The unionizing of crack dealers

[Pawn Power]

Should crack dealers unionize? That is, do you support or think it is "progress" for crack dealers to unionize? This question is more aimed at those who support unionizing in general.

[Pawn Power]

I mean to focus on the dealers on the “corner,” those that cell it to directly to the consumer after it has been grown, picked, shipped and processed.

Obviously there are problematic particularities within the nature of the work and the economic relationships themselves besides the difficulties of unionizing in general, but this is a hypothetical situation organization because as fare as I know there are no crack workers unions as understood in the traditional sense.

[Councilman Doug]

I'm for the collective organization of small coca farmers, at the very least, but I'm skeptical about some of the others.

What's the difference?

If someone's labor is exploited severly by a serpate, capital controlling, party, even if that party has been deligitamized by the ruling class, arn't they still a prolatarian?

Unless you don't support restraunt workers or truck drivers to have the right to organize to fight for their intrests aginst their bosses, then you have no reason to oppose the same rights for street dealers.

[La Comédie Noire]

Could'nt crack dealers be considered petit burgeoise? I mean unlike restaraunt workers or fast food servers they buy and own the commodity until they sell it off.

I mean when I dealed pot for a time I just bought off of a dealer and sold for a higher price than what I bought it for.

[RGacky3]

Crack dealers harm society, so I hope they don't organize.

[JKP]

It's kind of like unionized jail guards "let's vote for higher sentences so we can have increased job security!".

This is definitely reactionary.

[Xiao Banfa]

Fuck em'

[Hate Is Art]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 05, 2007 06:19 am
Couldn't crack dealers be considered petit burgeoise? I mean unlike restaraunt workers or fast food servers they buy and own the commodity until they sell it off.
I'm not sure how crack dealing works explicitly, having never bought it, or having no desire too, but I think Pawn Power is pushing towards just people selling crack on the corner for someone else, they are therefore selling their labour power for money. Making them part of the proletariat, exept for the fact that the illegality, under capitilist laws makes, of what they do makes them lumpen.

It's a tricky question, on the one hand I'm pro legalising drugs, so ideally there would be an unionized system, for people who make and sell crack, under the capitilist system. Secondly as long as it's illegal the problems that people face that force them into selling crack to get by need to be addressed, namely the failures of capitalism.

[Hiero]

What would be the goal of unionising crack dealers? Would this help the working class or harm the working class?


What's the difference?

The cocoa farmer is no different to a sugar cane farmer. In many countries they should unionise mainly to protect themselfs from the bourgeois states war on drugs, which is lead by the USA. These people are peasants/proletariat.

The "street" dealer is the lowest end of the drug chain. They have taken this job because lack of employment for the proletariat and lumpen proletariat. When the sell their drugs to the lowest class it causes health problems, physcial and psychological.


Unless you don't support restraunt workers or truck drivers to have the right to organize to fight for their intrests aginst their bosses, then you have no reason to oppose the same rights for street dealers.

Who is exploiting street dealers?

And I say no, we shouldn't unionize crack dealers. They have no productive us in society. Crack is a very harmfull route for the already oppressed. In a socialist society, with high employment and social and cultural services we would probally see the downfall of strong mind altering substance dealers. In a capitalist society we shouldn't make it any easier for drug dealers to work.

Though we shouldn't support the bourgeois' methods of fighting drugs. This results in more oppression of the proleteriat. In many cases it exacerbates the problem. Causing people to use risky methods of production, buying and consumption.

[Fawkes]

Think about who is using and buying the crack. It's usually other working-/lower-class people that are doing it. I don't think drug dealers unionizing is a good solution, I think legalizing those drugs is a good solution. Things such as crack harm the working class, and by legalizing it and offering help for people, the amount of damage done to the working class would be dramatically reduced. I'm talking about giving those addicted to crack help instead of sending them off to some jail. It would also help the working class by reducing violence in the inner-citys. Gangs fight mostly over drug/prostitue selling areas using weapons bought with money from selling drugs. Now think about what would happen if prostitution and drugs were made legal. Of course, the reason behind gangs existence goes farther than just drugs and prostitution, but legalization of those things would do nothing but help the working class.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 01:00 am
Crack dealers are most often small time illegal capitalists. Lumpen, who exploit the labor of others. They profit from the capitalist system.
That means they are part of the bourgeoisie, not the lumpen-proletariat.

[Janus]

That means they are part of the bourgeoisie, not the lumpen-proletariat.
Drug dealers certainly don't own the means of production and thus aren't bourgeois. They could only be considered petite bourgeois if they operate independently as opposed to doing drug runs for a syndicate or something.

[Janus]

Should crack dealers unionize?
I think the question is why crack dealers would unionize. An union is an organ for workers to maintain and improve their working conditions and thus seek stronger bargaining power. Many drug dealers aren't employed by someone especially the larger ones so who would they bargain with? Thus, the only type of profitable organization that they can hope to create is a cartel of some kind in order to better improve their trade that way.

[Fawkes]

Yeah, what would they unionize for? Higher prices so that the poor people who smoke crack have to pay even more and thus live in even worse conditions?

[amanondeathrow]

When the sell their drugs to the lowest class it causes health problems, physcial and psychological.

It could also be argued that alcohol causes nemerous problems for the working class. Should we not consider liquer store or brewery workers part of the prolatariat?

As you said yourself, many take up dealing crack on the street out of nessesity. They do not force people to take the drug, they simply provide a service that has been demead taboo by the ruling class.

Technically they are part of the lumpen, but why should they be treated any differnent if the only difference is the product they are selling and the conditions under which they work.


Who is exploiting street dealers?

Dealers higher up in the chain give them the crack to sell and then take a large portion of the fruits of the dealer's labor.

The street dealers are the ones who have to actually deal with the threat of arrest or violence, while the bosses are safe in their up scale homes.

Is this not exploitation?


Crack is a very harmfull route for the already oppressed.

Members of the working class are not children who need their life choices made for them.

The purpose of unionizing would not be to increase the flow of crack, but to allow street dealers to have some influence and protect their intrests.


I think legalizing those drugs is a good solution.

That's a great suggestion, but it is a way to deal with the problems of crack and not nessasirly the exploitation of the dealers.

[Fawkes]

But the ones harmed by crack greatly outnumber the amount of exploited dealers.

[BreadBros]

No. Crack is an incredibly harmful substance that is explicitly made so by dealers attempting to maximize their own profit and exploit addicted individuals. Less harmful pure cocaine or coca should be accepted but the street dealers should be smashed and their operations destroyed by any organized working-class. It is in the interest of any street dealer to get his "customers" (mostly very poor working-class people) addicted to the crack and then to exploit them economically as much as possible, even if they themselves are not the top bourgeois in the distribution chain. Furthermore they often use violence, invariably aimed at members of the working class, to "protect their interests". Currently illegal drugs should be legalized and distributed by certified medical doctors who know the effects of the drug, can provide clean methods of use and can provide immediate help to anyone wishing to stop using the drug.

[Red October]

why would crack dealers want to organize? alot of the crack trade is tied in with gangs who are opposed to each other, so how would they even go about doing this? it would be totally ineffective. many of the crack dealers who are employed by bigger dealers could be easily replaced in a society with such rampant poverty and unemployment, leading to a large pool of desperate people. another question is how would crack dealers unionize in a society where their trade is illegal? a union generally needs some sort of "above ground" prsesence to make a difference, but how can crack dealers do that? plus, crack dealers are not the easiest people for the public to sympathise with, so how would they ever get public support?