my family, so I myself don't drink or smoke (anything), though I'm constantly surrounded by potheads, casual cigarette smokers, and casual drinkers.
Something to think about... Our party has a no drug policy, basically because it's a good excuse for cops to break us up. Back when the SWP took on the FBI in court for harrassment and fucking won, some of the papers that were exposed said things like "we just can't seem to bust these guys on drugs..."
Though I personally don't do it, I think the straight edge thing is somewhat elitist, and the "drugs are harmless" mentality, is naive, while it is true that a lot of what they say, at least about pot, is WAY overblown. My opinion on drugs is, whatever you want to do to your body is your business. I support your democratic right to ingest, inject, smoke, snort, or eat anything you can, so long as you don't harm anyone in the process. And so long as you're aware of the risks involved.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 12, 2005 12:25:40 GMT -5
redwinter wrote: People enjoy a lot of things...not all of which are good.I see. What else do you intend to prohibit, oh Great One? redwinter wrote: A rapist might say that rape feels good, and that they enjoy the experience and the way it makes them feel.Nice "parallel" there. And everyone "knows" that drug users are all "potential rapists". (!) In fact, that was the initial rationale for criminalizing marijuana -- "because" black males would get high and then go and and "rape white women". Glad to see that you're up on the latest scientific knowledge. redwinter wrote: That doesn't mean that I can't self-criticize and say that it is incorrect and unhealthy, and that in a socialist society it would be great to have better alternatives to that kind of stuff.Self-criticism used to be called "confessing your sins". Different words now...but the meaning is the same. And I can't wait for those "better alternatives". Instead of drinking or smoking "poisonous substances", let's all go out in the country and shovel pig-turds. Woo-hoo! redwinter wrote: I don't think such deep-rooted social practices as drug and alcohol use should be left untouched or uncriticized simply because they are deep-rooted.The Christians feel the same way about sin. Think you'll have better luck than they have? redwinter wrote: As revolutionaries, yes, we should strive to be exemplary in everything we do. Is there something wrong with that?You mean aside from the fact that it gushes arrogance and smugness from every orifice? Or the fact that "he who is without sin" is about as welcome as shit on the dinner table? Why, not a thing. redwinter wrote: If you grew up with any brothers or sisters, especially younger ones, wouldn't you want to set a good example and not do fucked up things (like drugs), even just for their sake, so as not to see you doing it?You know, I've heard that a lot...both in the form of a question as well as people actually putting on a charade of "rectitude" for their younger relatives. I think it's utterly bizarre...and worse, dishonest!As you may know, honesty is way up there in my list of "revolutionary virtues"...lying to people is never "for their own good". redwinter wrote: Where did I say that I wanted to coerce people to not use drugs, redstar?Is that not implicit in your whole outlook? Why would you even talk about this stuff at all unless (1) you thought it was bad and (2) you wanted to put a stop to it? Unless you plan to limit your activities to putting up posters -- "Bob says Just say no to drugs." -- then you perforce must rely on coercion. redwinter wrote: Are you denying the fact that we have anything to learn from the rich experiences in China?In the sense of crude imitation, I certainly am. Look, the Chinese in 1949 became isolated from the world market...including, for the most part, the trade in drugs. Since the new Chinese currency was worthless in the drug-exporting countries, the supply of drugs abruptly came to a halt. Only someone with a supply of hard currency, gold, jewelry, valuable antiques, etc. would have been able to import any substantial amount of drugs...and the Chinese revolution didn't leave many such folks unmonitored. No drugs = no drug addicts. Perhaps something like that would work for a post-revolutionary United States...I don't know. But I frankly doubt it. You might successfully wipe out heroin, cocaine, and even tobacco use...but other drugs can easily be grown or manufactured inside the U.S. Even opium poppies will flourish in most parts of the U.S. redwinter wrote: It's going to take a major struggle to fight this shit.And you're rubbing your hands with gleeful anticipation, aren't you? "Smiting the sinners" is so much fun!Mischa wrote: ((Why does nobody ever seem to log in on this board??))((Because the board software is totally fucked. I have three accounts and all three of them give me an error message when I try to log in. Wait a little while and it will probably happen to you too.)) New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on May 12, 2005 16:18:49 GMT -5
While in the post-reveloutionary situation , I think there should be no probihtions . (Hard) Drug Use will disapear because people who start are usualy depressed by the way things are going and want out . Then they get addicted .
