Drug dealers capitalists?

[ComradeRed]

I was discussing on live chat whether dealers are capitalists or not. We decided to continue it here.

[Guest1]

Alright, let's define a few terms using wikipedia. For this debate I will refer to the theoretical drug-dealers as "he" and "him" just cause I had already done it and noticed it too late :P

Capitalist

It is often said that a capitalist is anyone who is greedy (for this use of the word, see Miser). But in economics, a capitalist is a person who owns capital, i.e. property that earns revenue. Capitalist do not need to work for a living because they can live off their wealth. (Of course, most people want to work, so most capitalists are not idlers.)
Ok, so if a drug dealer is a Capitalist, then he would have to own capital and be able to live off his wealth. As well as the obvious one not listed here, they have to employ wage labour. Now for the purposes of this debate, we are talking about the dealers, not the mafia bosses pulling strings. I think everyone here can agree that a street dealer working for a gang is working for a boss, and a tough one at that, without any capital of his own or the option of living off his own wealth. You may not think of him as a worker, but he is not a Capitalist, so he will be ignored for this debate.

Next is the "made" dealer, the guy who deals the stuff personally, but also owns a lab or field where he pays others to mix/grow the drugs to be sold. This guy is quite clearly a boss, and owns a significant amount of capital, so there is no question he is a Capitalist. This however is not your everyday dealer and usually sells to the smaller street dealers. You will never find him on the street, and he's usually involved in such inherently labour-intensive drugs as crystal meth and the like. You will never ever meet this guy unless you work for gangs or cops or are a dealer yourself. This guy will also be ignored for this debate.

The real question here are those who could be said to own a small amount of their own capital, the "self-employed" dealers who grow a few plants in their homes and employ no one. This is your everyday dealer who you will find downtown or through a friend, usually selling weed or mushrooms or similar low-labour drugs. Drugs that require little to no processing once grown. This is the guy we want to know about.

Does he own Capital? Yes, I suppose so, but no more than you if you own a house. Can he live off his wealth? No, or else he would invest in a lab and step up into a drug business, complete with hired labourers.

So then what is he?

Petty Bourgeois

Petty bourgeoisie, or petite-bourgeoisie, is a term used by Karl Marx and Marxist theorists to refer to a class of people that would include shop-keepers and professionals. This class is distinct from the proletariat, who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival, and the haute bourgeoisie, or Capitalist class, who own the means of production and buy the labor-power of others to work it. In contrast, although the petty bourgeoisie do buy the labor power of others, they typically work alongside their own employees; although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production.
Is he petty-bourgeois? Well, some of them could be. Say a dealer grows it and sells it himself, but he decides to hire a friend to help him move the merchandise faster. He still works himself, he produces it himself, and he give his friend a cut of the profits. Furthermore, his financial situation is never guaranteed and he can't "opt out" of work at any time and just live off his accumulated wealth. He is petty-bourgeois.

What about the majority of "home-grown" dealers though? The ones who hire no one? Well, if they don't hire anyone, they can't be a boss. If they can't be a boss, then they can be neither petty-bourgeois, nor full-blown Capitalists. So now that we know what he can't be, what about what he can be. This one here is a little difficult, but here's the closest we could get to a "theoretical classification" of these minor drug dealers who are (surprise) usually the ones hurt most in police stings. Rather than the mafia bosses, who are obviously harmless and honourable business men.

Lumpenproletariat

The Lumpenproletariat (German, literally translated: rag-proletariat) is a term used by Marxists to describe the section of the proletariat that can't find legal work on a regular basis. These may be prostitutes, beggars, or homeless people.
...
Marx and Engels argued that the proletariat had a good sense of class consciousness, while the lumpenproletariat did not. The lumpenproletariat were essentially obedient to the wishes of the historical bourgeoisie (ahistorical middle class) and the aristocracy.
We can't really consider them a part of the Proletariat, because they don't sell their labour. They are, however, usually involved in the trade because of social conditions and not because they aspired to be drug dealers. They choose an illegal or underground trade because it is the only way to make a living without jumping through hoops or without the tools required in other jobs. Sometimes they may be illegal immigrants or adolescents on their own. They are also not at all "class conscious", because they are involved in no class relations to be conscious of at all. They have no boss, and no workers to exploit.

So no, drug dealers aren't Capitalists.

[ComradeRed]

As well as the obvious one not listed here, they have to employ wage labour. Now for the purposes of this debate, we are talking about the dealers, not the mafia bosses pulling strings. I think everyone here can agree that a street dealer working for a gang is working for a boss, and a tough one at that, without any capital of his own or the option of living off his own wealth. Here is where I tend to disagree, wage labor is not required to be a capitalist. Labor IS required in capital to make commodities to be sold which acquires wealth for the bourgeois, BUT the labor may come from the capitalist himself. Counterexample: automated labor is still labor, but it doesn't receive wages.

