A Justified Murder?

[bluerev002]

This question has be brewing in my mind for a while now and I wonder what you may think

There runs through every society a great number of "undesirables", misfits without a cause. Of course there are those that do no harm that simply do not fit the mold of an ideal citizen and then there are those that do pose a threat to citizens although maybe not to civilization itself. Groups such as gangs, terrorist groups, or what have you.

Let us think of one such gang: Mara Salvatrucha whose membership requires the killing of a man from a rival gang.

Therefore it comes to mind, if in order to join a gang one is required to kill, then one can safely assume that each one of them is wanted for murder. Is it then justified to consider them guilty before proven innocent? Or is the fact that they are in the gang evidence in itself that they did kill?

This of course would require the suspension of certain human rights but will the end (the annihilation of the gang) justify the means?

This of course can only work by killing the gang at the roots as well as from the fruits it has given. Meaning that gangs and other such groups are a product of a rotten society that neglected their needs and thus sought to obtain their needs through extra-legal means.

Your opinion?

[RedAnarchist]

Murder isn't more acceptable just because the victim may be a murderer themselves. Rather than killing the gang members, we should look at why they joined the gang and why they continue to stay as gang members. Remove the causes of both of these, adn the gangs will disappear without the need for unnecessary killing.

[Il Medico]

Destroy capitalism and you destroy the conditions that force people into gangs. Save your blood-lust for the revolution. Then you can kill the real murders, the ruling class.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Without going into gangs and stuff, there is definitely such a thing as a justified murder, in my honest opinion.

[The Watcher]

Gangs are to be exterminated.
And that is what they do (to each other).
So, until there are no civilian victims, keep on, dirty scumbags.

[Il Medico]

Gangs are to be exterminated.
And that is what they do (to each other).
So, until there are no civilian victims, keep on, dirty scumbags.
Comrade, you seem to miss the fact that people join gangs out of reasons created by class system. They are not the ones that need extermination. We need to 'exterminate' the class system (capitalism)that creates problems like gangs. As long as their is desperation people will turn to violence to try to get out.

[The Watcher]

You can't reverse the process of rotting.
I forgot to mention, that of course the system that not only lets, but inspires people to join gangs like this, must be eliminated.
But the most people who are already in gangs like that, can't be "cured".
Until the system can be eliminated, it is a "test of resistance".

[RedAnarchist]

Without going into gangs and stuff, there is definitely such a thing as a justified murder, in my honest opinion.

The only justified murders, in my opinion, are in self-defence or defending others from an imminent threat.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

See the thing is, if you start to actually think about things, really think, you will realize that there are people who need to die. The scum of the earth. Pedos, racists, fascists, etc. People do not realize that death is necessary to progress. The only way to achieve peace is to end those who disrupt it.

[The Watcher]

Pedos
:crying:

[gorillafuck]

Pedos
Pedophiles (those who act upon their feelings) need help, not death.

[piet11111]

well honestly speaking i too sometimes think the world would be a better place if some politicians like say wilders bush and sarkozy would be dead.

[#FF0000]

See the thing is, if you start to actually think about things, really think, you will realize that there are people who need to die. The scum of the earth.

Actually, the opposite tends to happen.


Pedos, racists, fascists, etc. People do not realize that death is necessary to progress. The only way to achieve peace is to end those who disrupt it.

Pedophiles need psychological help. What makes one a "racist" is sort of subjective. Killing fascists for being fascist is difficult in practice, since you could always, you know, lie. And I notice you didn't say anything about killing off sexists, which is convenient, considering the comments you've made in the Nurse's strike thread.

There's also, you know, ethics to take into consideration. But, uh, whatever I guess. Don't let that get in the way of your childish bloodlust.

[bluerev002]

In thinking through this I've realized that social deviants such as gang members and other groups like the KKK and neo-nazis are to be eliminated from both sides.

It is a fantasy to think that once the root of the problem is fixed deviants will "disappear" as if it is a one time thing. No such things take time and to me killing the gang members is much faster.

In other words we must work at killing the issue at the root (through education and riding the system that created them) but let us not forget that that which has roots also bears fruits, and those fruits hold in them seeds that can spread. So I believe in taking care of the roots for the long-term fix and kill off gangs for the short-term.

Doing solely the former will work eventually but not before civilians are caught up in the fire; doing the latter will not work at all.

Who knows, I don't.

[Decolonize The Left]

This entire thread is immature and absurd.

