this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
45 points (97.9% liked)

History

23490 readers
38 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
WhoaSlowDownMaurice@hexbear.net
thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
CARCOSA@hexbear.net
45
Prohibition Wasn’t About Morality—It Was About Control (ko-fi.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) by TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee to c/history@hexbear.net
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

They said it was for the children. For the families. For the soul of America.

But Prohibition wasn’t a war on alcohol—it was a war on the people.

It wasn’t about virtue. It wasn’t about safety.

It was never about saving anyone.

It was about power. About profit. And about punishing the very people it claimed to protect.

Just released my first Special Edition eBook:

Prohibition and the Profit Motive – How the U.S. Sold Control as Virtue

This $5 eBook version helps me keep going.

It funds the next piece.

It keeps the lights on—literally.

Can’t swing $5?

Even a $1 tip makes a bigger difference than you think.

Can’t support at all? Please share this with someone who needs to know.

Thank you for being here.

Every view, every read, every repost—

you’re helping me fight back with facts.

This is a radical 9-page microhistory that exposes:

  • How Prohibition was used to criminalize poverty, independence, and rebellion
  • How women’s pain was exploited to justify surveillance
  • How the government knowingly poisoned its own people—and got away with it
  • And how all of it echoes in today’s drug war, overdose crisis, and profiteering off pain

Included in the Special Edition:

  • Letter from the Author
  • Full design and printable formatting
  • A haunting “Then vs Now” historical photo spread
  • Extended commentary not included in the free version

Free version here (education should be accessible): Prohibition and the Profit Motive: How the US Sold Control as Virtue Standard PDF

Special Edition ($5+, supports the work): Prohibition and the Profit Motive – eBook Special Edition

This was written, researched, designed, and formatted by one person—no team, no budget, just rage, tabs, and truth. If you believe in history that hits back, this is for you.

—The Mad Philosopher

_Subject Index: 

Origins of the Temperance Movement, Feminist advocacy and state betrayal, Racialized and class-based enforcement of Prohibition, Government-sanctioned poisoning, Surveillance and control policies, Economic exploitation of addiction, The War on Drugs as a legacy system, Pharmaceutical profiteering and opioid crisis, The commodification of pain, Resistance, rebellion, and reclaiming history_

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Just want to say—thank you to everyone who showed up in this thread. Whether you agreed, challenged, clarified, or added something new: this is exactly what I hoped would happen.

I’ve been upvoting every comment (even the ones I don’t agree with) because engagement is the point.

We don’t have to all think the same—but if we can hold space for conversation like this, without falling into chaos or ego, then we’re already breaking the script they wrote for us.

So yeah—thank you for thinking out loud with me. Keep questioning. Keep resisting. And keep talking to each other. This is what remembering looks like.

[–] Enjoyer_of_Games@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you have an epub version?

Also can you upload somewhere besides google docs which tracks anyone who clicks on the link (and is able to link to a real identity more effectively than any other host).

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Great questions—thank you for asking!

I’m currently working on a proper EPUB version for the eBook (shouldn’t be long now), and I completely feel you on the privacy front.

I used Google Docs temporarily for access, but I’m planning to switch to Payhip or Ko-Fi file hosting soon so people can download directly with no tracking.

I’ll update the post as soon as that’s in place. Appreciate you looking out—this is exactly the kind of awareness we need more of.

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty sure it was also about appeasing a hatchet wielding syphilitic incel puritan, Carrie A. Nation.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

LMAO not the syphilitic Puritan angle! I’m crying. But yeah—for real, Carrie Nation and the hyper-moralist crowd were absolutely a factor. And that’s what made the system so effective: it was easy to rally people around a symbol of “virtue,” even when the underlying policies were violent and self-serving. Empire’s always had a talent for finding the loudest moralist to hide behind.

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

American “culture” is anti-fun, more at 11.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Right?? If it brings joy or freedom, they regulate it.

But if it makes money or keeps people numb? Green light all the way.

[–] cattywampas@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It was about morality. This wasn't some conspiracy by lawmakers to suppress the general population. There was a huge temperance movement worldwide in the 19th century that was very popular among the general population, and alcohol consumption was arguably a pretty big problem in lots of places.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Totally hear you—yeah, the temperance movement was real, and alcohol abuse was absolutely devastating in a lot of communities. I know that personally, too—I’m a recovering alcoholic. So I’m not pro-alcohol in any way.

But what I’m unpacking in this piece isn’t about whether alcohol is good or bad—it’s about how morality gets weaponized by power.

The public may have pushed for prohibition from a place of real concern, but the way it was implemented—the violence, the profiteering, the way it disproportionately harmed marginalized people—that wasn’t driven by purity. That was a moral cause hijacked by empire.

