Will communism have prisons?

264 posts / 0 new
Last post
Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Aug 6 2007 22:16

Hi,

The ABC of Communism has quite a detailed section on Proletarian Justice (Chapter 9):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/09.htm

Section 74 covers Proletarian Penal Methods...

ABC of Communism wrote:
When we come to consider the punishments inflicted by proletarian courts of justice for criminal offences which have no counter- revolutionary bearing, we find them to be radically different from those inflicted for similar offences by bourgeois courts. This is what we should expect. The great majority of crimes committed in bourgeois society are either direct infringements of property rights or are indirectly connected with property. It is natural that the bourgeois State should take vengeance upon criminals, and that the punishments inflicted by bourgeois society should be various expressions of the vengeful sentiments of the infuriated owner. Just as absurd have been and are the punishments inflicted for casual offences, or for offences which arise out of the fundamentally imperfect character of personal relationships in bourgeois society (offences connected with the family relationships of society; those resulting from romanticist inclinations; those due to alcoholism or to mental degeneration; those due to ignorance, or to a suppression of social instinct, etc.).

The proletarian law-court has to deal with offences for which the ground has been prepared by bourgeois society, by the society whose vestiges are still operative. A large number of professional criminals, trained to become such in the old order, survive to give work for the proletarian courts. But these courts are entirely free from the spirit of revenge. They cannot take vengeance upon people simply because these happen to have lived in bourgeois society. This is why our courts manifest a revolutionary change in the character of their decisions. More and more frequently do we find that conditional sentences are imposed, punishments that do not involve any punishment: their chief aim being to prevent a repetition of the offence.

Another method is that of social censure, a method that can only be effective in a classless society, one in which a social consciousness and a social sense of responsibility have greatly increased. Imprisonment without any occupation, enforced parasitism, the penal method so frequently employed under the tsarist régime, is replaced by the enforcement of social labour. The aim of the proletarian courts is to ensure that the damage done to society by the criminal shall be made good by him through the performance of an increased amount of social labour.

Finally, when the court has to deal with a habitual criminal (one whose liberation after his sentence has been performed will entail danger to the lives of other citizens), isolation of the criminal from society is enforced, but in such away as to give the offender full opportunities for moral regeneration.

So, the proletariat has to reject the spirit of revenge and retribution and replace it with the principles of strengthening solidarity and social cohesion, over overcoming isolation and traumas inflicted in the past, and moral regeneration.

B.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Aug 6 2007 22:21
cantdocartwheels wrote:
yoshomon wrote:
I think we need to begin by understanding what prison is, how it came about, and what social role it plays. Like police, prisons do NOT exist to solve social problems or make us safer.

What the fuck are you talking about? A prisons sole purpose is to make society safe.Putting ian brady in jail made society safe and it made me and you safe aswell. However, the point is that under capitalism what is a threat to ''society'' is defined by capitalism hence ricky tomlinson did 3 years in jail.

Quote:
some balls by Angela Davis

Oh fuck off with your angela fucking ''its not class'' davies, how the hell are native american societies going to offer any comparative model to a 21st century metropolitan city. And she seems to conveniently ignore the fact that prisons were invented by early bourgeois liberals as an alternative to the death penalty.

Quote:
If there are prisons, who decides how long people get locked up for?

Juries and magistrates working according to whatever the regionally accepted legal code happens to be . How would you do it, roll some dice or something?

Quote:
Will they be prevented from escaping?

Yes, wouldn't be much of a prison otherwise

Quote:
Who will be the guards?

Monkeys with spears obviously, since they'd be incorruptable,

Quote:
What if prisoners escape?

try and catch them

Quote:
Will prisoners be made to work?

I would magine they wouldn't be forced to, they'd be ''encouraged'' to though.

Quote:
Why are some cultures able to exist without prisons?

What now, the calalhari bushmen? some mentalist tribe in papau new guinea? jesus fucking wept

This is great! :-0) the logical conclusion of such down to earth communism - reactionary reformism. What I wanna ask is what colour uniform will cantdo wear as a prison guard. he he! Not all bad though, you could join the SAC.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Aug 6 2007 22:59
Quote:
your right, lascannons are well good, especially against land raiders or squads of space marine terminators

The point is not the lasers or missiles you dolt tongue

It's that the effect of disabling satellites has a very profound effect on the ability of weapons systems for which there is no counter (ie nuclear weapons carried in ICBMs) to be effective. In other words a few geeks sitting in front of a computer, with a few engineers on the ground, could disable the major weaponry of the capitalist machine. That's something I think it'd be worth the communist movement bearing in mind, yeah?