We, that is the 8-10 of us posting in this thread on an internet forum, will not be 'killing' any gangs. It's pure insanity to think that you will have some sort of say in the widespread murder of groups of people in the near future especially when you frame this killing in the name of 'progress.'

You want progress?
You want peace?
You want equality and freedom? These ideals professed by many a leftist?

Then start thinking about the material causes for these undesirable situations. We are not here to place blame on small groups of people acting within the confines of their material situation - we are here to discuss how to change this material situation so that these individual situations do not arise.

- August

[New Tet]

[...]
There runs through every society a great number of "undesirables", misfits without a cause. Of course there are those that do no harm that simply do not fit the mold of an ideal citizen and then there are those that do pose a threat to citizens although maybe not to civilization itself. Groups such as gangs, terrorist groups, or what have you.

Terrorism poses a threat to civilization. To think otherwise is foolish, to put it mildly.

[RedArmyUK]

Kill off all the fucking liberal "do gooders" who feel the need to save the lives of scum

[Hit The North]

RedArmyUK, you sound like a right wing ranter. Who are the "liberal do-gooders" and who are the "scum"?

[Dimentio]

Murder isn't more acceptable just because the victim may be a murderer themselves. Rather than killing the gang members, we should look at why they joined the gang and why they continue to stay as gang members. Remove the causes of both of these, adn the gangs will disappear without the need for unnecessary killing.

Murder is - sadly - as desirable or undesirable as society decides it to be. In some societies, murder is as hard to prosecute as file-sharing. There are no objective values which are not subject to what society accept or does'nt. In some societies, fathers had the right to dispose their wives or kids permanently (Rome). In others, it has been perfectly natural to throw teenage kids down volcanoes.

[RedArmyUK]

RedArmyUK, you sound like a right wing ranter. Who are the "liberal do-gooders" and who are the "scum"?

Well Bob,, The Scum are your everyday people who take great fun in murdering the likes of you, me, your close mates and so on

And the Liberal do-gooders are the likes of people who would have these scumbags round for tea and cakes instead of having them shot.

Now my old mucker, How the fuck does that make me sound "right wing"?

[#FF0000]

And the Liberal do-gooders are the likes of people who would have these scumbags round for tea and cakes instead of having them shot.

But we don't want to do either. We want to rehabilitate them or put them in prison for the rest of their lives.

[Dimentio]

Well Bob,, The Scum are your everyday people who take great fun in murdering the likes of you, me, your close mates and so on

And the Liberal do-gooders are the likes of people who would have these scumbags round for tea and cakes instead of having them shot.

Now my old mucker, How the fuck does that make me sound "right wing"?

Such people who are killing people out of fun are most often put into mental asylums.

Most criminals want the same things that non-criminals want. The only difference is that criminals have chosen to use methods not accepted by society, either out of desperation, stupidity or mental issues.

Most murders are not committed by serial killers at least. The murder is not an end in itself, but a mean to reach an end.

[mel]

Now my old mucker, How the fuck does that make me sound "right wing"?

Go to any discussion forum where right-wingers talk about death penalty issues. I guarantee you that a sentence with "bleeding heart liberals" who want to save "scum who murder for fun" will show up. You used their rhetoric, you agree with their position on this issue, and you completely fail to understand all of the nuances relating to the social and psychological factors at play in this situation.

Right-wingers are often guilty of gross oversimplification, senseless and illogical moralism, condemnation of all groups that disagree with their grossly oversimplified opinions on social issues, and misdirected anger. Coincidentally, a lot of violence fetishists on this forum exhibit those same traits, and so it's pretty easy to see how you sound "right wing".

[Dimentio]

Go to any discussion forum where right-wingers talk about death penalty issues. I guarantee you that a sentence with "bleeding heart liberals" who want to save "scum who murder for fun" will show up. You used their rhetoric, you agree with their position on this issue, and you completely fail to understand all of the nuances relating to the social and psychological factors at play in this situation.

Right-wingers are often guilty of gross oversimplification, senseless and illogical moralism, condemnation of all groups that disagree with their grossly oversimplified opinions on social issues, and misdirected anger. Coincidentally, a lot of violence fetishists on this forum exhibit those same traits, and so it's pretty easy to see how you sound "right wing".

Frankly, liberals are very often bleeding hearts. And not all the times justified.

Personally, I hold no sympathy at all for murderers, sexual predators or organised mobsters. I find them as enemies of humanity in general and the working class in particular.