There is none this " It Feels so Good " shit . it ( The ratinale behing drug use ) is more like " It feels a little better then normal existence ".
But I also e should young Workers and Lumpen Prolatarians from becoming Drug Dealers and we should beat the Pushers out of our neigboorhood . Like the IRA did , or The BPP did .
If i moved back into one of my old flats , knocked on doors to orginize a capaign to get the pushers out of the flats , It would eventualy evelove into a more sophistacted struggle ( I.E. Rent Strikes ) and bring people into the reveloutionary Fold .
|
|
|
Post by xveganx on May 12, 2005 20:13:56 GMT -5
People use drugs because they're looking for a way to escape the misery & alienation of everydaylife under capitalism.
What is "elitist" about straightedge? What's elitist about making the personal choice to abstain from drug-use and permiscuous sex?
I don't have neither the ability nor the desire to regulate the drug-use of others. I can however make my opinions on the subject clear.
|
|
|
Post by RedWinter on May 12, 2005 20:41:26 GMT -5
redwinter wrote: People enjoy a lot of things...not all of which are good.I see. What else do you intend to prohibit, oh Great One? When did I say I was going to prohibit anything? Just a note redstar, when I pose questions to you it's not for rhetorical reasons, it's because i'm actually wondering if you read that or if you are just making it up. I never said drug users are potential rapists. Did I? Do some fact-checking and stop creating straw men to argue with. It's not getting you or any of us anywhere. I made an analogy between two things that some people might say feel good to them subjectively to illustrate the point that not everything that might seem to feel good to someone subjectively is objectively good. Don't twist my words against me. No, self-criticism is summing up what you've done and separating the good from the bad. Looking at yourself and your own actions dialectically. God forbid I hope for something better than the situation we're in now, right? (so the reactionary argument goes:) And the communists feel the same way about the exploitation of the proletariat. Think you'll have better luck than they have? I didn't say I was without error or perfect. But it is good to strive to improve one's weaknesses, no? or are all of our practices, ideas, and opinions perfect as they are and we shouldn't change anything? I never said anything about putting on a charade or lying to people, quit trying to misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not referring to pretending not to use drugs in front of relatives, but actually not using them. I want to convince people not to use drugs, not through posters, but through struggling with them on an ideological level. I think we are victims of drugs, drugs are not the forbidden fruit that we are sinners for "indulging" in. I agree with xveganx that drugs are an escape (which is understandable) and a crutch (also understandable) for people. Why do you think that the CIA pumped crack into the ghettos? To help enslave the people. In China, which borders Afghanistan (#1 opium producer in the world) it is possible to grow many different kinds of drugs. You're looking at it from a perspective of drugs being something that humans need and that I want to take away from them. We need to fight the social root of drug abuse and that is how its use will end. Again, see China. They managed to do it and it wasn't simply by shutting down the borders and not letting drugs in, because people could have grown opium if they really wanted (and they did- drug addiction has been a growing problem in China since the capitalist restoration). We can learn from what they did, and adapt it to our situation. Again, you are being facetious. I don't advocate the "smiting" of anyone for drug use. Fighting drug addiction is not the equivalent of killing people, it is the opposite of that - drugs are what is killing people. Cause i'm usually too lazy to log in. :-P
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000GUEST on May 13, 2005 12:04:50 GMT -5
redwinter wrote: When did I say I was going to prohibit anything?Because that's the obvious implication of your disapproval. Why would you bother expressing an opinion unless you would want to see it translated into action...at least in some fashion? Prohibition is the obvious recourse for those who are opposed to the use of any or all drugs...or any other human activity. We would agree that rape and murder should be prohibited...no fooling around, right? So I think you should stop evading this point; anything you want to stop from happening must be prohibited.redwinter wrote: I made an analogy between two things that some people might say feel good to them subjectively to illustrate the point that not everything that might seem to feel good to someone subjectively is objectively good.Yes you did. You specifically compared the good feeling of the drug user to the good feeling of the rapist...hinting that by "my" logic, they both "must" be considered objectively good. And I let you off the hook gently...always a mistake. So now I will be blunt: To suggest that the good feelings of the drug user is somehow equivalent to the good feelings of the rapist is a monstrous proposition.It is not only insulting to me personally; it is also insulting to every rape victim. redwinter wrote: God forbid I hope for something better than the situation we're in now, right?What's that got to do with