It's not exactly news that alcoholism is a problem, especially in slavic countries, and traditionally socialists have seen it as such (eg it was an agenda-item for the planned 1914 Vienna congress of the Socialist International, for which its chairman Emile Vandervelde prepared a document).

I'm not aware of any specific communist, or just scientific-rational, objections against a general policy of discouragement, up to banning of alcohol and other drugs. If we plan and organise production of foods, then we'll make choices too, eg whether the mass production of refined sugars is justifiable. Assuming we all agree on this, then perhaps your question is about the most effective policies to tackle alcoholism? "Abolishing" the brewery industry would require to train its employees into something else. Perhaps they can bottle some more healthy drinks instead.

In season 4 of The Simpsons there is an episode about Homer trying to stay sober. One joke (clip) has him watching a baseball game, and he realises how boring a game it is.

So, if you hanging out with friends is really so much fun, then also without alcohol it should be fun. Or, if the fun can be only "artificially" induced, then hanging out with your friends was not actual fun.

I didn't propose a definition of 'fun'. Perhaps your reproach is that I (personally) do not know what fun is. I don't think you would try such a cheap insult. Or perhaps your reproach is that we (in general) don't have a definition of fun? That can't be it either, because trying to define what fun is, would probably be considered an authoritarian way of thinking for you, or maybe it's just impossible to provide a definition of such a broad activity as 'liking' to do things. But if it's impossible to define, then how does one know alcohol-consumption is 'fun'? Perhaps it's not 'fun' really, but 'fun' is just a cover, that no reasonable people could oppose. Who would oppose 'fun'? Answer: only bad people. The bad people are trying to take away the fun...

d-man wrote:

I didn't propose a definition of 'fun'. Perhaps your reproach is that I (personally) do not know what fun is. I don't think you would try such a cheap insult. Or perhaps your reproach is that we (in general) don't have a definition of fun? That can't be it either, because trying to define what fun is, would probably be considered an authoritarian way of thinking for you, or maybe it's just impossible to provide a definition of such a broad activity as 'liking' to do things. But if it's impossible to define, then how does one know alcohol-consumption is 'fun'? Perhaps it's not 'fun' really, but 'fun' is just a cover, that no reasonable people could oppose. Who would oppose 'fun'? Answer: only bad people. The bad people are trying to take away the fun...

Having read over your original comment again, I think I defintiely overreacted! All you did was provide an anecdote from The Simpsons which is a show I love.

I stand by the rest of what I said though, whilst also recognising that the mentality I criticise isn't neccessarily 'your' mentality.

d-man wrote:

Is pub life/drinking an essential part of the working class' social life? If I recall correctly in Weimar Germany the taverns were a place where the Nazis exercised their influence in neighbourhoods. But on the other hand, perhaps the large "Beer Halls" (in contrast to tiny pubs) were indeed good places for political organising, ie for socialists. I don't know for the past, but for today, I mostly don't associate them with places for organising. When I maintain that such "social places", where one can have "fun", can exist without alcohol, then I should address, how the pub will make money? Most pubs, I would guess, don't make much money already. In communism such places will not have to worry about making money, and so they would not need to sell alcohol (as their prime business).

Certainly, the pub, up to a year ago occupied an important place in the community amongst my friends and family, and as soon as we're allowed in then it will regain this significance.

Obviously, however, if I was from a Muslim background then I'd be far less likely to care for pub clulture/drinking.

So I don't think it's right to speak of a 'working class' mono-culture. Ultimately, we aim for a classless society and a community of freely associated individuals to me this will mean the great explosion of many, many different ways of living and 'cultures'. These should be allowed to develop/wither-away organically, without anyone getting to decide does this have a 'place' in communist society. 

But yeah, putting the pub in the crosshairs of examination, it's gonna elicit a few knee-jerk reaction from folk like me

d-man wrote:

Can you explain the appeal, ie what does alcohol add to the fun of a company of friends? I don't get it. Surely you had lots of fun with childhood friends, before you became of drinking age? And you mention family, but presumably pubs are not okay for children, and how many mothers (single or even married) are in the pub?

