Death row Briton 'told of fate' [Archive]

robbo203

28th December 2009, 18:20

I see the western media are trying to portray this drug trafficker as mentally ill I do not believe this for one second he is getting what he deserves.
One less person prepared to poison our communities.
Fair play to the Chinese.

The death penality is an obscenity and an abomination. Two wrongs dont make a right. The chinese, ironically under the circumstances, have a traditional saying which goes something like this "blame the crime not the criminal". Your attitide lacks any spark of humanity.

No doubt I will be lectured about the victims of the drug trafficker. Well actually they are the victims of the drug they solicited from the trafficker but never mind a small detail like that. If the drugs trade wasnt demand-driven there wouldnt be a drug trade at all. Of course there are plenty of drugs - or mind altering substances - you can buy quite legally, from alchohol to cigarettes, but as long as the punters pay their taxes to the state then thats OK then

Oh and as for the claim that you dont believe "for one second" that he is mentally ill, you know this guy personally, perchance? Its only you seem very certain about things which ordinary Joes in the street like myself would have no way of knowing

IrishWorker

28th December 2009, 18:27

The death penality is an obscenity and an abomination. Two wrongs dont make a right. The chinese, ironically under the circumstances, have a traditional saying which goes something like this "blame the crime not the criminal". Your attitide lacks any spark of humanity.

No doubt I will be lectured about the victims of the drug trafficker. Well actually they are the victims of the drug they solicited from the trafficker but never mind a small detail like that. If the drugs trade wasnt demand-driven there wouldnt be a drug trade at all. Of course there are plenty of drugs - or mind altering substances - you can buy quite legally, from alchohol to cigarettes, but as long as the punters pay their taxes to the state then thats OK then

Oh and as for the claim that you dont believe "for one second" that he is mentally ill, you know this guy personally, perchance? Its only you seem very certain about things which ordinary Joes in the street like myself would have no way of knowing
So then I will spare you the lecture as its all been said before but just for the record don’t mix hard drugs like heroin up with any other milder substance as it quickly destroys workers life’s and there is a big difference.
Yes alcohol destroys lives and so dose tobacco but we are specifically talking about heroin.
It is a poison and those who poison the workers should quite rightly be put up against a wall.

robbo203

28th December 2009, 18:42

So then I will spare you the lecture as its all been said before but just for the record don’t mix hard drugs like heroin up with any other milder substance as it quickly destroys workers life’s and there is a big difference.
Yes alcohol destroys lives and so dose tobacco but we are specifically talking about heroin.
It is a poison and those who poison the workers should quite rightly be put up against a wall.

Between "It is a poison" and "those who poison the workers should quite rightly be put up against a wall" is a huge gap which you fill with your misanthropic right wing claptrap. Never mind that even the heroin drug taker might have actually desired the drug which the trafficker provided. You presume to sit in judgement over him or her and take it upon yourself to decide what is best for him or her. The statist war on drugs is failing and will continue to fail precisely because of attitudes like this.

Spawn of Stalin

28th December 2009, 18:45

I see the western media are trying to portray this drug trafficker as mentally ill I do not believe this for one second he is getting what he deserves.
One less person prepared to poison our communities.
Fair play to the Chinese.
I've been waiting on a thread about this story to pop up here since I read about it in the Morning Star a week ago and I'm pretty surprised that it was started by someone who is actually supportive China's decision to carry out his sentence. I'm going to have to agree with you though, the BBC et al. are taking the piss, making it sound like this guy is seriously mentally impaired, like he can't even think for himself or something, let's get one thing straight, he suffers from bipolar disorder, he is a manic depressive, I can say from experience that this isn't a disorder which is likely to make someone go out and buy a bunch of heroin by accident, and if he was really all that mentally ill his family would not have let him travel all the way to China alone. He knew exactly what he was doing, now he's paying the price, sorry if that offends anyone.

Lord Testicles

28th December 2009, 18:51

Oh right is this the same Heroin you can grow in your back garden in England?

What are you talking about? :confused:

If it wasn’t for scum like him importing it so many people’s lives could be saved from the gutter and the grave

If it wasn't for "scum" like him, people would find other ways of getting their jollies and poisoning their bodies.

Isn't it a better idea to let people have access to legal, cheap (maybe even free) and "cleaner" drugs, rather than stuff that is cut with cthulhu knows what, something which is most likely done for profit. I don't know maybe capitalism is the problem. :unsure:

]so save me your bleeding heart trendy lefty shite [/COLOR]

Save me your knuckle dragging mentality.

]I [/COLOR]don’t support the self destruction of the working class by drugs and believe all enemies of our class should be killed including Drugs Traffickers.

Please explain to me how a drug traffickers are bourgeoisie? Do the mules emlopy people? stocks and shares maybe?

