Prisons in an anarchist society? Paedophiles, Dangerous individuals, ppl who get kicks from murder?
Apr 21 2009 11:47
How would we deal with them?
Apr 21 2009 14:27
#2
cheers =)
Apr 21 2009 14:31
#3
I don't think we'll get too far in our anarchist society unless we make real progress in dealing with antisocial behaviour and people start to change their attitudes and way at looking at such crime, its causes and how to deal with it.
Apr 21 2009 14:39
#4
shoot them
Apr 21 2009 14:41
#5
To conclude the official libcom position on prisons is:
We would obviously have prisons under communism. Obviously. There is no doubt about this.
There would be fewer, and would be different. But they would definitely exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either mental, or playing silly semantic games about what a prison is.
Apr 21 2009 14:44
#6
No, my answer.
Shoot them every day.
Apr 21 2009 14:49
#7
Jack wrote:
To conclude the official libcom position on prisons is:We would obviously have prisons under communism. Obviously. There is no doubt about this.
There would be fewer, and would be different. But they would definitely exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either mental, or playing silly semantic games about what a prison is.
Makes sense, certain ppl im afraid would get shot at times...especially just after the revolution (if it happens). I mean this may sound very 'sun' but im not gonna have paedos running round my community acting out there sick fantasies...just cos all the prisons have been all opened in some libertarian act of misplaced comradeship.
Apr 21 2009 14:48
#8
are there still "Paedophiles, Dangerous individuals" in a classless/stateless society?
Apr 21 2009 14:50
#9
Yes I think there are...Throughout history there has and always will be (thats my opinion).
Apr 21 2009 14:53
#10
Entdinglichung wrote:
are there still "Paedophiles, Dangerous individuals" in a classless/stateless society?
Yes. Obviously. There literally isn't even a inch of doubt about this. There will Probably be a lot less of them. But they will 100% definitely exist.
Apr 21 2009 14:55
#11
"Goodies and baddies will always exist."-me when i was 7
Apr 21 2009 14:57
#12
Even a 7 year old has better insight into reality than many anarchists. 
Apr 21 2009 15:00
#13
Jack wrote:
Even a 7 year old has better insight into reality than many anarchists.
Although I probably used to think anarchists were baddies judging by the bad press they have always received in the media.
Apr 21 2009 15:06
#14
stateless societies in the past had no need for institutions like prisons, cops, etc. (probably pre-historic Britain was an exeption) 
Apr 21 2009 15:09
#15
Yes, and they were horrific. Capitalism is an incomparably better alternative. Primitive societies offer no model whatsoever for communism.
And, I would be sure that they WOULD have had people who committed what we would no consider anti social acts.
Apr 21 2009 15:15
#16
In ref to Entdinglichung, whether you call them prisons or cops is largely semantics, but for the tiny tiny tiny minority who would engage in extremely violent behaviour there'd be some sort of method of detention to protect other people. it's not really particularly relevant to class struggle in the here and now, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society.
Apr 21 2009 15:16
#17
Entdinglichung wrote:
stateless societies in the past had no need for institutions like prisons, cops, etc. (probably pre-historic Britain was an exeption) ;-)
I heard pre-historic Germany was a utopia 
Apr 21 2009 15:17
#18
I agree that primitive societies offer no model for a liberated society on today's stage of development of productive forces ... but there are also many accounts that some primitive societies were less violent (San, Cree, Mangyan, etc.) ... the first British traders and missionaries who met Cree in today's Canada in the 19th century found it outrageous and uncivilized that the concept of corporal punishment for children was unknown in that society ... the missionaries and the Canadian state changed it by introducing the residential school system
Apr 21 2009 15:19
#19
corporal punishment for children is in no way comparable to what we're talking about here.
Apr 21 2009 15:21
#20
Entdinglichung wrote:
I agree that primitive societies offer no model for a liberated society on today's stage of development of productive forces ... but there are also many accounts that some primitive societies were less violent (San, Cree, Mangyan, etc.) ... the first British traders and missionaries who met Cree in today's Canada in the 19th century found it outrageous and uncivilized that the concept of corporal punishment for children was unknown in that society ... the missionaries and the Canadian state changed it by introducing the residential school system
Well not trying to be a dick, like, but so what?