If a criminal is beyond rehabilitation, then simply lock them in for life.

The reason why I am against the death penalty is that it gives the state or the community the right to kill individuals. And even if it feels justified to kill a person who has committed heinous crimes, it could lead to a slippery slope.

[mel]

Frankly, liberals are very often bleeding hearts. And not all the times justified.

Personally, I hold no sympathy at all for murderers, sexual predators or organised mobsters. I find them as enemies of humanity in general and the working class in particular.

If a criminal is beyond rehabilitation, then simply lock them in for life.

The reason why I am against the death penalty is that it gives the state or the community the right to kill individuals. And even if it feels justified to kill a person who has committed heinous crimes, it could lead to a slippery slope.

I've talked about the death penalty a great deal on this board already, in the thread "death penalty" in the learning forum, and I agree with you about criminals beyond rehabilitation.

That doesn't change the point that "kill the fuckers, they're evil, and kill anybody who thinks we shouldn't kill the fuckers" is a gross oversimplification of every single issue at hand and especially with the introduction of the "liberal" slur sounds suspiciously like right-wing nonsense. If somebody had posted exactly what he did over at stormfront, it would likely be to thunderous applause.

[Dimentio]

I've talked about the death penalty a great deal on this board already, in the thread "death penalty" in the learning forum, and I agree with you about criminals beyond rehabilitation.

That doesn't change the point that "kill the fuckers, they're evil, and kill anybody who thinks we shouldn't kill the fuckers" is a gross oversimplification of every single issue at hand and especially with the introduction of the "liberal" slur sounds suspiciously like right-wing nonsense. If somebody had posted exactly what he did over at stormfront, it would likely be to thunderous applause.

Often, those who are most angry at criminals are men from the working class, while those who have studied at colleges and universities and/or have high income are more tolerant. But that also reflects that men and women from the working class more often are the victims of crime.

Also, it shows a rift in the values between the middle class and the working class, where the working class due to material conditions are more likely to spontaneously adopt more rigid positions in relation to criminals.

I think that what we should do is to not try to lecture the working class only, but also to listen to its representatives. I am not saying that Stormfront are legitimate representatives of the working class, but that I have heard these sentiments being expressed quite much.

Leftists who actually are workers (working in services or industry) are often very angry at criminals, while those with academic education or a bourgeois class background are more likely to adopt humanitarian viewpoints, at least from my experience.

Reality is never black and white.

But I think it is time to scrap the romantic idea of criminals as some kind of working class heroes. Criminals are not capitalists, no (well, some of them actually are, but that's another story), but they are neither a scourge for the capitalists. They are a scourge for working people.

The radical left has so very much to win by appealing to the hearts of the workers. For example question why the state never protects workers but attacks banks. Why the punishment for a beating or a rape is so low compared with a crime against a bank or a record company.

In Sweden, persons who have stabbed babies to death has got 1 year in jail, the same as file-sharers.

I think it is sufficient to call that bleeding-heart liberalism. And I find it revolting.

We should not associate ourselves with liberals.

In the USA, the liberals might be considered left-wing, but in Europe, they are centre-right parties. And actually the embodiement of the establishment itself.

[mel]

Often, those who are most angry at criminals are men from the working class, while those who have studied at colleges and universities and/or have high income are more tolerant. But that also reflects that men and women from the working class more often are the victims of crime.

Also, it shows a rift in the values between the middle class and the working class, where the working class due to material conditions are more likely to spontaneously adopt more rigid positions in relation to criminals.

I think that what we should do is to not try to lecture the working class only, but also to listen to its representatives. I am not saying that Stormfront are legitimate representatives of the working class, but that I have heard these sentiments being expressed quite much.

Leftists who actually are workers (working in services or industry) are often very angry at criminals, while those with academic education or a bourgeois class background are more likely to adopt humanitarian viewpoints, at least from my experience.

Reality is never black and white.

But I think it is time to scrap the romantic idea of criminals as some kind of working class heroes. Criminals are not capitalists, no (well, some of them actually are, but that's another story), but they are neither a scourge for the capitalists. They are a scourge for working people.

The radical left has so very much to win by appealing to the hearts of the workers. For example question why the state never protects workers but attacks banks. Why the punishment for a beating or a rape is so low compared with a crime against a bank or a record company.

In Sweden, persons who have stabbed babies to death has got 1 year in jail, the same as file-sharers.

I think it is sufficient to call that bleeding-heart liberalism. And I find it revolting.

We should not associate ourselves with liberals.