IrishWorker

28th December 2009, 18:52

Between "It is a poison" and "those who poison the workers should quite rightly be put up against a wall" is a huge gap which you fill with your misanthropic right wing claptrap. Never mind that even the heroin drug taker might have actually desired the drug which the trafficker provided. You presume to sit in judgement over him or her and take it upon yourself to decide what is best for him or her. The statist war on drugs is failing and will continue to fail precisely because of attitudes like this.
The war against Drugs is failing because most places hand out slaps on the wrist instead of punishing criminals like China.
China isn’t perfect by any means but they have got this one right credit where credits due.

bailey_187

28th December 2009, 18:52

So drug traffickers deserve the death penelty?

Because they smuggle chemicals which people ingest willingly? Or because you are a vile little shit with crap politics?

and while we're at it, why even bother overthrowing capitalism. I mean, all they do is hire people willingly and sell people goods willingly. All they are doing is trying to make some money, just like this guy init.

Lord Testicles

28th December 2009, 18:56

and while we're at it, why even bother overthrowing capitalism. I mean, all they do is hire people willingly and sell people goods willingly. All they are doing is trying to make some money, just like this guy init.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, drug dealers are a cornerstone of capitalism.

IrishWorker

28th December 2009, 19:04

If it wasn't for "scum" like him, people would find other ways of getting their jollies and poisoning their bodies.
Not with substances as damaging as Heroin if the scum didn’t import it people couldn’t take it.

Isn't it a better idea to let people have access to legal, cheap (maybe even free) and "cleaner" drugs, rather than stuff that is cut with cthulhu knows what, something which is most likely done for profit. I don't know maybe capitalism is the problem. :unsure:
Maybe it is but give an example of a "cleaner" Drug?

Save me your knuckle dragging mentality.

Hardly knuckle dragging when you see a problem then call for it to be eradicated more like common sense.

Please explain to me how a drug traffickers are bourgeoisie? Do the mules emlopy people? stocks and shares maybe?[/QUOTE]
They are wanna be Capitalists who exploit the working class for there own gain.

robbo203

28th December 2009, 19:13

The war against Drugs is failing because most places hand out slaps on the wrist instead of punishing criminals like China.
China isn’t perfect by any means but they have got this one right credit where credits due.

Ha! More pearls of wisdom from our Daily Express "flog 'em and string 'em up" brigade. The Chinese approach to drugs is right, eh? Well perhaps you might care to explain this

For many, the biggest lure is the greatest taboo: drugs. Independent sources estimate 7 million to 12 million drug addicts nationwide, and although that figure pales per capita compared with the U.S.'s, the number of junkies climbs each year. If the trend continues, in just five years China could have the most addicts per capita of any major economy. More than 80% are under 35 years of age, according to the central government, which keeps meticulous—if questionable—statistics but is far less adept at tackling this burgeoning problem.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101020520/cover.html

(my emphasis)

Sam_b

28th December 2009, 19:15

Spawn of Stalin

28th December 2009, 19:17

I can't speak for anyone else in this topic but I for one am not against the state, so for me crime and punishment is naturally an issue which needs to be tackled within the state.

Jazzratt

28th December 2009, 19:17

So then I will spare you the lecture as its all been said before but just for the record don’t mix hard drugs like heroin up with any other milder substance as it quickly destroys workers life’s and there is a big difference.
Yes alcohol destroys lives and so dose tobacco but we are specifically talking about heroin.
It is a poison and those who poison the workers should quite rightly be put up against a wall.

This is just emotionalist twaddle. "Heroin is bad because it's bad!" isn't a fucking argument is it? Most things that are considered poisons have a much lower effective lethal dose than heroin and are not used recreationally (when was the last time you saw someone snorting cyanide?). What other drugs are you going to kill people for? What criteria will you use to decide when a drug should be enough to cost someone's life? The fucked up criteria of the rulership which posits that alcohol is safer than ecstasy?

Spawn of Stalin

28th December 2009, 19:22

Isn't it a better idea to let people have access to legal, cheap (maybe even free) and "cleaner" drugs, rather than stuff that is cut with cthulhu knows what, something which is most likely done for profit. I don't know maybe capitalism is the problem. :unsure:
I know Communists are for creating an abundance of material wealth and giving the workers unrestricted access to it, but last time I checked legalising drugs and making them available to everyone for free didn't fall within the realms of a "free access society". Sounds like something you might read in the Weekly Worker. Someone wake me when we can start addressing the big issues, the ones which the working class actually give a fuck about.

Sam_b

28th December 2009, 19:28

In areas where the illegality and impurity of narcotics has led to a dangerous spiral of crime, addiction and gangs i'm pretty sure that this is an issue that workers give a fuck about.

Lord Testicles

28th December 2009, 19:30

Not with substances as damaging as Heroin if the scum didn’t import it people couldn’t take it.

People with some knowladge of chemisty could probably make it considering it isn't that hard to make your own opium.

Maybe it is but give an example of a "cleaner" Drug?