What is capital? Capital is the means which produces commodities that requires labor, e.g. a factory. However, what requires labor to produce drugs? I mean, drugs do not spontaneously appear, it has to be made. What is it made from? A raw good, of course, oftentimes called PLANTS! Growing plants indeed is a form of capital(raw capital) and changing the plants into drugs is the process which too requires labor.

Who does all this labor? The dealer. Would this disqualify him as a capitalist because he doesn't have wage labor? Well, in a sense he does! He pays himself, afterall. And he does indeed work, ergo the money paid is for labor. So he is both capitalist and laborer. I guess ;)

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:37 AM
Here is where I tend to disagree, wage labor is not required to be a capitalist.
Wrong. Wage labour is the very basis of Capitalism, it is the core of the current system and the major defining characteristic that separates it from Feudalism and Communism. In Feudalism, there is no wage labour cause the serfs are basically part of the property of the land owners, and in Communism there are no wages and no class to exploit the worker. If one is not exploiting wage labour, one cannot be a Capitalist, unless you are exploiting the fruits of previous labour, ie: living off wealth produced from rent, investments or the like.


Labor IS required in capital to make commodities to be sold which acquires wealth for the bourgeois, BUT the labor may come from the capitalist himself.
Counterexample: automated labor is still labor, but it doesn't receive wages.
If the labour comes from the employer, then he is most likely not a Capitalist, but a petit-bourgeois at the most. Someone can not be a Capitalist without exploiting wage labour in some way, directly or indirectly. Which brings me to your example. As a matter of fact, automated "labour", machines, are part of the means of production. Thus they are not considered labour, but Capital as they are a part of the process of production that is not exhausted in said process.


What is capital? Capital is the means which produces commodities that requires labor, e.g. a factory. However, what requires labor to produce drugs? I mean, drugs do not spontaneously appear, it has to be made. What is it made from? A raw good, of course, oftentimes called PLANTS! Growing plants indeed is a form of capital(raw capital) and changing the plants into drugs is the process which too requires labor.
As I said in my response, we are not referring to "labour-intensive" drugs, we are referring to drugs that are sold pretty much "as is": Marijuana, Psiloscyben Mushrooms and the like, where the only labour involved is the growing and a little drying and no "product" is made from it. The other relevant drugs are Hashish and the like, were there is a little more labour involved, but it is comparable to the labour involved in making jam. Regardless, this doesn't matter. You are merely proving that he is a labourer. As for the plants, natural resources cannot really be considered capital, but the materials involved could (hydroponics, etc...). However, as I said before, this is a very minute amount of capital when we speak of a home grow operation. It's comparable to calling your computer capital and not enough to condemn him with the label "Capitalist", which implies class animosity that simply does not exist.


Who does all this labor? The dealer.
Precisely!


Would this disqualify him as a capitalist because he doesn't have wage labor? Well, in a sense he does! He pays himself, afterall. And he does indeed work, ergo the money paid is for labor. So he is both capitalist and laborer. I guess ;)
He does not pay himself a wage, nor profit from the surplus value of his own labour at the expense of... himself? He cannot exploit himself, because he is himself. He cannot fire himself to hire someone else. He has none of the required characteristics of a boss. Nor does he own any significant capital to speak of. Nor can he choose to live off his accumulated wealth and stop working.

Thus, he is not a Capitalist, nor a petty-bourgeois.

[ComradeRed]

Wrong. Wage labour is the very basis of CapitalismI do not contest this, but I maintain that a capitalist may or may not use wage labor. The requirements to be a capitalist does not require anything more than the ownership of capital. This is one of the main differences between capitalism and feudalism, the industrial revolution created more capital than just artisan-shops and farms/mines (i.e. land).


If the labour comes from the employer, then he is most likely not a Capitalist, but a petit-bourgeois at the most.No, because the drug dealer owns and labors the capital. In this case the capital is the plants which turn into drugs. He too labors on creating the drugs, the commodity from the capital sold for money. Does a petit-bourgeois own property? No, but a capitalist does!


Someone can not be a Capitalist without exploiting wage labour in some way, directly or indirectly. I disagree, one can be a capitalist and choose to hire people with the exploiting wage etc. OR choose not to hire anyone. THe latter the capitalist gets richer the former he doesn't get as much, in theory. That is if he works as hard as several dozen people.