In the USA, the liberals might be considered left-wing, but in Europe, they are centre-right parties. And actually the embodiement of the establishment itself.

I am not suggesting that we ought to align ourselves with liberals, at all. I dislike the liberal parties as much as I dislike all other parties of the bourgeois establishment. However, we should also not align ourselves with the extremists on the far right, especially not on social issues which they either deliberately misrepresent or fail to understand.

If we cannot hope to educate the workers on relatively basic social issues, and get them to agree with us that "killing the evil fuckers" is not the right plan of action, how can we ever hope to educate them enough for them to believe that capitalism is against their best interests and have a successful revolution? Flat out lecturing from on high is obviously not going to do it, but the answer is also not to bring discourse on social issues down to the barest simplifications which would mean absolute injustice for all.

People have to understand that criminals aren't just possessed by the devil or deliberately antisocial, or "full of hate" or else we allow the prevailing opinion on the proper plan of action to take against criminals(and the prevailing policy of a democratic worker's state) to be capital punishment. Our only hope is to educate the workers, if education is what brings about rational ideas about the psychological and social factors at work here.

[RedArmyUK]

But we don't want to do either. We want to rehabilitate them or put them in prison for the rest of their lives.

More tea their Mr Hitler? maybe some books to read as your looking a little bored in your cell.

I,m sure the Russians would have had it that way.

[RedArmyUK]

Go to any discussion forum where right-wingers talk about death penalty issues. I guarantee you that a sentence with "bleeding heart liberals" who want to save "scum who murder for fun" will show up. You used their rhetoric, you agree with their position on this issue, and you completely fail to understand all of the nuances relating to the social and psychological factors at play in this situation.

Right-wingers are often guilty of gross oversimplification, senseless and illogical moralism, condemnation of all groups that disagree with their grossly oversimplified opinions on social issues, and misdirected anger. Coincidentally, a lot of violence fetishists on this forum exhibit those same traits, and so it's pretty easy to see how you sound "right wing".

Why would I want to waste my time looking on some "right wing nazi" forum?

So the great Stalin got it wrong when it come to dealing with Germans after the war?

[#FF0000]

Why would I want to waste my time looking on some "right wing nazi" forum?

So the great Stalin got it wrong when it come to dealing with Germans after the war?

1) Stalin ain't so great
2) A wartime or revolutionary period are totally different. When me and Melbi are railing against the Death Penalty, we're railing against it's use in a post-revolutionary society, and doubly so in a capitalist society. The former might be debatable (no it isn't), but if anyone thinks that we should support the death penalty in today's society, they just have no fucking clue what they're on about.

[RedArmyUK]

1) Stalin ain't so great
2) A wartime or revolutionary period are totally different. When me and Melbi are railing against the Death Penalty, we're railing against it's use in a post-revolutionary society, and doubly so in a capitalist society. The former might be debatable (no it isn't), but if anyone thinks that we should support the death penalty in today's society, they just have no fucking clue what they're on about.

Oh right, I understand now,, its ok for death penalty in war time but the day after war ends you change your mind its all forgot about and its wrong.

[Dimentio]

I am not suggesting that we ought to align ourselves with liberals, at all. I dislike the liberal parties as much as I dislike all other parties of the bourgeois establishment. However, we should also not align ourselves with the extremists on the far right, especially not on social issues which they either deliberately misrepresent or fail to understand.

If we cannot hope to educate the workers on relatively basic social issues, and get them to agree with us that "killing the evil fuckers" is not the right plan of action, how can we ever hope to educate them enough for them to believe that capitalism is against their best interests and have a successful revolution? Flat out lecturing from on high is obviously not going to do it, but the answer is also not to bring discourse on social issues down to the barest simplifications which would mean absolute injustice for all.

People have to understand that criminals aren't just possessed by the devil or deliberately antisocial, or "full of hate" or else we allow the prevailing opinion on the proper plan of action to take against criminals(and the prevailing policy of a democratic worker's state) to be capital punishment. Our only hope is to educate the workers, if education is what brings about rational ideas about the psychological and social factors at work here.

Personally, I think that attitude is borderline patronising.

I would claim that the working class generally could be more socially conservative in the same time as it supports more economically progressive ideas. It is mainly a coincidence that socially conservative positions have come to be associated with right-wing parties.

I am not saying that social conservatism is anything right, but from my experiences in growing up in a working class environment, I would say that the working class generally is less tolerant towards for example graffiti, youth crime amongst immigrant populations, people on social welfare, and people living on the streets than the fashionable, higher middle class in the city cores.