Some countries like Switzerland and Britain give heroin to heroin addicts to treat them, because it isn't as harmful when it isn't full of impurities.

Hardly knuckle dragging when you see a problem then call for it to be eradicated more like common sense.

When your finest solution to a problem is to kill people, then I think it's fair to call it a knuckle dragging mentality.

They are wanna be Capitalists who exploit the working class for there own gain.

I don't think you have explained how yet?

bailey_187

28th December 2009, 19:35

So you're against capitalism and the state, yet you support the capitalist state when it executes the people you don't like? Why do you wish to concentrate power in the hands of the state with the premise of apparently 'punishing criminals', especially (in this instance) a case which is certainly not open-and-shut?.

So you against capitalism and for the betterment of the working class yet you go soft on parasites that suck their blood like this? Why do you wish to go easy on these people with the premise of apparently "opposing the state"?

Sorry if I don't see the logic in this argument, or indeed your entire logic that by kneecapping and executing as many dealers as possible the problem will somehow be eradicated overnight..

No, execution and other similar punishment is not the solution to the problem. The solution is Communism. By in the mean time, i hope these parasites get all they deserve.
This wont end drug addiction or drug trafficing. No one is saying that. All we are saying is that they get what they deserve. Until Socialism is fully returned to China and this problem can be properly addressed, we say give these parasites hell.

bailey_187

28th December 2009, 19:38

Ha! More pearls of wisdom from our Daily Express "flog 'em and string 'em up" brigade. The Chinese approach to drugs is right, eh? Well perhaps you might care to explain this

For many, the biggest lure is the greatest taboo: drugs. Independent sources estimate 7 million to 12 million drug addicts nationwide, and although that figure pales per capita compared with the U.S.'s, the number of junkies climbs each year. If the trend continues, in just five years China could have the most addicts per capita of any major economy. More than 80% are under 35 years of age, according to the central government, which keeps meticulous—if questionable—statistics but is far less adept at tackling this burgeoning problem.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101020520/cover.html

(my emphasis)

Again, no one is saying that the execution is going to stop or slow the problem.
I doubt there is a corelation (if thats the word) between executions and drug use and selling either way. Its like saying that ice cream causes hay fever because lots of ice cream is eaten in summer and lots of people get hay fever in summer

Spawn of Stalin

28th December 2009, 19:38

In areas where the illegality and impurity of narcotics has led to a dangerous spiral of crime, addiction and gangs i'm pretty sure that this is an issue that workers give a fuck about.
Yeah maybe, but legalising drugs, I hardly think that is going to solve these problems, and I seriously doubt that the working class cares for this "solution" either.

Sam_b

28th December 2009, 19:45

So you against capitalism and for the betterment of the working class yet you go soft on parasites that suck their blood like this? Why do you wish to go easy on these people with the premise of apparently "opposing the state"?

Please provide substancial proof that the individual to be executed tomorrow is a big time heroin dealer, rather than a mentally ill man or someone who has been duped by a drugs cartel. Why do you see ridiculous vigilante or state-sponsored bourgeois 'justice' as being able to rid working class communities of drugs problems? It completely baffles the mind. It should be obvious to any leftist that these instances are often perpetuated by the capitalist system, where workers turn to drug dealing in an attempt to survive during the jobs crisis. Please spare me your emotive language here.

Leftists should be supporting the right of individuals to do what they desire to their own bodies, and should always be supporting a rational solution to drugs; one that involves legalisation and availability of clean drugs, on prescription to addicts (such as in the Swiss projects that have worked), and a comprehensive education and rehabilitation schemes so that people can make their own choices.

No, execution and other similar punishment is not the solution to the problem. The solution is Communism. By in the mean time, i hope these parasites get all they deserve.
This wont end drug addiction or drug trafficing. No one is saying that. All we are saying is that they get what they deserve. Until Socialism is fully returned to China and this problem can be properly addressed, we say give these parasites hell.

As I said, prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that he was a guilty party, and indeed is a 'parasite'. Until that, your rhetoric still is bullshit semantic rhetoric - that 'until there is X solution' leftists can somehow support the state locking people up in substandard conditions with no human contact, torturing confessions, mental and physical duress, before shooting them through the mouth in the name of 'deservance for X arbitary crime'. Its astounding, and hypocritical. Vendetta Daily Mailisms rather than sound politics.

Sam_b

28th December 2009, 19:46

I seriously doubt that the working class cares for this "solution" either.

The working class doesn't currently care in its masses for socialism. Should we just stop our efforts now?

scarletghoul

28th December 2009, 19:48

Those evil chinese, kidnapping our poor international drug traffickers :crying:

Seriously, the anti-China propaganda campaign is ridiculous. On the BBC radio today I heard another report about the evil chinese killing bears.