So yeah, I’ve got my own values about this. But I’m laying out facts, patterns, and historical receipts so we can all look a little deeper than just surface-level intentions.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It can be both. Popular movements are often used and diverted by the wealthy and connected to attack and suppress the general population, rather than assist and help them. It really depends on the actual government priority, suppression of behavior or assistance with recovery and investigation of the actual root causes.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago

100% agree with this—it can be both. That’s the pattern. A genuine movement arises, then gets rerouted by those with power to serve their own goals. The real question is: who benefits when morality becomes law? If it’s not the people most affected, it’s probably control disguised as compassion.

[–] LMDNW@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Morality has always been subjective, especially religion based morality. Governing bodies are inherently preoccupied with exerting as much control as possible over the governed. This is why it’s so important for the government to not hold a monopoly on the threat of violence.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Yes—exactly this. When morality becomes a tool of the state, it’s almost never about actual ethics—it’s about justifying control.

I say that as someone who’s a recovering alcoholic. I’ve seen firsthand how moral panic gets used to punish people rather than help them heal.

Prohibition was sold as virtue, but it became a weapon. And that’s the pattern across history: state-sanctioned morality always hides a power structure underneath.

You’re right—it’s not about belief, it’s about obedience. And violence is the enforcement mechanism. That’s why these conversations matter.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What do y’all think we still aren’t being told the truth about?

If they could sell Prohibition as virtue and get away with poisoning people—

What else do we accept as “normal” that’s actually built on control and profit?

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What else do we accept as “normal” that’s actually built on control and profit?

Private property.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago

This whole subthread is gold. Honestly, I’m just here nodding along. Housing, land, even access to basic space—so much of what we call “freedom” is just choosing between systems of control. The bigger question is: what would it take to decommodify survival itself? That’s where my brain’s been lately.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How in your view would housing work in lieu of private property? Not trying to troll, genuinely curious on this viewpoint.

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Housing is state-owned and operates at cost as a public utility. Homes and apartments are built, maintained, and allocated based on need.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (3 children)

So basically I don't get to choose my home, a bureaucrat chooses it for me?

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Bureaucrats already decide where you can and can't live under capitalism. They're called credit agencies, landlords, and banks. The difference is that under communism you're guaranteed a home and 30% of your income doesn't go into the bank account of a useless finance parasite.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Fair enough. Under such a system, would I be allowed to build my own home? Or in a state-issued home, would I be allowed to modify the home to suit my tastes? I ask because I've been in construction most of my life as an electrician, and my dream is to define a custom space that I'm not about to be yoinked out of on a whim, as i have with homes I've rented. I enjoy my rural lifestyle, and all I want is an acre to do whatever I want on, raise some livestock, and to be left alone.

This is pretty much everything I've been putting my effort towards in the last 15 years. I'm tired of dealing with what's available and just want to build. Nothing gaudy or ostentatious, mind you, but a simple and comfortable house for my family. I can do damn near all the work myself, but the costs just keep jumping ahead of what I can presently afford at every step.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

Under such a system, would I be allowed to build my own home?

In the USSR, for example, people were given plots of land in addition to their homes. Pretty sure that you could opt to build housing there the way you would want. Even if I am incorrect on that last part, a relevant system seems perfectly workable.

[–] Enjoyer_of_Games@hexbear.net 20 points 1 day ago

You would choose your home from those available to you. What is available to you would be decided by a system attempting to balance the diverse range of requirements and preferences of the society that you are in.

You may notice that this generic answer describes both a hypothetical state-owned housing system and the private housing market that you are probably all ready in. The only difference is how and for whom that system works. In the hypothetical socialist society the allocation might be decided by a bureaucrat or it might be voted on or maybe some other way, who can say it is a hypothetical society after all.

The home you are in now though you chose based on your preferences but also what you could afford. Who decided what housing to build and how it should be priced? Who decided how much you should be paid? Who and importantly for whom decided what the laws regarding housing would be? You chose your home but you did not choose the conditions in which you chose it. These are the means by which a capitalist chose your home for you.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

That's better than what we have right now where you don't get to choose your home because you can't even own a home period. At best, you can pick which shitty landlord you can tolerate.

[–] Owl@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

You're probably thinking of personal property. Private property is things you own for other people to use.

A house is private property if a landlord is renting it to you, and personal property if you live in it.

Abolishing private ownership of housing would mean you still own your house, but mortgages and landlordship are illegal, so the demand crashes and they're cheap. Cheap enough? Probably not on its own (not that housing is cheap enough for everyone to get one in our current system); there'd need to be subsidies for construction, and real estate companies would have to adapt to be cheaper as well, and heavily regulated so they don't come up with schemes that are basically just rent and mortgages again.

That might sound like a lot of fresh new government bureaucracy, but you have to contrast it with the giant chunks of the legal system needed to enforce debt collection, rent, and evictions.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What else do we accept as “normal” that’s actually built on control and profit?

Credit scores.

[–] TheMadPhilosopher@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Absolutely. Credit scores are like modern-day caste systems—just digitized and sanitized. A surveillance-based sorting mechanism that rewards debt and punishes survival. It’s not about trustworthiness. It’s about obedience.