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Aug 7 2007 00:12

Dundee_United you ever heard of the slightly more low tech. strategic bombers, it is what you use to deliver nuclear bombs if you don't have ICBMs, back in the day they used to target by sight, I don't think it really matters if a nuclear bomb is maybe 400 metres off its target, unless perhaps it is a counter-force strike aimed at well bunkered missiles. Indeed without any complicated satellite guidence whatsoever you'll still manage to hit roughly the right geographic area, e.g. south eastern England, with the missile technology of sixty years ago, and given the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, and the number of them, it doesn't really matter that much as long as you are hitting somewhere in the same vicinity as your target. So your premise is only applicable to defence against the targetting of government bunkers, nuclear forces and the like. Perhaps there should be a thread 'will communism have a nuclear deterrent' because what you are saying only seems to make sense to me in that context, and that context doesn't really make any sense.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Aug 7 2007 00:22

Basically satellite guidance is for when someone is aiming to hit a very specific target like the enemy's nuclear forces, or military command, or government bunkers (and for the CNN factor, and for a subsidy to high-tech. industry), especially with the idea to knock out their ability to retaliate, a 'counter-city' war, ie where the population of the other side is the target, or targetting of more common and garden things like basic infrastructure, doesn't need anything like that.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Aug 7 2007 00:55
Quote:
Dundee_United you ever heard of the slightly more low tech. strategic bombers, it is what you use to deliver nuclear bombs if you don't have ICBMs, back in the day they used to target by sight, I don't think it really matters if a nuclear bomb is maybe 400 metres off its target, unless perhaps it is a counter-force strike aimed at well bunkered missiles. Indeed without any complicated satellite guidence whatsoever you'll still manage to hit roughly the right geographic area, e.g. south eastern England, with the missile technology of sixty years ago, and given the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, and the number of them, it doesn't really matter that much as long as you are hitting somewhere in the same vicinity as your target. So your premise is only applicable to defence against the targetting of government bunkers, nuclear forces and the like. Perhaps there should be a thread 'will communism have a nuclear deterrent' because what you are saying only seems to make sense to me in that context, and that context doesn't really make any sense.

OK this is a serious comment at last.

Yes I agree.

However conventional weapons deployment can be countered by conventional weaponry. Without sophisticated satellite guidance systems missiles are unreliable unless they are launched somewhere relatively proximal to the target. That means missile launch platforms of whatever kind can be targetted much more effectively, as they won't be launched from the other side of the world. That's why countries like North Korea pose no threat to anyone other than their immediate neighbours. Remember also I'm talking about taking control of satellites. The ruiing class is pumping all of this money into getting satellite and ground based technology to shoot down missiles, and sophisticated satellite tracking systems will pinpoint the positions of most land based forces (hence, in a small part, combined with increased helicopter sophistication, the reason the IRA started negotiations with the British government, and why all rural guerrillas armies are ultimately fucked now). As for nuclear bombers - even the really terrifying 'strategic' ones that fly at supersonic speeds - there are conventional counters.

The point to remember here in all this though is not that you could win a nuclear war fought like this without horrific casualties. It's not to play the Monty Python caricature with people's lives screaming "bring em on you capitalist weasals" - it's just that if you had a significant enough capacity to demostrate that a capitalist assault with nuclear weapons on a unitary socialist territory might not ultimately bear success there is a good chance, as in the way that capitalist states interrelate with one another, that they'd think better of it.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Aug 7 2007 01:59
Quote:
Dundee_United: "Without sophisticated satellite guidance systems missiles are unreliable unless they are launched somewhere relatively proximal to the target."

Unreliable in what way? The first ICBM (a missile with a range of over 5,500 km - ie one side of the Atlantic to the other - ie intercontinental) was developed before the first satellite, never mind before the first sophisticated satellite guidance systems, in fact it is what put Sputnik up there, it had a range of over 8,000 km, was fully deployed around 1960, with accuracy within a couple of kilometres, a couple of kilometres that doesn't matter at all if you are firing a nuclear warhead unless you are fighting a 'counter-force' conflict, ie targetting bunkered missile silos that will only be destroyed by a direct hit. What you are talking about in regard to the US, China, satellite guidance counter-measures and so forth is only of relevance to states in the context of a 'counter-force' nuclear capacity, or very specific targeting in a conventional war (eg of government offices) it doesn't make any sense whatsoever outside of that. You are confusing satellite guidance, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and intermediate range ballistic missiles (the later being what North Korea is accused of developing), with the later is where "relatively proximal" comes into it, and that is still an up to 5,500 km effective range - ie from pretty far away (though with submarines you don't need that range do you).