Why does the BBC never speculate on the mental health of the muslim 'terrorists' being tortured by Amerika and the UK? This shit is so one-sided lol

Spawn of Stalin

28th December 2009, 19:56

The working class doesn't currently care in its masses for socialism. Should we just stop our efforts now?
Who is "we"? Socialists in general? No, certainly not. Some socialists (you know who you are)? Yeah, I definitely do think that they should stop their efforts because they are all that is standing in the way of proletarian revolution, let's face it, they've just made a bloody mess of things and ruined it for everyone else, that means the working class. But I digress, my point was that legalising drugs is not something we should be concerning ourselves with.

bailey_187

28th December 2009, 19:59

Please provide substancial proof that the individual to be executed tomorrow is a big time heroin dealer.

No one claimed he was a Escobar. Maybe we could compare him to the same way British soldiers are for the Imperialists. That doesnt excuse them. We know he was trafficing heroin.

rather than a mentally ill man or someone who has been duped by a drugs cartel. .

No. The burden of proof for this relies on you.

Why do you see ridiculous vigilante

This is about the Republicans and their community work right? You sound like the left groups that used to denouce the Black Panthers for patrolling with guns and shooting police that terrorised their community.

or state-sponsored bourgeois 'justice' as being able to rid working class communities of drugs problems?

It cant. Only Communism can. I already said this.

It completely baffles the mind. It should be obvious to any leftist that these instances are often perpetuated by the capitalist system, where workers turn to drug dealing in an attempt to survive during the jobs crisis.

er....shotting a bit of weed is acceptable but heroin is a different matter. The underlying cause is perpetuated by the capitalist system but individual responses are not. Should we excuse racism as it is caused by capitalist crisis? No.

Leftists should be supporting the right of individuals to do what they desire to their own bodies, and should always be supporting a rational solution to drugs; one that involves legalisation and availability of clean drugs, on prescription to addicts (such as in the Swiss projects that have worked), and a comprehensive education and rehabilitation schemes so that people can make their own choices..

Right, er...good luck with that.

Vendetta Daily Mailisms rather than sound politics.

Sentimental Guardian student liberalist politics?

bailey_187

28th December 2009, 20:06

Ok, i just looked more into this and maybe this guy does not deserve execution if he was mentally ill and tricked into it like the anti-death penalty group say.

But, i have no problems with drug smugglers who choose to do it being punished.

Sam_b

28th December 2009, 20:09

No one claimed he was a Escobar. Maybe we could compare him to the same way British soldiers are for the Imperialists. That doesnt excuse them. We know he was trafficing heroin.

Seriously, what a cop-out answer.

No. The burden of proof for this relies on you.

Again, what a cop-out. I have no burden of proof in the slightest because i'm not supporting condemning someone to death on a guilt which I do not know is proven or not. If you're going to execute someone, guilt needs to be proven byond reasonable doubt. Nobody has done this.

This is about the Republicans and their community work right? You sound like the left groups that used to denouce the Black Panthers for patrolling with guns and shooting police that terrorised their community.

Do you usually try to take down arguments with one-liners and completely polar parallels? The Panthers were protecting their communities from the racist brutality of the state. Drug dealers are not the state, nor are they some black-and-white cut-and-thrust blanket 'good guy' or 'bad guy'.

er....shotting a bit of weed is acceptable but heroin is a different matter

Why? Why is it your business what I choose to do to my body or not?

Right, er...good luck with that.

I would argue a much more convincing alternative than your 'hang em high' rubbish. If you can't respond to something like this then more fool you. I'm not the one talkingh about bringing down the state yet cheerleading their macabre sense of justice.

IrishWorker

28th December 2009, 20:23

People with some knowladge of chemisty could probably make it considering it isn't that hard to make your own opium.
Spoken like a true addict.

Some countries like Switzerland and Britain give heroin to heroin addicts to treat them, because it isn't as harmful when it isn't full of impurities.
Yes but they dont condone the willy nilly recreational use people like you call for.

When your finest solution to a problem is to kill people, then I think it's fair to call it a knuckle dragging mentality.
Its better than your solution. Which is?

I don't think you have explained how yet?
Dealers are Cappie Bastards they are money mad they buy the product off the trafficker double or treble the price and sell it to the most vulnerable people in society how can any person who proclaims to be Socialist defend or condone their actions only anarchists and trendy wankers would stoop so low as to defend this scum.

Glenn Beck

28th December 2009, 20:28

This guy was probably a mule. It's the typical shit with these corrupt hardass capitalist asian governments executing a mule and leaving the overall drug trade untouched. The folks behind the smuggling operation sure as hell don't carry the stuff personally. This focus on heavy enforcement at the point of entry is akin to fighting prostitution by arresting prostitutes but leaving the johns free.

28th December 2009, 20:32

IF he's been assessed by an independent examiner who concludes he is in fact mentally ill and he was coerced to smuggle drugs by gangster scum, then he should he put in for treatment in a mental hospital (where he can be protected from that scum and also treated for his mental illness) rather than be executed, which seems unfair if he is mentally ill.