Another prevailing attitude around working class men and women which I have encountered is that if you are lazy, you are almost subhuman. They have generally very little tolerance towards those who are disabled or living on social welfare.

Now I am not talking about people 18+, but about industrial or natural resource workers age 25+.

In the same time, they are not generically right-wing. Most of them are also despising the capitalists, the bankers and the government, and wants back to the time when Sweden was ruled by a hardline social democratic government (1946-1986 basically).

When they see an immigrant commit some heinous crime, they could swear over all immigrants from that ethnic or cultural group and want to see them sent back to their native countries.

But the very same people could later on swear over the immigration authority and its inhumane treatment of immigrants.

What I have learned about the general preferences of working class people employed in industry is the following:

A) They are very proud over their work and think its important to be a part of the Union (this is in Sweden)

B) They care very much about people from the third world and give quite much to charity. In fact, working class men and women are those who are paying most both in terms of the total amount of money and percentage-wise.

C) They view the following groups as their enemies. Capitalists, bankers, politicians, unemployed, people with mental work disabilities and criminals.

D) They have generally little to zero understanding of graffiti, modern arts, academic leftism, gender issues ("what, they wanna abolish the sexes? How then should we have any children?") and similar.

E) They are generally very angry at criminals. When a pedophile has raped a child, its more usual to hear people in a working class environment call for castration, public hanging or anything like that.

F) My general impression is that this is not a case of ignorance. In the country I am living in, even most industrial workers (or unemployed) keep what could be considered a library at home. They are generally self-educated and interested in some issues regarding society.

fb) One example is the zoophilia law in Sweden. Zoophilia has been allowed in Sweden since 1946, and most politicians and people in the liberal establishment do not want to ban it out of personal integrity issues. But most Swedes want to see it banned, and a huge name list with over a million names has now forced the parliament to discuss a zoophilia ban.

G) My feeling is that the working class people are generally made to tick due to their sense of justice. They hold very much empathy for those who are poor or unfortunate, and they are very angry on those individuals which are either scabbing off of their work or hurting people. Something which turns them angry or upset is if people are not treated the same.
They become seriously enraged if a husband beats his woman or his children, if a person from a non-European country is beaten down by nazis for his looks, or if an animal is sexually abused. In the same time, they are rather indifferent to "new left" issues like LQBT, animal rights and hostile to the idea of affirmative action.
I do not think that is caused overally by prejudiced or racist attitudes, but by a "shut up and work"-attitude prevailing in the working class. What makes me most disheartened though is the positive attitude towards the police within large segments of the (Swedish) working class.

Thus, it makes the working class a group which today generally could vote both to the right and to the left. They could vote to the left because they think that those who earn more should contribute more, that the economy needs to be managed justly. They could also vote to the right in order to strengthen the policemen, fight vandalism, lower the social security benefits for those unemployed or sick.

If the working class in other countries are like the Swedish working class, then its no surprise that "rough policies" towards criminals, immigrants or unemployed generally are greeted favourably by them and earning right-wing parties support amongst people who should'nt really support them at all.

I do not think the main issue is ignorance, but rather a sense that something is unfair.

I also feel that the left, especially the academic left, does'nt really understand the worldview of the working class. I think it is more a question about focus than about education.

[mel]

Personally, I think that attitude is borderline patronising.

I had gotten the same sense from your attitude that we ought to "win the hearts" of the working class by basically ignoring issues of social justice for criminals and allowing the level of discourse to remain at "kill all the evil fuckers" because they couldn't POSSIBLY be swayed to more logically coherent positions on that issue.


I would claim that the working class generally could be more socially conservative in the same time as it supports more economically progressive ideas.

This is not true at all where I live. Where I live the working class believes strongly in the Horatio Alger myth, and their distaste for the lazy just leads them to believe that anybody who needs government help is lazy, even though when they themselves are in that situation make use of every bit of government help they can get their hands on. I come from a working class background and lived most of my life in a working class area. I still interact regularly with working class families, and I think we can still appeal to values such as justice without falling into absurdly incorrect socially conservative positions on those issues. First we should disseminate the information that the death penalty actually costs more than life in prison, and widely. Then discuss the economic factors which cause crimes, appeal to justice by noting that somebody in a post-revolutionary society who has committed a crime will be, and should be sent to a secure facility, but that the goal will be to treat the problem at its source (most likely mental illness) rather than leaving them locked up in there wasting hard-earned taxpayer money to feed, clothe, and house them. Not only will we be transforming criminals into hardworking, honest members of society (now that's justice!) but we won't be giving the state undue power over its citizens, we entirely eliminate the chance of wrongful execution, and the whole society spends fewer resources on the housing of untreated individuals for indefinitely long periods of time.