Secondly there isn't an effective conventional defence against a nuclear armed strategic bomber fleet unless it is one that can be sure of 100% success (ie downing every enemy aircraft), as only a small number would have to reach their targets to do untold damage (like what five hydrogen bombs would do for Britain?), and there is the same defence against missiles as there is against strategic bombers - surface to air missiles, which is why ICBMs with multiple warheads were developed, as an adaption to that.

Thirdly you are ignoring the fact that with the number of nuclear weapons at the disposal of states it doesn't matter...in the context of your post-revolutionary scenario....if they could hardly be aimed at all...ability to strike somewhere randomly on the European landmass would be enough if you have enough missiles that you can be sure of hitting whatever you want to hit in terms of cities, infrastructure, etc... (you will not get bunkered missile silos and the like though - without a direct hit - which is, again, what this guidedance buisness is all about!)

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Aug 7 2007 02:23
Quote:
Unreliable in what way? The first ICBM (a missile with a range of over 5,500 km - ie one side of the Atlantic to the other - ie intercontinental) was developed before the first satellite, never mind before the first sophisticated satellite guidance systems, in fact it is what put Sputnik up there, it had a range of over 8,000 km, was fully deployed around 1960, with accuracy within a couple of kilometres, a couple of kilometres that doesn't matter at all if you are firing a nuclear warhead unless you are fighting a 'counter-force' conflict, ie targetting bunkered missile silos that will only be destroyed by a direct hit. What you are talking about in regard to the US, China, satellite guidance counter-measures and so forth is only of relevance to states in the context of a 'counter-force' nuclear capacity, or very specific targeting in a conventional war (eg of government offices) it doesn't make any sense whatsoever outside of that. You are confusing satellite guidance, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and intermediate range ballistic missiles (the later being what North Korea is accused of developing), with the later is where "relatively proximal" comes into it, and that is still an up to 5,500 km effective range - ie from pretty far away (though with submarines you don't need that range do you).

Secondly there isn't an effective conventional defence against a nuclear armed strategic bomber fleet unless it is one that can be sure of 100% success (ie downing every enemy aircraft), as only a small number would have to reach their targets to do untold damage (like what five hydrogen bombs would do for Britain?), and there is the same defence against missiles as there is against strategic bombers - surface to air missiles, which is why ICBMs with multiple warheads were developed, as an adaption to that.

Thirdly you are ignoring the fact that with the number of nuclear weapons at the disposal of states it doesn't matter...in the context of your post-revolutionary scenario....if they could hardly be aimed at all...ability to strike somewhere randomly on the European landmass would be enough if you have enough missiles that you can be sure of hitting whatever you want to hit in terms of cities, infrastructure, etc... (you will not get bunkered missile silos and the like though - without a direct hit - which is, again, what this guidedance buisness is all about!)

This is an extremely difficult problem. I need to look into it more deeply. I was confused about the missile technologies. I had thought that missiles tended to veer wildly off course without guidance systems and that their range was reduced and that modern missiles often were over-engineered to basically require satellite guidance to even be launched safely. Where can I find out more information on this?

What do you actually think Terry? In my given scenario - one unitary socialist region develops quickly - what do you think is necessary? Or do you hold that only a simultaneous global revolution would be able to achieve victory?

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Aug 7 2007 02:42
Quote:
I bet there are Sparts laughing at the mentalness of this thread!

Exactly how is it mental. What is your plan for actually achieving a revolution? Oh wait - you haven't got one and you reject the concept that having even some kind of sketchy plan would be a good idea, as you don't really believe it's possible.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Aug 7 2007 03:00

Could all of the garbage posts and off-topic discussion about nuclear missiles be moved.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Aug 7 2007 03:01

Answer the question Revol.

Do you have even the foggiest idea about how to achieve a revolution?

If you don't have any ideas, why don't you have any?