OK, so there obviously is a campaign to make the Chinese look evil and he's a political pawn between China and the west, but nonetheless he shouldn't be used as an example IF he really is mentally ill, if he isn't then I can't say I'd care too much if he was executed.

Demogorgon

28th December 2009, 20:37

Oh right is this the same Heroin you can grow in your back garden in England?
If it wasn’t for scum like him importing it so many people’s lives could be saved from the gutter and the grave so save me your bleeding heart trendy lefty shite I don’t support the self destruction of the working class by drugs and believe all enemies of our class should be killed including Drugs Traffickers.
Well I for one will make no apologies for being a "lefty", nor will I make any apologies for introducing you to common sense. Even notwithstanding the fact that the death penalty is despicable at the best of times and this crime is far from the most serious and notwithstanding the fact that it is the illegality of drugs that is the cause of so much of the harm in the first place, this guy is not exactly a major player is he. He is some fool who was duped into doing a one off drug smuggling run.

robbo203

28th December 2009, 20:43

Who is "we"? Socialists in general? No, certainly not. Some socialists (you know who you are)? Yeah, I definitely do think that they should stop their efforts because they are all that is standing in the way of proletarian revolution, let's face it, they've just made a bloody mess of things and ruined it for everyone else, that means the working class. But I digress, my point was that legalising drugs is not something we should be concerning ourselves with.

And by the same token, keeping drugs illegal and supporting the mindless authoritarianism of the capitalist state is not something we should be concerning ourselves with either. Capitalist states like China and America are failing woefully in their so called war on drugs. So what the fuck are these ritualistic barbaric executions all about in that case, eh? Dont tell me they are concerned about the welfare of the workers.

Look, no one here (I presume) is saying taking hard drugs like heroin is a good thing. It can seriously mess up your life. But at the end of the day it is down to the individual to take responsiblity for his or her own life. Banning drugs doesnt work. It makes the drug problem much worse. And im not just talking about the adulteration and contamination of drugs which exacerbate the health problems. Im talking about everything else that goes with driving the trade underground - the violence, the gang warfare the crime to pay for the drugs and so on.

Actually, if the capitalist states around the world were serious about tackling the drug problem probably the best thing they could do would be to liberalise it completely. If people want to kill themselves on herion then so be it. People will kill themselves by all manner of means - from jumping off a high rise block to taking an overdose of aspirins. But at least you could say that by bringing the drug trade out into the open and legalising you stand a much better chance of mitigating its effects

Its ironic that those who condemn the Chinese state for its disgusting policy on executing people - there are apparently more executions in China than in the rest of the world combined - should be accused of being emotive as if supporting this barbaric practice was somehow "rational". On what grounds might it be considered "rational" when, as we have seen, it is not a deterrent, for instance. Indeed, the drug problem in China is spiralling out of control.

No, to support the death penalty is no less emotive than to oppose it. It is a question of values. The values of socialist humanism or the values of authoritarian capitalism.

IrishWorker

28th December 2009, 20:43

Well I for one will make no apologies for being a "lefty", nor will I make any apologies for introducing you to common sense. Even notwithstanding the fact that the death penalty is despicable at the best of times and this crime is far from the most serious and notwithstanding the fact that it is the illegality of drugs that is the cause of so much of the harm in the first place, this guy is not exactly a major player is he. He is some fool who was duped into doing a one off drug smuggling run.
Who knows if he was a big player or not? But one thing is for sure when he is put up against the wall in the morning the world will be minus one drugs trafficker and I for one won’t lose any sleep over the criminal.

Salyut

28th December 2009, 20:44

he suffers from bipolar disorder, he is a manic depressive, I can say from experience that this isn't a disorder which is likely to make someone go out and buy a bunch of heroin by accident

Uh, if hes maniac thats exactly how he'd act. Bipolar (generic bipolar I) doesn't just make you depressed, it'll make you full on delusional if you go into a maniac state.

Demogorgon

28th December 2009, 20:48

Who knows if he was a big player or not? But one thing is for sure when he is put up against the wall in the morning the world will be minus one drugs trafficker and I for one won’t lose any sleep over the criminal.
Apparently not. To further aid your sleep, perhaps you should find a board where people are more likely to share your views and not fire you up so much. The comments section of the Daily Mail's site for instance?

IrishWorker

28th December 2009, 20:56

Apparently not. To further aid your sleep, perhaps you should find a board where people are more likely to share your views and not fire you up so much. The comments section of the Daily Mail's site for instance?
Just because a few trendys disagree with me doesn’t mean anything. Ask any Joe blogs dose he want Heroin legalized and he will laugh in your face. If tomorrow what ever trot sect you support put its politics like this to the people they would mocked.
I’m no reactionary populist band wagon jumper I know what’s right and I know what’s wrong and drug trafficking is wrong and should be severely punished.

bailey_187

28th December 2009, 21:01

Again, what a cop-out. I have no burden of proof in the slightest because i'm not supporting condemning someone to death on a guilt which I do not know is proven or not. If you're going to execute someone, guilt needs to be proven byond reasonable doubt. Nobody has done this..

ok well after finding out more about this im not going to argue he, in this particular case, should be executed but in general i will argue for drug trafficers being punished.