As a matter of fact, automated "labour", machines, are part of the means of production. I totally disagree, there can be totally automated factories, would this simply be the means of production without any labor? Well, no. Labor is needed to create a commodity as marx pointed out, or else there would be no use-value and hence no exchange-value. Ergo, wage labor is not needed for a capitalist to be one.


As for the plants, natural resources cannot really be considered capital, but the materials involved could (hydroponics, etc...). I believe Marx called it natural capital. The process which makes the drugs, i.e. the means of production needed to do so, would be the "real" capital. But both are still capital, nonetheless.


He does not pay himself a wage, nor profit from the surplus value of his own labour at the expense of... himself? He cannot exploit himself, because he is himself. He cannot fire himself to hire someone else. He has none of the required characteristics of a boss. I said he was both capitalist and worker, I didn't say anything about being a boss.

[Individual]

If you deal drugs, you are practising capitalism. You cannot justify a drug dealer as some sort of worker.

You didn't really think that capitalists in fact did nothing but sit on their ass and make money did you? Of course he works, most just forget it.


If I start effectively selling candy bars, heavily increasing profits all in benefit of myself, would I be Marxist?

End of discussion.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 12:25 PM
I do not contest this, but I maintain that a capitalist may or may not use wage labor.
Well, you can think that, but from a Marxist point of view it's just not right. I explained to you the reasons for this, but I'll try once again.

To be a Capitalist, one must:
*benefit from wage labour either directly or indirectly. Either by employing wage-slavery, profiting unjustly from other people's labour, or by profiting off of previous labour such as Capital gained from wage slavery.

and:

*have the priviliged position in this society that even petty-bourgeois employers are not afforded, the ability to opt out of work entirely and the option to simply live off of one's accumulated wealth. Of course this too can be traced to previously exploited labour, be it inheritance from a Capitalist father or saving up from previous exploitation.


The requirements to be a capitalist does not require anything more than the ownership of capital. This is one of the main differences between capitalism and feudalism, the industrial revolution created more capital than just artisan-shops and farms/mines (i.e. land).
False. In today's society, many of the more priviliged workers own Capital. Especially if they work in a company that provides "stock-options" to their workers as an incentive. These things are designed to blur class-distinctions precisely to achieve the effect you are giving them. If one is unsure where the class lines fall, one doesn't know whose interests lie where, and it make class unity that much harder. Point is, you wouldn't consider a worker at starbucks a Capitalist. Thus this definition is false.


No, because the drug dealer owns and labors the capital. In this case the capital is the plants which turn into drugs. He too labors on creating the drugs, the commodity from the capital sold for money. Does a petit-bourgeois own property? No, but a capitalist does!
Most people own property, worker, petit-bourgeois or Capitalist. Petit-bourgeois definitely do own Capital, if that was what you meant.


I disagree, one can be a capitalist and choose to hire people with the exploiting wage etc. OR choose not to hire anyone. THe latter the capitalist gets richer the former he doesn't get as much, in theory. That is if he works as hard as several dozen people.
How often have you heard of a "Capitalist" working on his own and becoming sucessful? Once again, without the necessary class dynamic between employing class and working class, there can be no Capitalist. If he does it himself there's no exploitation, no surplus value, so there is no way you could reasonably consider him a Capitalist.


I totally disagree, there can be totally automated factories, would this simply be the means of production without any labor? Well, no. Labor is needed to create a commodity as marx pointed out, or else there would be no use-value and hence no exchange-value. Ergo, wage labor is not needed for a capitalist to be one.
Wrong again. There are no totally automated factories just yet. All machines still need workers and engineers to function properly. They need maintanence, they need programming, they need operating by a human hand. Thus, you are twisting and reaching. Machines are never considered "labour".


I believe Marx called it natural capital. The process which makes the drugs, i.e. the means of production needed to do so, would be the "real" capital. But both are still capital, nonetheless.
A miniscule amount of capital, which, once again is less than the mediocre stock options some labourers get. You are blowing this "capital" way out of proportion. Remember we're talking about 5 or 6 small plants in a bedroom here.


I said he was both capitalist and worker, I didn't say anything about being a boss.
No, you didn't but you spoke of him paying himself a wage, implying a boss. It doesn't really matter though, cause all Capitalists are bosses. One cannot be both Capitalist and worker.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 12:32 PM
If you deal drugs, you are practising capitalism. You cannot justify a drug dealer as some sort of worker.
First, I said he was lumpenproletariat. Next, you are wrong. Yeah... I'll say it just like that cause judging from your post you either didn't read or didn't understand my post. You have no understanding of class distinctions or what exactly makes a Capitalist a Capitalist.