If you don't think it's necessary to have some ideas about how to achieve a successful revolution (even after the 20th century's marvellous record on this question) I think the onus is on you to explain yourself, not on me. I spend most of my free thinking time on this problem and I'll freely admit my ideas aren't nearly good enough, but at least I fucking think about it.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Aug 7 2007 03:49

It's fairly clear you don't take your politics seriously Revol. For some of us struggling against capitalism is about a great deal more than maintaining an irreverant internet persona. Constantly returning to personal quips and insults rather than addressing substantive issues is really pretty infantile. I'm sorry it's 'uncool' to try to theorise how to actually win but really I couldn't give two fucks. I devote a considerable amount of time to thinking about these questions and discussing them with my comrades and I consider it quite important to have some sense of the scale of the task. I am not the least bit interested in whether that is 'sad' or not, as I'm not a kid or out to impress the boys in the playground. It seems you have some very considerable emotional issues to be dealing with. Socialist politics -which you don't take seriously enough to do things which you consider would make you look 'sad' - is not some support network for lonely young wannabe teenagers Revol.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Aug 7 2007 04:58

Dundee

I have to admit all this Cold War talk of guidance systems and global nuclear war is, to me, just a tad er.. scary and pretty archaic sounding! eek

I think the problem is that you, like me, are an idealist and a dreamer and a bit of a fantasist (tho trust me we fantasise about very different things!! wink ) and i do not wanna pour cold water on someone's dreams and aspirations for the sake of it but the problem here is that we as workers and the unemployed etc are umm about a billion miles removed from the kind of scenarios you are discussing .. neutral I mean i have dreams about the ideal world i would like to inhabit but there is no chance you are gonna write about stuff like that in a serious way on these boards and not get hammered for it!! Best to keep them as dreams (or nightmares?? seriously this military stuff is creeping me out...) and focus on the job in hand.

It may not compare with the grandeur of your dreams but in Organise there is really good real life stuff going on with this pay sector bulletin that the admin types have prepared and some of us are gonna distro. It may not be glamorous but it IS real and the fact is we can only start to create a new world by starting from where we are and what is.. and not the position we would like to be in!!

Love

LW XXXX

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Aug 7 2007 06:01
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
your right, lascannons are well good, especially against land raiders or squads of space marine terminators

The point is not the lasers or missiles you dolt tongue

It's that the effect of disabling satellites has a very profound effect on the ability of weapons systems for which there is no counter (ie nuclear weapons carried in ICBMs) to be effective. In other words a few geeks sitting in front of a computer, with a few engineers on the ground, could disable the major weaponry of the capitalist machine. That's something I think it'd be worth the communist movement bearing in mind, yeah?

Are you plannig on writing the script for a really bad action movie? Or are you actually this mental?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 7 2007 07:47
j.rogue wrote:
Have folks read up on the history of incarceration as a form of punishment? It's a fairly new phenomenon.

i've read my foucault if that helps. apart from jack, professsional contrarian, nobody's advocated punishment.

Beltov, i don't think forced labour is any less coercive than prison, though it's certainly more useful than locking someone in a box (which i don't think is the 'prison' anyone envisages).

i mean i hope there isn't a need to separate violent recidivists from the rest of us in communism because they don't exist, because that would be fucking brilliant, i'm just not prepared to think everything will be brilliant and harmonious because we've abolished bourgeois property. if as yoshomon says nothing is so bad that prison can't make it worse, we need to think of an alternative. if there are very few of these people that might be easy enough, the objective of the 'pro' prison people here is to stop violent recidivists re-offending, if that can be done in better ways, great. i'd imagine it would still involve separation from society/supervision in some form though

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 7 2007 08:05

not beyond what's indivisible from rehab/detention no. don't see the point.

lolcat
Offline
Joined: 7-08-07
Aug 7 2007 08:09

"So what do we do with dish breakers? It is impossible, today, to answer this question and, even in a stateless society it isn't sure a satisfactory answer can be found. The guy who won't play along, who breaks the dishes, who's ready to run the risk of pain and even death, simply for the fun of breaking off social ties. That is the risk, the probably unsurpassable risk run by a society which refuses to cast anyone, no matter how asocial, out of humanity's midst. The damage done to the society would always be inferior to the damage done by making the asocial person into a monster. Communism must not lose its raison d'être to save a few lives, no matter how "innocent" they may be. To date, let's admit, the mediations conceived to avoid or buffer conflict and maintain society's internal order have caused oppression and human loss infinitely greater than those it was supposed to prevent or limit."

