This will probably be one of Rainer’s most controversial articles to date.

  • @Lemmy_Mouse
    link
    1
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    “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.

    • @freagle
      link
      011 months ago

      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.

      • @Lemmy_Mouse
        link
        011 months ago

        “People use drugs because of poverty? You’re ridiculous”

        The generally held line of Marxists is ridiculous, no that notion that you know better than the community including our elder comrades who have raised successful revolutions and held this view is ridiculous. You’re the one who should look inward.

        Drug use and drug addiction are not the same. Drugs enhance experiences, the rich use drugs to make their world even better and use occasionally (as evidenced by the fact their business empires still exist, drugs impair one’s ability to think and reason, their empires would have been crushed by competition if they were addicts. And no, drugs isn’t what makes someone immoral, economic interests are, so ruthlessness is not evidence to the contrary as some may believe possibly you possibly not), the poor use them to escape misery and because the misery is constant BECAUSE POVERTY IS CONSTANT, they are dependent upon these drugs. They are not the same.

        “Seriously, Mouse. You’re in for a ride awakening when you finally figure out that your bullshit doesn’t match reality.” I welcome this hypothetical day as a chance to improve my theory, however as it stands today I am proven more and more correct. This may change this may not.

        “I’m writing you off as a lost cause.”

        Agreed. Then allow us to part ways.