the ritual of self-criticism? Do you imagine that by periodically confessing your sins that you will stop sinning? Or that objective conditions will change as a consequence? You criticize yourself and the party forgives you. Who cares? redwinter wrote: And the communists feel the same way about the exploitation of the proletariat. Think you'll have better luck than they have?I couldn't do worse, could I? But let us be clear about this. Real communists seek to abolish class society...even in the face of the fact that all of recorded history is a history of class societies. No small task. You (and the Christians) want to go even further; you both have a list of common human pleasures that you want to abolish. Or, if that proves impossible, at least make those who enjoy those pleasures suffer for their "sins". That's something else that some people do because it makes them feel really good...and is objectively reprehensible. redwinter wrote: But it is good to strive to improve one's weaknesses, no? or are all of our practices, ideas, and opinions perfect as they are and we shouldn't change anything?If you think you have "weaknesses" that require "improvement", just do it. Public breast-beating about your "weaknesses" and your determination to renounce sin in the future are superfluous...and, moreover, boring.redwinter wrote: I'm not referring to pretending not to use drugs in front of relatives, but actually not using them.Well, that's honest...though it remains utterly wacko. Do as you wish in this regard -- but spare the rest of us, please. It's your business. redwinter wrote: I want to convince people not to use drugs, not through posters, but through struggling with them on an ideological level.On what grounds do you think that a drug user is going to find it more pleasant to struggle with you, even on an "ideological level" (whatever that might mean), than to actually go on using the drug?The only thing that I can see is your implied promise to make life very unpleasant for the drug user if s/he doesn't listen to you and stop using drugs.Coercion...direct or implied. redwinter wrote: I think we are victims of drugs, drugs are not the forbidden fruit that we are sinners for "indulging" in.Unfortunately, most if not all drug users disagree with you about that. redwinter wrote: In China, which borders Afghanistan (#1 opium producer in the world) it is possible to grow many different kinds of drugs.Indeed it is...and I'm sure (unlike most Maoists, who regard government claims from the Mao era as "holy writ") that some domestic opium was produced and some people continued to use it all through that period. And small amounts were even imported. What really ended was the open and public mass addiction that existed under the pre-revolutionary regime. Using opium in urban areas became difficult, expensive and dangerous; producing and distributing it became even more so. (On a minor note: I'm not sure that Afghanistan had reached its current dominance in opium production in 1949; I think the northern parts of French Indo-China and Burma -- "the Golden Triangle" -- were the "industry leaders" in those days.) redwinter wrote: You're looking at it from a perspective of drugs being something that humans need and that I want to take away from them.Not "need", want. When people find an experience pleasurable, they want to repeat it. That's especially true when the amount of effort needed to repeat it is minimal -- such as ingesting a drug. You may not think that they "should" want it... but they do.redwinter wrote: I don't advocate the "smiting" of anyone for drug use. Fighting drug addiction is not the equivalent of killing people, it is the opposite of that - drugs are what is killing people.Drug use in the U.S. is occasionally fatal. But I would argue that the reasons for the fatalities are (1) illegal drugs are manufactured and packaged without pharmaceutical controls in place to insure purity and standard dosage; (2) illegal drugs are occasionally contaminated with hazardous additives; and (3) through ignorance, users occasionally take a combination of drugs that while individually harmless, prove to be lethal in combination.There's nothing there that responsible legalization could not marginalize to the vanishing point. I suspect that the "war on drugs" kills far more people -- including people in the "third world" -- than drug use does. I didn't want to let this one go by... xveganx wrote: What is "elitist" about straightedge? What's elitist about making the personal choice to abstain from drug-use and permiscuous sex?The word I think you want there is promiscuous. A personal choice is a personal choice; it's not elitist at all. But when you publicly advocate that choice, then you're saying that it's "superior" to other choices...and, by implication, that you are "superior" to those who choose other options. There's nothing wrong about making public choices and advocating them, obviously. But those public choices should be confined to public issues...which does not include who you choose to have sex with or your dietary preferences or your chemical idiosyncrasies. That stuff is your business...nobody else gives a rat's ass. If you do intrude into public space with that stuff, everyone will assume that the reason you have done that is that you desire to impose your personal choices on the public in general. And you will receive an extremely unfriendly reception. New URL: The Redstar2000 PapersRevolutionary Left Forums
|
|