Maybe where you live socially conservative positions are not as backwards as the death penalty, but since that's the topic of discussion here, and that is what we need to argue against, I think it's really important that we don't allow the level of discourse to slip down towards "kill the evil fuckers" to appeal to some supposedly static, unwavering, backwards segment of the working class that is entirely unable to change their opinions on serious social issues and unable to understand why giving the state license to murder, and killing criminals, is not "justice" but an irrational revenge scheme that works against everybody's best interests. Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism appeal to the same set of values (justice, fairness, equality and freedom) but one of the two leads to the opposite due to its lack of restrictions on people to cause one another harm. The solutions to social issues also appeal to the same sets of values. Rehabilitation and the Death Penalty both appeal to our sense of justice, but one seems to be more immediately satisfying while at the same time causing more injustice, and the other is more humane and in the end maximizes justice. The point is not to replace the set of values with a different one, but to explain how our system for maximizing these values is more effective at doing so. If we cannot do this for social issues, how can we do this for economic ones?


If the working class in other countries are like the Swedish working class, then its no surprise that "rough policies" towards criminals, immigrants or unemployed generally are greeted favourably by them and earning right-wing parties support amongst people who should'nt really support them at all.

I only know about the working class here, but as I've already explained, things are quite different on this side of the pond.


I do not think the main issue is ignorance, but rather a sense that something is unfair.

And ignorance that solutions like the Death Penalty are less fair to society as a whole than more humane, nuanced, and compassionate solutions which not only take fewer resources but are actually morally defensible.


I also feel that the left, especially the academic left, does'nt really understand the worldview of the working class. I think it is more a question about focus than about education.

I have had that worldview once before. I once found myself espousing the same opinions on most of these subjects that I rail on against here. Especially the death penalty and things like welfare and general wealth redistribution, perceived sexual deviancy, immigration issues, etc. I come from a family with a working class background, I understand the mindset, and I think that while the values they hold are often spot on (and the ones which aren't are also not particularly harmful) their ideas on things like economic justice and social justice are usually not the ones which actually maximize the values they hold. This is most often, in my experience, because of ignorance of the alternatives or of the social nuances involved in the situation.

[mel]

Oh right, I understand now,, its ok for death penalty in war time but the day after war ends you change your mind its all forgot about and its wrong.

Revolution is self-defense.

[Hit The North]

Oh right, I understand now,, its ok for death penalty in war time but the day after war ends you change your mind its all forgot about and its wrong.

The point is that, as revolutionaries, we should not support increasing the violent means of the capitalist state by supporting its use of the death penalty.

[RedArmyUK]

Revolution is self-defense.

I feel the need to kill your kid in a war = Me getting shot

I feel the need to kill your kid one day after the war is finished = I get to live

Strange :confused:

[mel]

I feel the need to kill your kid in a war = Me getting shot

I feel the need to kill your kid one day after the war is finished = I get to live

Strange :confused:

What the fuck?

In a revolutionary period, killing of capitalists is (potentially) justified when they resist worker expropriation of property because the capitalist has been engaged in structural violence against the worker since the inception of capitalism. Capitalist violence is being defended against by revolutionary violence. (the capitalist is actively engaged in violence, revolutionaries are acting in self-defense to protect themselves from capitalist violence)

After the expropriation of property, violence against counter-revolutionary and reactionary forces is (potentially) justified in defense of the revolution. This is also self-defense because reactionaries are actively engaged in violence against revolutionary forces and in order to defend themselves revolutionary forces respond in kind.

After the revolutionary period is over and communism has been established, a person acting in self defense is (potentially) justified in killing their attacker. However, once the act has been committed the state would no longer be acting in self-defense to kill the criminal.

I say potentially in all of these situations because the key here is necessary vs. sufficient force. Lethal violence is almost never necessary to stop the act of violence which you are defending yourself against. In some cases it may be, and killing is justified in those situations, but the force used to stop any act of violence should be only what is necessary to remove the danger posed by the threat. So, for example, in the example of the death penalty against a murderer if the murderer can be stopped in the act only by lethal force, then the murderer can be justly killed in that circumstance. However, if the murderer succeeds in killing the person, and is apprehended, killing them is no longer the necessary force to remove the threat to society. Locking them in a secure facility and treating them is sufficient.