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 7 2007 08:47
Quote:
the objective of the 'pro' prison people here is to stop violent recidivists re-offending, if that can be done in better ways, great. i'd imagine it would still involve separation from society/supervision in some form though

That's basically it. And what Joseph K., and some of us have said, there will be no prisons as we know it as it will have been transformed away from being bourgeoisie punishment (or forced labour camp, which is what basically a lot of prisons in the States are) into something which is more focused on prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration than anything else. Hence, it is "not prison" that I am really interested in, it is what to do with sociopaths and serial offenders to whatever is considered right and wrong. I'm not pro-prison, but I'm not naive either. I dunno, maybe prison will be like some spa on a tropical Island, but the issue is if someone is a nutter and has repeatedly been fucking people up then the general population should be protected.

Seriously, what's communist society going to do with serial-killers, paedophiles, rapists, primmos taking direct action and so on. We are after all only talking about the extreme cases here as I am pretty sure that most of what goes for offenses now can be worked out without recourse to punishment and prevention.

Hagbard Celine
Offline
Joined: 5-08-07
Aug 7 2007 09:14

With regard to the serial-killers, paedos and rapists, Erich Fromm's 'Anatomy of Human Destructiveness' and 'The Sane Society' are good starting points for anyone wanting to understand human destructive urges. Fromm's ideas may offer a foundation on which to build a workable alternative to the prison system.

H.C.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Aug 7 2007 09:36

Would that be Erich Fromm the dead German philosopher? tongue

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Aug 7 2007 09:55
Quote:
It may not be glamorous but it IS real and the fact is we can only start to create a new world by starting from where we are and what is.. and not the position we would like to be in!!

That's a straw man. Today I'll be spending about three hours leafletting, five hours travelling to and from an important meeting for a campaign I've been involved with, and two hours in an actual meeting. I'm holding a public meeting for my estate on Thursday which I'm preparing for. On Wednesday I'll be meeting up with some folks to discuss taking a community tendency for North West Glasgow forward and what to do about strike support activities. I'm right now currently dealing with some correspondence relating to a national tenants body. Over the weekend I was involved in organising a talk on the new political group I'm involved with. I also had a few wee meetings relating to future activities and international co-ordination. I'm currently doing some co-ordinating to get a Glasgow strike support committee established for the CWU and other public sector struggles. I don't feel a pressing need to talk about that shit all the time though as much of it is fucking obvious and what we're all doing. It's a bit of a depressing straw man though to say I'm sat here playing armchair fantasist because I'm demanding that revolutionaries have some kind of concept of what will happen if we start winning. I mean my point and what I've tried to say here is - not just that the problems and scale of the task here are monumentally horrible and massive, and they are, and terrifying, but that there are practical implications here, namely:-

~ The need for a very serious and politically tight international with an extremely serious and detailed organisational plan.
~ The need for worldwide industrial unions in key sectors, which now includes satellite technology and communications.
~ The need to get this off the ground really rather soon.

If you disagree with that, or what I've stated I'd say the logical implications of a socialist region of the planet developing in the current historical period are then that's fine, have it out, but please don't give me this "can't just talk about what's important now" crap though, as if the majority of my posts were not directly organisational on an everyday level anyhow. If you don't want to want to engage with these problems I think I'm perfectly in the right to ask why. I mean I needn't point out to you that the actual topic of this thread was far less organisationally relevant and more fantastic than this discussion anyhow. It is however easier to take about blueprints for a society that doesn't exist than to talk with seriousness about how to actually get there.

Quote:
there is no chance you are gonna write about stuff like that in a serious way on these boards and not get hammered for it

I'm clearly aware of that. I couldn't give a toss though. These forums are full of debutantes who really can't be civil with people whom they have only very slight disagreements with, and are hence notorious for lacking organisational seriousness and rigour as a result (a great shame but it's true). It remains however a problem I've been concerning myself with for some time and frankly I couldn't give a fuck whether Revol says nasty things - the boy's a complete ass and nobody takes him seriously - or cartwheels calls me names, as there are some people on here who'd be able to hold a discussion on this. It remains, I think, a very important problem. As it happens Terry has corrected some of my incorrect ideas and that's been very helpful - thanks Terry - if really very terrifying; that's the reason why I've been concerned to discuss it.

Quote:
Best to keep them as dreams (or nightmares?? seriously this military stuff is creeping me out...) and focus on the job in hand.

Yes and no. I am quite focussed on the job at hand, but I want to know how the job at hand relates to the next job at hand and so on, and how each of these subsequent jobs at hand relate to the ultimate job at hand (how to achieve a global social revolution) so that I can grasp some sort of handle on what is necessary at what stage, what needs to happen to make the next thing happen and what the kinds of approximate timescales for each are and have some kind of vague concept of what forces will be at play so that some sort of crude plan can at least be given a stab at. That's just basic managerialism and to fail to have some kind of concept like that denotes one of two things: 1) Your mind doesn't work that way - no probs there are comrades who do think like that... or 2) You're not serious about achieving your objectives.