Do you usually try to take down arguments with one-liners and completely polar parallels? The Panthers were protecting their communities from the racist brutality of the state. Drug dealers are not the state, nor are they some black-and-white cut-and-thrust blanket 'good guy' or 'bad guy'...

The Panthers also tried to stop drug dealing. God forbid the Irish workers take up guns to police their own communities. And you say your against the state?

Why? Why is it your business what I choose to do to my body or not?...

What? If your selling heroin it is everyones business.

I would argue a much more convincing alternative than your 'hang em high' rubbish. If you can't respond to something like this then more fool you. I'm not the one talkingh about bringing down the state yet cheerleading their macabre sense of justice.

If we have a socialist planned economy, how much poppys we are going to grow is not going to enter the plan.
Your're the one talking about bringing down the state then condemning Irish workers for undermining the state by policing their own communities.

Pogue

28th December 2009, 21:18

The Panthers also tried to stop drug dealing. God forbid the Irish workers take up guns to police their own communities. And you say your against the state?

This debate could be so much better if you didn't completely ignore what he said.

Demogorgon

28th December 2009, 21:46

Just because a few trendys disagree with me doesn’t mean anything. Ask any Joe blogs dose he want Heroin legalized and he will laugh in your face. If tomorrow what ever trot sect you support put its politics like this to the people they would mocked.
I’m no reactionary populist band wagon jumper I know what’s right and I know what’s wrong and drug trafficking is wrong and should be severely punished.
It is not my role as a progressive to back every reactionary campaign that the tabloids drum up and present as the view of the people. I suppose I should also oppose immigration as well. Or indeed support capitalism. Advocating free immigration and the abolition of capitalism are also views out of step with mainstream opinion, but that means I try to convince people of the progressive view, not adopt some reactionary stance because that's what "the workers" allegedly believe.

You may think you know what is right and wrong, but you appear to have missed some important lessons, not least that killing in cold blood is worse than dealing drugs. Most importantly though is that stubborn little fact that the dangers of drugs are increased by several magnitudes precisely because they are criminalised. You might think that by taking your tough guy, right wing "non nonsense" approach, you are opposing dangerous substances, but you are in fact supporting a policy that both directly and indirectly makes them far more dangerous.

Lumpen Bourgeois

28th December 2009, 22:02

The war against Drugs is failing because most places hand out slaps on the wrist instead of punishing criminals like China.

Exactly. You took the words right out of my mouth, IrishWorker.

Any sensible person not addicted to hard drugs knows that the panacea to all crime is stern punishment.

All those loony bleeding heart liberal researchers who contend that income inequality, poverty, discrimination, racism and generally inauspicious living conditions may perhaps contribute to higher crime rates and suggest that society should probably address these aforementioned issues are probably heroin addicts themselves.

They should, along with the drug dealers, be severely castigated for spouting such anti-worker nonsense which is just as poisonous and pernicious as heroin.

Stranger Than Paradise

28th December 2009, 22:13

Hoggy_RS

28th December 2009, 23:25

Im oppossed to heroin having any kind of place in society, the idea of legalising it sickens me. Drug mules and dealers need to be punished. However, I don't understand how anyone can support a human being been put to death for trafficing. Its a punishment which comes no where near to fittting the crime.

FSL

29th December 2009, 00:29

I don't support someone's execution for a crime like this. Or for any crime that is not of poitical nature. However...

Any sensible person not addicted to hard drugs knows that the panacea to all crime is stern punishment.

All those loony bleeding heart liberal researchers who contend that income inequality, poverty, discrimination, racism and generally inauspicious living conditions may perhaps contribute to higher crime rates and suggest that society should probably address these aforementioned issues are probably heroin addicts themselves.

They should, along with the drug dealers, be severely castigated for spouting such anti-worker nonsense which is just as poisonous and pernicious as heroin.

Becaude dealing heroine and stealing food is the exact same thing and this argument is hardly a strawman.

What is your solution to drugs? You feel a war on drugs is justified rather than the decriminalisation of drugs, regulation of the stuff put in them and education of their effects?

I'm guessing that people who are in favour of the extinction of drugs hardly see the need for a war against them. You know, them being extinct and all.
But you really think that there is a war on drugs then? That great big governments are losing the battle -meaning there is a battle!- against "drug barons", that trained military men can't handle some thugs?

Because they smuggle chemicals which people ingest willingly? Or because you are a vile little shit with crap politics?

Just the generic "I'm free! I'll do what I want!" nonsense. So many Thatcherites gathered here. Too bad for you, a society does exist and its ills aren't just something we'll simply ignore.