You didn't really think that capitalists in fact did nothing but sit on their ass and make money did you? Of course he works, most just forget it.
The point isn't whether he does or not, the point is that he has the option not to. Capitalists are unique in this regard. This drug dealer clearly has no such option.

Uggh... that quote just made my stomach queasy.


If I start effectively selling candy bars, heavily increasing profits all in benefit of myself, would I be Marxist?
No one here has said anything about increasing profits. The drug dealer simply does not have that choice in most cases, prices for weed are pretty uniform for the average joe schmoe. He offers discounts, doesn't raise his prices.

Furthermore, you didn't produce those chocolate bars. You profited from someone else's labour.

And finally, this debate is not about if the drug dealer's a Marxist, it's about if he is a Capitalist. Not as in whether he supports Capitalism or not, but as in if he is a part of the Capitalist Class. So nothing in your analogy makes sense.

Didn't you say you were a debater? Brush up on your method in manipulating analogies.


End of discussion.
Unless you provide some actual evidence grounded in economic reality and marxist theory, yeah.

[refuse_resist]

Are drug dealers capitalists? Well, that all depends.

If it's someone who's selling bags of weed here and there, or grows some plants at home, the answer is no.

Now if we're talking about gangs and the mob, who are always at quarrel with one another and have other people sell their drugs for them, the answer is yes. They are the equivalent to any capitalist who owns the means of production, since many of them have other people do things for them (i.e. setup drug labs for them, grow their crops, etc.)

[DaCuBaN]

I don't think we can apply a blanket rule to say that drug dealers are capitalists: Different people adopt a different strategy dependant on their mindset.

I certainly know that my dealer is no capitalist: He grows and occasionally buys in, but he still has to work for a living - he cannot live of his capital. He has no capital. Yet he supplies the majority of the area that I live in...

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:55 PM
If it's someone who's selling bags of weed here and there, or grows some plants at home, the answer is no.

Now if we're talking about gangs and the mob, who are always at quarrel with one another and have other people sell their drugs for them, the answer is yes. They are the equivalent to any capitalist who owns the means of production, since many of them have other people do things for them (i.e. setup drug labs for them, grow their crops, etc.)
Exactly. I think ComradeRed here is allowing his own personal impression of drugdealers, maybe that they seek wealth and some are greedy, to mix with his view of where they are in the social hierarchy. One need not be a Capitalist to be greedy. No one is saying "drug dealers are comrades!", quite the contrary, we're saying they side with the bourgeoisie because that's what lumpenproletariat do. They're isolated from class conflict so how would they develop class consciousness?

That doesn't make them capitalists though, they are clearly lumpenproletariat. At least in the case we speak of, the one man grow op.

[Hampton]

I agree pretty much with what refuse_resist said. I think it was Nino Brown in New Jack City who said something like:

I mean, c'mon, let's kick
the ballistics here: Ain't no Uzi's made in Harlem.
Not one of us in here owns a poppy field. This thing
is bigger than Nino Brown. This is big
business. This is the American way.

And I don't think because he wants money that that would make him a capitalist. I mean when you grow up poor, without an education or job you think that having money will fix it all, so there's the easy way of doing it, polluting your brothers and sisters with drugs to make some short money. It is ignorance and the glamification (if that's a word) of having money when people around you are on poor.

I also agree with CyM 118.5%.

[dotcommie]

drug dealing is the ultimate capitalisrt activity it is pure profit, not too mention drugs to me are required as a release from society and he is selling you this release for extortionate costs,

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:32 PM
If you deal drugs, you are practising capitalism. You cannot justify a drug dealer as some sort of worker.

You didn't really think that capitalists in fact did nothing but sit on their ass and make money did you? Of course he works, most just forget it.


If I start effectively selling candy bars, heavily increasing profits all in benefit of myself, would I be Marxist?

End of discussion.
Hes not the drug lord, but he is selling and making money off the product of someone else's labor.

[Guest1]

No, we defined context, we are speaking about your everyday dealer most people will meet, someone who grows at home and employs only his own labour. He is doing this to survive and it usually is either in place of a job or as a source of supplimentary income. He can't live on his ass.

In such a case, he cannot be defined as anything other than lumpenproletariat.

If he employed one or two people, and worked a bit himself, he would be petty bourgeois. Again, this kind of dealer makes a decent amount but can't live off of accumulated labour, either someone else's labour directly or accumulated labour in the form of capital.

The third kind is the mob boss or the like, who owns drug factories or plantations with paid labourers at different stages of production. This is the Capitalist. This guy can sit back and bark orders, or even just sleep at home and hire someone else to manage, and he could live the rest of his life securely. He is above the forces of wage labour, if he chooses to be.

We are speaking of the first type, but it is good to know the destinctions between all.