I mean this is quite an important question overall. You only need to turn to the pages of relatively recent history (Russia 1917, Transnistria 1992, Oaxaca 2006, even perhaps the Togliatte strike last week!) to show exactly what horrible, horrible things can go wrong if you've got a shit plan (or no plan in the case of the last three there). I think it's fundamentally a bit liberal to refuse to deal with these issues. I could reel off half a dozen Leninist groups that will have thought about this stuff (who doubtless will have come up with some fucking stupid ideas, but at least they'll take themselves seriously enough to think about it). Why is it that anarchists find it so fucking difficult to take themselves seriously? If you refuse to address these issues in the here and now history tells us exactly what will happen, because this is not a new problem...

"The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and the marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space; to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror."

In the current historical period not having a plan could very well lead to getting nuked. That's something very important to bear in mind.

Hagbard Celine
Offline
Joined: 5-08-07
Aug 7 2007 09:56

madashell wrote:

Quote:
Would that be Erich Fromm the dead German philosopher?

Touché pussycat smile. But I did suggest that the works be used as a foundation for something new.

I’ve been thinking about the stereotypical rapist/nonce/serial-killer, they’re generally white, middle class suburban types with an outwardly ‘normal’ appearance. More often than not, due to some form of childhood bullying, they’ve flirted with political opinions/parties/groups that mainstream society considers ‘extreme’, usually fascist, but not exclusively so. Although they can be quite charming, they have few true friendships, i.e. friendships that are not based on political/philosophical allegiances.

Does anyone on these forums fit that description?

And, with prevention being better than cure, should we lock them up now, just in case.

Hallow Vera.
H.C.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 7 2007 11:17

While serial killers are often white, there are plenty of rapists to go around for everyone, anywhere in the world and this means that rapists also (shocker) can be of other various states of pigmentation.

Hagbard Celine
Offline
Joined: 5-08-07
Aug 7 2007 11:33

Correct, but the melanoma misnomer was not of my making, hence the word ‘stereotypical’ in the previous statement.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 7 2007 12:11

you mean if they raped me? i'd probably want to stab the fucker, i'm not a christian. don't think we should base 'communist justice' on that though. like i say there's a certain amount of punishment involved segregating somone away, i don't want anything on top of that. i mean i hate paedos, don't think they should have to sleep on beds of nails in tiny cells or something though.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 7 2007 12:32

well that's what i'm saying, i think it's a good idea for society to restrain my urge to vengeance. and there is an irreducible element of punishment to any kind of detention as i keep saying. that and you accusing anyone of posturing ... tongue

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Aug 7 2007 12:52
Jack wrote:
Perhaps we're at cross purposes then. But philosophically, if someone raped someone, even if there was no chance whatsoever they'd re-offend and you knew this for 100% certain (obviously a rather big hypothetical here!), I'd still think a communist justice system would need to punish them for the crime.

But why? What would that achieve?

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the idea of restorative justice?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 7 2007 12:55

well the hypothetical is a bit like saying 'assume there's no crime or discord, then we won't need prisons' - i mean if someone rapes someone else, you can never say they definately won't do it again without at the very least a period of supervised assessment etc.

although even granting you that, there have been some positive reports of restorative justice with victims meeting face to face to discuss the impact with the perpetrator, making them realise the consequences of their actions etc. for non-sociopaths that would seem the best kind of thing to do - though it could be pretty hard to sit and listent to what you've done to someone, perhaps satisfying your bloodlust?

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Aug 7 2007 13:13

Jack: as alf said we have to see that for communism to have been achieved there will have had to have been a fundamental change in consciousness. This does not mean there will not be anti-social behaviour, for whatever reason, but it will mean a profound change in the way that society views how to deal with such behaviour. The aim will be to deal with why this crime took place not simply to punish it.
On the wider question of emotional life under communism, this will still be a constant concern. Humanity will have undergone a profound development of consciousness but the ability to understand and control the deepest recesses of our inner emotions still be a fundamental question for humanity. Our passions are part of the very foundations of being human, so under communism it will be a question of consciously freeing them from the constraints of class society; of the free play and development of real human passion.

Hagbard Celine
Offline
Joined: 5-08-07
Aug 7 2007 13:16

And the first half score for this thread is...

ernie 1
throwbacks 0