[Dimentio]

The reason that the people react as they do is that they are angry. I have not said that we should crave in to their positions, just that we should say that we understand why they feel as they feel.

[mel]

The reason that the people react as they do is that they are angry. I have not said that we should crave in to their positions, just that we should say that we understand why they feel as they feel.

It's okay to be angry. It is not okay to use that anger to justify state murder. I understand why they feel the way they do, but the goal should not be just to understand, but to educate.

[Guerrilla22]

Yes kill all "social scum" Be sure to get the homeless, mentally ill, and the welfare recipients as well. Together you and the AUC can make the world a much better place.

[Dimentio]

Yes kill all "social scum" Be sure to get the homeless, mentally ill, and the welfare recipients as well. Together you and the AUC can make the world a much better place.

How's your English?

[MarxSchmarx]

Ms. Snail:


This question has be brewing in my mind for a while now and I wonder what you may think...Therefore it comes to mind, if in order to join a gang one is required to kill, then one can safely assume that each one of them is wanted for murder. Is it then justified to consider them guilty before proven innocent? Or is the fact that they are in the gang evidence in itself that they did kill?


No. For a number of reasons. First, The presumption of innocence applies unless one is proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent a victim, how can you possibly hold a generic gang member responsible for a murder of some "hypothetical person"? What is the crime? This goes directly at the etymology of the phrase habeus corpus. Trust me, this will not hold water in any court.

Second, the question is, "killing" somebody can happen a number of ways - they can always claim it was self defense (e.g., the other gang opened fire so you had to shoot back to avoid being killed yourself), the MS just so happened to interpret it as killing a member of a rival gang in cold blood. Because of situations like these, mere gang membership cannot be reason enough to suspend the presumption of innocence.

Therefore, for these reasons, the presumption of innocence still applies to a member of such a gang.

[Guerrilla22]

How's your English?

Good point. We better make sure to get the "illegals" too. that way we can keep their gangs off our streets right?

[Dimentio]

Good point. We better make sure to get the "illegals" too. that way we can keep their gangs off our streets right?

You are a darn moron if you think that what I have written is about my own opinions and not the opinions of large segments of the working class. I do not think we should kill criminals. Neither do I want to deport people. Neither is English my first language even.

The reason why I questioned your English is that you totally, completely misinterpreted my post about the opinions which are dominant within parts of the working class.

I made a post to explain why people in the working class could take on ideological positions seen as reactionary, and how these opinions express themselves in my country.

If you think that these opinions are my opinions, you are completely and utterly outlandish and do not deserve any more replies. To even answer to your posts is like answering to the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet"?

[Guerrilla22]

You are a darn moron if you think that what I have written is about my own opinions and not the opinions of large segments of the working class. I do not think we should kill criminals. Neither do I want to deport people. Neither is English my first language even.

The reason why I questioned your English is that you totally, completely misinterpreted my post about the opinions which are dominant within parts of the working class.

I made a post to explain why people in the working class could take on ideological positions seen as reactionary, and how these opinions express themselves in my country.

If you think that these opinions are my opinions, you are completely and utterly outlandish and do not deserve any more replies. To even answer to your posts is like answering to the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet"?

Wow... well first off all I wasn't responding to any of your post, I was respopnding to the initial post and the post in which someone called for "the scum of the earth" to be killed. I guess it's my fault for not directly providing the quotes I was responding to in my post.

I was being sarcastic, as these statements by so called leftist seem eerily similar to the position of the Colombian paramilitary group AUC, which also seeks to shoot criminals, drug users and other "social scum" on site.

I obviously misinterpreted your earlier post, as it wasn't exactly clear as to what you were getting at. Malice towards you was not my intention.

[Dimentio]

Wow... well first off all I wasn't responding to any of your post, I was respopnding to the initial post and the post in which someone called for "the scum of the earth" to be killed. I guess it's my fault for not directly providing the quotes I was responding to in my post.

I was being sarcastic, as these statements by so called leftist seem eerily similar to the position of the Colombian paramilitary group AUC, which also seeks to shoot criminals, drug users and other "social scum" on site.

I obviously misinterpreted your earlier post, as it wasn't exactly clear as to what you were getting at. Malice towards you was not my intention.