Historically different societies have had all sorts of vastly different levels and standards of violence. I fully accept that the function of policing or detaining wrongdoers would be hugely smaller than it is now in communism.
However, no society has completely eliminated all mental illness, crimes of passion, people getting fucked up etc. etc.
While these exist - which is always, forever and until the end of time - then some form of detaining people away from general society is going to be necessary.
Apr 21 2009 15:23
#21
the concepts of "Britain" or "Germany" were unknown in pre-historic times ... of course, among the San or Iniut before the introduction of modern statehood, the usual punishment for severe crimes was being forced to leave the community
Apr 21 2009 15:44
#22
So a serial rapist would just be kicked out of the community and passed onto someone else to deal with?
Apr 21 2009 16:03
#23
But in Rambo4 he rips the rapist's windpipe out through his neck.
Apr 21 2009 16:09
#24
Quote:
So a serial rapist would just be kicked out of the community and passed onto someone else to deal with?
The British Empire and the old Norse had figured that out. Just ship them to Australia or Iceland.
Apr 21 2009 16:21
#25
or do what Rambo4 did?
Apr 21 2009 16:34
#26
Choccy wrote:
or do what Rambo4 did?
Rambo should be held accountable for his crimes. He should be tried at the Hague. Im talking about all his other stuff.
Apr 21 2009 16:44
#27
If you ask questions in a Daily Mail way it can only lead to Daily Mail-type answers. I think that's stupid because it isn't appropriate, it doesn't help you deal with the problem. First you need to work out why some people carry out certain intolerable acts. For example paedophiles (I hate the word, it's a euphemism that literally it means 'friend of children'). As far as I know, it hasn't been properly researched, it's not clear if it is similar to a sexual orientation or not, and if sexual attraction to children is something that can be 'cured' or not. From what I've read, only a small percentage of convicted child abusers are the kind of sadistic psychopath which the tabloids go on about and who tend to kill their victims. A large proportion of convicted child abusers are in fact not paedophiles but opportunistic child abusers. That means if you imprison everybody who feels a sexual attraction towards children, then you're still not protecting children - which after all has to be the aim, rather than having lots of prisons as the Daily Mail wants.
If the question is simply if it's right to restrict the freedom of psychopaths to protect everybody else - well, obviously it is.
Apr 21 2009 16:53
#28
sickdog24 wrote:
Choccy wrote:
or do what Rambo4 did?Rambo should be held accountable for his crimes. He should be tried at the Hague. Im talking about all his other stuff.
Pff you are wrong, he was a freedom fighter.
Apr 21 2009 17:17
#29
Choccy wrote:
Pff you are wrong, he was a freedom fighter.
Yeah, he saved like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Burma. He's a hero, not a zero.
Apr 21 2009 17:52
#30
no1 wrote:
If you ask questions in a Daily Mail way it can only lead to Daily Mail-type answers. I think that's stupid because it isn't appropriate, it doesn't help you deal with the problem. First you need to work out why some people carry out certain intolerable acts. For example paedophiles (I hate the word, it's a euphemism that literally it means 'friend of children'). As far as I know, it hasn't been properly researched, it's not clear if it is similar to a sexual orientation or not, and if sexual attraction to children is something that can be 'cured' or not. From what I've read, only a small percentage of convicted child abusers are the kind of sadistic psychopath which the tabloids go on about and who tend to kill their victims. A large proportion of convicted child abusers are in fact not paedophiles but opportunistic child abusers. That means if you imprison everybody who feels a sexual attraction towards children, then you're still not protecting children - which after all has to be the aim, rather than having lots of prisons as the Daily Mail wants.If the question is simply if it's right to restrict the freedom of psychopaths to protect everybody else - well, obviously it is.
Next time I shall ask my questions in a financial times type manner. Its a difficult subject. I know that alot of people who abuse children, were abused themselves as kids.
http://libcom.org/search/node/prisons