Patchd

29th December 2009, 00:37

anticap

29th December 2009, 00:54

Demogorgon

29th December 2009, 08:13

Just the generic "I'm free! I'll do what I want!" nonsense. So many Thatcherites gathered here. Too bad for you, a society does exist and its ills aren't just something we'll simply ignore.For me, and I think for most people, that has nothing to do with it. I think taking heroin is an exceptionally bad idea and one that I would encourage everybody to avoid.

However there is no justification for making a bad thing worse. Banning heroin has firstly put it into the hands of organised crime and terrorism, which I think is self evidently a serious problem. Next it has ensured that there is no kind of quality control when it comes to what people are putting into their bodies. In Scotland just now, the story that is all the rage in the press is that several addicts have been infected with anthrax due to a contaminated batch. Do we really want that?

The last reason I will raise here is that by criminalising the behaviour of addicts, you make it harder for them to get help and also make it virtually certain they will carry out far more crime, as is all the more certain when they need to fund their habit.

It has been shown, by the practice in Switzerland that if you provide addicts with clean, legal heroin as well as giving them proper support, their health will be improved and they will be able to live fairly normal lives. That is the theory behind methadone use as well of course and that has to be an option too, but it does not work on all people.

I am not calling for society to simply turn its back on all drug use, let people use it till they get out of control and let them deal with the consequences. That would be absurd. I think we need to look at the level of harm each drug causes and take a sensible approach from there. Drugs less dangerous than already legal ones like alcohol should not be banned, so things like cannabis should also be fully legal. When it comes to very dangerous drugs like heroin though, it is quite sensible to put restrictions on its availability to discourage non users from starting. But once people do start using and if methadone is no use for them, they should be given ready access to cheap, clean heroin and social services support.

Note as well, that in all cases, all drugs made available, either freely or with restrictions should have their sources accounted for. Trafficking drugs from God knows where should still be illegal, though punishments like the one inflicted on this poor man last night should be out of the question.

I find it telling that countries like Switzerland with the closest to sensible drug policies* have far less of a drug problem than, say, China that as with so many things seems to think a large amount of arbitrary judicial murder will solve its problems.

*Mind you, the Swiss policy towards soft drug users seems to fall into the usual hole of "decriminalisation", that's great to start with, but why on earth don't they just make it legal to deal provided that sources are accounted for and taxes are paid?

Demogorgon

29th December 2009, 08:19

Supporting the working class means supporting them as such, it doesn't mean supporting whatever reactionary beliefs one might find among them, which will fall away when they know the dignity of being the masters of their own lives.
There's an interesting point here. Unfortunately I don't have the figures directly to hand, but there has been a fair bit of research that shows that the more democratic a workplace is and the more fairly workers are rewarded for their labour, the more progressive their politics become. Obviously these studies are conducted under capitalism where workers can only be relatively less exploited and have relatively more democratic workplaces, but with the effects you see of just a little bit of an improvement, it is not much of a stretch to say that full emancipation will lead to very progressive views indeed.

Stranger Than Paradise

29th December 2009, 08:31

I'm guessing that people who are in favour of the extinction of drugs hardly see the need for a war against them. You know, them being extinct and all.
But you really think that there is a war on drugs then? That great big governments are losing the battle -meaning there is a battle!- against "drug barons", that trained military men can't handle some thugs?

No, I was referring to IrishWorker saying the War on Drugs had failed. The war on drugs does not benefit the working class, it only serves to justify ruling class intervention in other countries and greater police privileges. Drugs will never become extinct, people are going to do drugs no matter what. The solution to this is not to criminalise the users of drugs.

*Viva La Revolucion*

29th December 2009, 08:48

Some of the comments here are despicable and show a total lack of compassion and understanding. I think the death penalty should never happen, no matter what the crime is, and to say that someone should be murdered for trafficking drugs is insane. As for his mental illness, it seems completely legitimate. Someone who is bipolar could in fact be delusional, especially if they're in a manic state as opposed to a depressive one. In any case he's highly unstable and can't be held 100% accountable for his actions. He needs treatment, not punishment.

This guy is being used as an example to show people that China is serious about tackling the drugs trade but as someone else here said, they should be tracking down the people at the top who are organizing all of this, not someone who was being used as a means of transporting the drugs.

Tougher laws on drugs usually don't work. People should be dealing with the roots of the problem - poverty, exploitation etc - rather than condemning drug users and dealers. I don't agree with legalization of heroin or other 'hard' drugs, but surely there are better ways of reducing drug use other than murdering mentally ill people?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

29th December 2009, 09:38

Before everyone jumps on the Chinese, and deservedly so, it should be noted that this sentence is not uncommon in east asia. Not that it's any more correct, but

Indonesia carries a maximum penalty of death for drug dealing, and a maximum of 15 years prison for drug use. In practice, this is rarely carried out against Indonesian citizens, however they have controversially executed many overseas tourists to the country.