Does it have to be explained really? Either you like it or you don't. I'm sure you've perhaps got some hobbies/interests which wouldn't appeal to me, but I wouldn't expect you to have to justify them. And sure perhaps you feel pubs arent okay for children ( I was in one enough times as a child, btw), but does absolutely everything everywhere need to be PG Friendly fun for all the family? 

With regards to mothers in the pub, I would guess it's harder to be in the pub if you've got 24/7 childcare responsibilities. Perhaps in a less patriarchal society, with a better 'work/life' balance or even an end to such dichtomies, maybe mothers would go down to the pub more often. 

In the interests of humoring you I will tell you why I like drinking in the pub - as a place, I like it as it enables you to see people in your community - not just your friends but also other acquaintances who you might not otherwise contact. The truth is booze does, in my experience, loosen people up, and having a drink with my pals in the pub, well it's fun to me.

Human beings have been collectively getting mashed on drink/drugs for a long long time - it's not just a product of capitalism - although I would argue that the more extreme cases of addiction are indeed a product of the alienation inherent in capitalist society.

Maybe my love of the pub is sad and pathetic, but so what? 

Let us have our 'lumpen' pleasures :)

d-man wrote:

 By "loosing up" I could imagine just increased talk, more talkative, likely in the form of rambling conversation, ie bullshit, that is forgotten the next day. Perhaps you just like having the attention of a listening ear to your ramble, or you like being the ear for someone else's ramble. Perhaps these contacts convey significant information about the community life, that is, gossip, but then, that can be done by sober old church ladies, ie "spilling the tea" as it is called. If you think drinking alcohol is so much fun, then it should be a pleasure to have the opportunity to express some deeper reflection on it.

You're not far off - yes there's a lot of chit chat, mutual rambling - but it doesn't have to be stupid. I'd often have the same types of conversation I'd have on here in the pub. Or not. Or maybe just play a game of pool. Or maybe drink so much you end up singing and dancing and making a fool of yourself.

The truth is I am as militant about daftness, about silliness and good humour and all sorts of reckless abandon, as I am in my political attachment to the communist movement. 

I'm sure there's actually quite a humorous account out there of one of Karl Marx's own pub crawls across london...

d-man wrote:

It's possible to play pool, sing and dance, without alcohol. Making a fool of yourself is not difficult either without alcohol. I do not think alcohol is required in order to enable singing, dancing and chit chat, to make these activities "more fun", or in order for them to become classified as "reckless abandon" /making a fool of yourself. I think nowadays in themselves these activities (singing, dancing, chit chat, and so on) are considered ridiculous/embarrasing. That is, if a sober person now would sing and dance, you would consider them deranged (/schizo) – because how can a sober person be so happy in this world. We rarely see people sooo happy, that they dance/sing/chit-chat whilest sober. Genuine, non-artificially induced, fun, is considered perhaps even a threatening sign of sociopathy/harassment.

In the kindest way possible, what point are you actually trying to make here? That you can have fun without alcohol - yeah absolutely I agree. Some people just prefer to do all them things AND have a drink. Let them have their fun. 

And no, I wouldn't consider anyone deranged for any of the above.

'Genuine, non-artificially induced fun' - who gets to decide what is 'genuine'?

I appreciate, that yes, perhaps discouraging alcohol is a good thing. But alcohol/drugs are not the only intoxicants.

I would also class the following as intoxicants of sorts:

Religion, Unhealthy food, POLITICS (even this one - we all have our political views, wishes and activities, but it gets tiring, being 'switched on' all the time), TV, even the pursuit of knowledge and truth become intoxicants.

If we start acting as arbiters of 'fun' or 'morality' we'll have an endless and fruitless task.

How should we live? It's so hard to say - for me all we can do is strive for a world which allows for the free development of all. 

My defence is that basically that people should generally get what they want. For as long as people want booze there will be booze. For as long as people want pubs there will be both.

If, as you say, drinking culture is a way of overcoming social stigmas, then I'm sure we can agree it's important to look at the conditions of that society - ie capitalist society.

If we accept that drinking culture is a product of an alienated existence within capitalist society then surely a revolutionary change in that society would, over time, see the love of drinking/pub culture gradually disappear. So be it, if that is the case, but it should be allowed to happen organically.

