From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Colombia Newsbriefs 12/9 ed-lp
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:17:52 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

Oreste Piro writes:

>In article <20347@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:

>> What in hell is becoming of us?  Now communists are saying say yes to drugs!
>>
>> Edelmiro

>No, Edel, no, we capitalists are saying that. Market, as usual would
>easily and quickly provide us with good solutions to the drug problem
>as it did to everyone else. It is only necesary to let the market act
>without any interferences, unlike the comunist countries where everything
>is ruled and regulated. Free and complete legalization of the whole
>drug business all the way from raw materials production to distribution and
>consumption would push the prices so way down that it would immediately
>cese to be a profitable activity but a very togh on to live on.

Oreste,

There are those like you who believe, after 12 years of Reagan Bush, that 
capitalism is stateless, that we should live the dream of Mr. Smith and not 
that of Mr. Keynes.  Well, unfortunately, I must inform you  that capitalism 
has a human face, and that the state is there to lay out the rules of the game 
in order to avert catastrophic depressions and intolerable working conditions 
that lead to anarchy.  It is curious that Marx himself wrote about a workers 
underclass, the lumpenproletariat, which was untrustworthy since its mere 
existence dependen on laissez fair capitalism.  It included all "workers" 
involved in illicit enterprises:  hookers, junkies and pushers, professional 
gamblers, are all part of this "working class" of lumpen.  Likewise, as there 
are legitimate capitalists, you can also find the illegitimate ones, the 
lumpenbourgeoise who make a profit from the lumpenproletariat.  So, I guess the 
drug cartel is part of such a class in Marxian terms.  Of course in a Marxian
utopia there will be no classes, so all poletariats (lumpen or otherwise)  
will dissappear.  As Lenin preached the means to arrive at such utopia 
(establishing the "dictaroship of the proletariat") it became clearer to 
comunist that the dictatorship of the party was a more realistic enterprise, 
and as state capitalists who dictated (not regulated) production, they would 
have to decide on wheater to legitimize the lumpen's activities and they 
certainly did. While
communists condemned the lumpen in the open (on ideologial grounds) the 
preserved its place within society and incorporated its bourgeoise into the 
ruling class.  It seems to be very difficult to find one single marxist party 
in LA  which does not profit from the drug trade, and some now even invoke 
arguments from the first capitalist theoreticians to prove their point.  They 
quote Regan's deregulatory policies to prove their point.  However they forget 
that in practice, Regan did not "de-regulate" anything, he simply changed the 
standards, but  reserved Federal control over the matters which he was 
affecting.  The FAA still rules and regulates the airline industry.  The FCC 
still imposes limited censorship over the airwaves. The FDIC still rules over 
the Banks.  So, as we can see Regan's rhetorica was all but that, rhetoric.  
So, I suggest that these communists who are now posing as capitalist 
nationalists, to please read some manual on political economy (Ernest Mandel 
would do), before making the claim that "free" market capitalism is stateless 
capitalism.

>In parallel, being widely available in
>the mass market, will deprive drugs of its current appeal to the snobish
>upper middle class jerks that make up the main part of the consuming force.
>Instead of smoking or ihaling what any single niger or latino can get
>in the department store for 3 cents, our nice wite anglo-saxon kids will
>become even more addict than they are today to helthy life, eating kollesterol
>free Mac Donnalds, running 80 milles a day and going to the gym to develope
>strong muscles that will allow them to triturate any commie that might have
>been left around.

Perhaps, but as you might expect we don't want anybody hooked on drugs, not 
even or white middle class jerks who believe in "socialism" . We wouldn't want 
this since the leadership of communist organizations as drug addicts, would 
have more power as armed gang leaders than what they currently have.  I would 
certainly be worried to see Sister Soulja, or any white Anglo counterpart, 
leading the L.A. gangs into combat a la Somali technicals, chewing khat.

>Yes, blacks and latinos will keep doing coke for a little longer but if
>you consider that they are now poisoning themselves with crack, they
>will be much much better off. Lastima, we should have get rid of few
>more of them before the legalization... they will survive now.

Yeah.  Fidel Castro must be worried, he'll be out of buisiness soon if we 
legalize cocaine.  He won't be able to make his island a staging area for drug 
shipments and whats left of his shabby economy will collapse, cause whores for 
a few canadians won't be able to prop up the entire economy.

Edelmiro.