No hard feelings. ^^

[RedArmyUK]

The reason that the people react as they do is that they are angry. I have not said that we should crave in to their positions, just that we should say that we understand why they feel as they feel.

I,m glad some out there understands why others like me think murdering scumers should die, I just love the way they try and tar people like me as having "right wing Nazi" Ideals.

I,d just like to know if any of these "Do gooders" have been anywhere near a Prison?

before all the young guns on here start, Yes I have (work)

[mel]

I,m glad some out there understands why others like me think murdering scumers should die, I just love the way they try and tar people like me as having "right wing Nazi" Ideals.

You cannot deny that your ideas are very similar to the ideas of Nazis, in execution as well as in theory. The idea that some people are inferior (such as the mentally ill, which accounts for most crime that is not drug/property related) and should be killed for the good of all society is one that sounds off to most rational people, and for a good reason. That is not to say that happening to share an opinion with somebody against whom you are ideologically opposed is always a bad thing, but it should always be grounds to re-evaluate that belief.


I,d just like to know if any of these "Do gooders" have been anywhere near a Prison?

Would it matter if we were? Capitalist prisons are not indicative of ANYTHING AT ALL that matters in the context of this discussion. Capitalist prisons are places where the oppressed and psychologically ill go to be made more violent and have their conditions exacerbated. A post-revolutionary "prison" would look nothing like this.


before all the young guns on here start, Yes I have (work)

And this means what? That you have interacted with people who the capitalists have decided are worth locking away in poor conditions that only serve to make them angrier and more violent? Interacting with people who, due to capitalism, are subjected to poor living conditions and are mentally unstable is not evidence that such people deserve to be killed, because the purpose of a post-revolutionary prison would be different, and the social conditions which lead to crime would be different. You cannot use interactions with prisoners under capitalism to justify ill treatment of criminals under socialism, your experience is irrelevant here.

[Dimentio]

I,m glad some out there understands why others like me think murdering scumers should die, I just love the way they try and tar people like me as having "right wing Nazi" Ideals.

I,d just like to know if any of these "Do gooders" have been anywhere near a Prison?

before all the young guns on here start, Yes I have (work)

I do not support your position. I could understand why you take it - it is a quintessentially human position.

But to give the state or the community the right to kill people would mean that we would yield the autonomy over our lives to be decided by some kind of authority.

The state should not have the authority to end a human life.

[commiedic]

A justified murder? Who would be doing these killings you or me? Does our shit not stink and we are the justified vigilantees that tend to the earth to remove the evil in the world? What makes the hunter any better than the prey? There will always be corruption no matter what is done. It all depends on what the others views on morality is. Someone could be a republican christian and another a anarchist satanist. Who is right in that fight? They both are standing up for what they believe in. So who would you rather have win and is that choice right? There are no justified murders only unjust. The killer is no less guilty than the killed.

[Stel]

force is used by the rights and motive by the lefts.

[bluerev002]

The point is that, as revolutionaries, we should not support increasing the violent means of the capitalist state by supporting its use of the death penalty.

Bob, that sole definition of a state lies in its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. There are worse things a human can go through than death. Now this is in now way suggesting that to kill is to save and that we are doing deviants a favor by killing them. Simply stated that a fully capable man is a man and is only of any worth if he inputs positively into his environment (this in now way suggest that usefulness equates to a job). He can be of no worth by being lazy or a hermit and that can be fine. However upon becoming a negative asset to society then he becomes a determent and can cause harm to others. Let us forget about rehabilitation. That should not be our goal as much as assuring that the next generation does not follow in those footsteps (both by eliminating the examples and the route).

Furthermore, this does not simply mean the lower strata of society. My apologies for steering the debate in this manner and only focusing on gangs. But social misfits can also include the upper capitalist that work only for their own greed. Is there any here among us who will hesitate to take out the heads of corporations that take from the people and instead put those businessmen in jail? Well, maybe there are. But as for myself a human life is not so special.

[mel]

There are worse things a human can go through than death.

Not if you don't give them that chance. Death is final, irreversible. There is no worse punishment. The tortured at least live to eventually, hopefully, move past that (not that torture is justifiable) but the dead have no recourse.

[bluerev002]

Not if you don't give them that chance. Death is final, irreversible. There is no worse punishment. The tortured at least live to eventually, hopefully, move past that (not that torture is justifiable) but the dead have no recourse.

I'm molding and molding this question in my mind as I have been for some time now. And in this point, that there is no worse punishment than death, I agree with you.