Personally, I'm not so sure it is merely a product of an alienated existence within capitalism. Sure that's part of it, but humans have been drinking as a communal activity for a long long time so perhaps some people within the field of anthropology might have more interesting answers than I, just some bloke who likes the pub!

Even in more tribal/indigenous societies, which exist on a kind of primitive communism, different types of communal intoxication exist. It's an old old thing, us humans been doing it a long time (some of us anyway)

Nonetheless, I appreciate your critique insofar as its given me thought about my own behaviour.

d-man wrote:

When you insist that 'people' should get what they want (as your defence), and that this want should only 'organically' change/disappear, it seems you conceive what the culture/society wants (/accepts/teaches) is automatically determined by (economic/social) conditions, and that in communism people cannot make choices about how they determine the society. Or, if I misinterpret you, and you do grant autonomy in this field (and I cannot see otherwise, for planning of production is set by the people), then, like I said in my OP in this thread, of course 'we the people' can decide to stop production of alcoholic beverages. So far I see only advantages for a decision to abolish alcohol industry.

Btw, now the total worth of the alcoholic beverage industry (as world market) is worth quite more than the total worth of the pharmaceutical industry, so think how much resources would be freed up.

What I mean is, there will always be people who want alcohol, thus the industry would remain, even if in a reduced form. As I see it, the only way in which the industry would stop is if absolutely nobody wanted any part in it - that ain't gonna happen. 

I don't see prohibiton going any better than in did in 1930s USA, and ultimately would unnneccessarily alienate people. 

But I'm not trying to convince you of the benefits of alcohol - I'm just saying even in a communist society there will still be people wanting a drink. At that point all that matters is that there are enough people wanting to actually work in the industry.

d-man wrote:

The existence of people with a certain opinion, doesn't in itself validate that opinion as correct. Here we're talking about preference of consumption (+resource allocation for production), not an opinion, or is a consumption-preference actually an opinion, or more precisely, is a consumption preference/liking based on an opinion (ie argument)? You answer, that a preference/liking should not require an argument (/justification/opinion). Perhaps the question is, do (in reality) preferences have an underlying opinion/reasoning. Btw, when you appreciate this discussion for having given you 'thought about your own behaviour', you herewith classified consumption as a form of behaviour, though it is not just a behaviour (of yourself), but also of others (namely social resource allocation toward alcohol production). If what you preferred was to do merely an activity (eg sing and dance), it would require no resource allocation. So does a preference for resource allocation (ie planning production) require any justification? When you said that these decisions should be made 'organically', then it means, without conscious reasoning?

 

I gotta be honest d-man I can't keep up with the intensity of this debate

One cannot so easily propose frivolous experiments when it is a question of health (eg dubious medications by pharmaceutical companies). People deserve good food, and even from within a pro-alcohol standpoint, most beers probably are poor-quality.

Tagore2 wrote:

Lots of discussion since I was away! Here is my response to Communist:

This is because you do not view "recreational" mind-altering drugs as weapons of war. During the Vietnam War, the Vietcong favored drug trafficking within the US military in order to degrade, weaken and demoralize it.

Recreational psychotropic drugs are chemical weapons, like insecticides used against ants. To combat the ants, you use a special drug, poisoned honey, which makes the ants addicting. The ants bring the poison back to the anthill on their own, and when the queen eats it, the anthill is ruined.

So the question is, what is the social and military function of alcohol within the framework of the class struggle? Health issues, often put forward by the bourgeoisie, are actually quite secondary to political and military considerations.

When the class struggle intensifies, recreational psychotropic drugs will necessarily be used as weapons of war. Prohibition becomes a necessary protective measure of the military, as a helmet can stop a shrapnel. Alcohol and psychotropic drugs, in times of intense stress, are a powerful means of dissolving the army. Alcohol consumption, or on the contrary prohibition, has often been a decisive factor in military operations. For example, during the capture of the Winter Palace, the Red Guards captured completely drunk White Guards.

Outside of periods of intense class struggle, notably civil war, alcohol and psychotropic drugs are less problematic. That's why I wouldn't blame you for going to the pub if it makes you happy. I just want to bring the discussion to the political, military and class struggle levels, because that is where the issue interests me.

Oh sure yeah - I get you mentioned it in a different context. I was responding more to d-man who was talking about a communist society.