Anyone caught with more than or equal to 15 g (0.5 ounces) of heroin, 28 g (1 ounce) of morphine or 480 g (17 ounces) of cannabis faces mandatory capital punishment, as they are deemed to be trafficking in these substances. The stated quantities are the net weight of the substances after they have been isolated by laboratory analysis. Between 1991 and 2004, 400 people were hanged in Singapore, mostly for drug trafficking, the highest per-capita execution rate in the world.

Malaysia, these all carry the death penalty:

Waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong - Section 121 Penal Code (see: Al-Ma'unah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27unah))
Offences against a Ruler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_Ruler)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Malaysia#cite_note-0) - Section 121A Penal Code
Abetting mutiny (Armed Forces) - Section 132 Penal Code
Murder - Section 302 Penal Code (mandatory) (see: Mona Fandey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Fandey))
Abetment of suicide[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Malaysia#cite_note-1) - Section 305 Penal Code
Attempt by life convict to murder, if hurt is caused - Section 307(c) Penal Code (mandatory)
Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder - Section 364 Penal Code
Hostage taking - Section 374A Penal Code
Gang robbery with murder - Section 396 Penal Code
Drug trafficking - [I]Section 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (mandatory) (see: Barlow and Chambers execution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlow_and_Chambers_execution))
Possession of firearms - Section 57 Internal Security Act 1960

Philipines:

President Arroyo has controversially pardoned many prisoners including Former President Joseph Estrada who was found guilty of corruption in 2007 and all remaining convicted felons charged with the assassination of Former Senator and opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 2009. Current Philippine embarkation cards still contains a warning to visitors about the death penalty for drug trafficking.

Several other East Asian countries have since become more lenient, which is good, but my point being that China is certainly not alone in the ac of execution for drug trafficking.

Demogorgon

29th December 2009, 09:58

Several other East Asian countries have since become more lenient, which is good, but my point being that China is certainly not alone in the ac of execution for drug trafficking.
It is not of course (though to correct what you said, the Philippines has actually abolished the death penalty for all crimes now, so drug trafficking no longer leads to execution) but in addition to making these countries look backwards and barbaric it has singularly failed to deal with the drug problem in a single one of them. Even Singapore where other social factors might ordinarily be expected to lead to lower drug consumption than its neighbours still has a serious drug problem.

Indeed it is those areas with no death penalty at all such as Hong Kong and South Korea (which has no death penalty in practice though it remains on the statute book for the time being) or where the death penalty is not extended to drug crimes like Japan or Taiwan (where it can be applied in theory to traffickers, but in practice is not) that have the least difficulties with drugs, relatively speaking.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

29th December 2009, 11:05

Some of the replies in here truly amaze me.

I doubt that there is one Socialist who, presented with a hypothetical situation such as this, would condone in any way the use of the death penalty here. However, now that it is a bona fide 'Socialist' state carrying out this action, it seems some people are willing to forgo their principles in order to defend their precious leftists at any cost.

Personally, this story has disgusted me. A State Capitalist country executing somebody for doing something which should not be illegal in the first place, is something which revulses me to the core. Even an answer based without emotion on this topic, must surely come to the conclusion that this action was just wrong. The chinese did not even investigate this man's Bipolar Disorder. Their defence was that he should have provided such evidence himself; obviously this is something that somebody who may have either a minor or a major mental illness (we cannot really say for sure), imprisoned in a foreign country, is not going to know the ins and outs of the legal process.

The execution of Capitalists, counter-revolutionaries et al is a legitimate argument on the left. The execution of those who wish to move recreational substances which are stigmatised by the Capitalist system as 'drugs' because they probably would not turn as big a profit as other substances - Alcohol, Tobacco - is not a legitimate argument, it is a crime.

IrishWorker

29th December 2009, 11:35

If I ask any Joe Blogs if they want homosexuality to be allowed to be practised in this country and they said no, that makes it right yes? Because, we're so far off from the working class that we have to follow them right? Also, how the hell could you have never met anyone who doesn't support the complete legalisation of drugs, I was born (and grew up) on an estate, and I knew so many apolitical people who held this position, perhaps it's a difference in locality.
You know as well as me it doesn’t work like that everyone is entitled to total equality and has the right to exist but in society there are bad people Murderers Rapists Drugs Traffickers etc and scum like this have no role in life only to spread misery.
So severe punishment is what I support and I am not ashamed of it either.

For what its worth my thoughts are with this mans family this morning it must be hard.

Hoggy_RS

29th December 2009, 13:27

Has he been put to death yet?

Sam_b

29th December 2009, 13:33

AFAIK he was executed at 2:30 this morning.

FSL

29th December 2009, 13:42

Drugs will never become extinct, people are going to do drugs no matter what. The solution to this is not to criminalise the users of drugs.

Drugs are essentially chemically-induced hapiness. Saying people will always be doing drugs is like saying people will always need some God to comfort them.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

29th December 2009, 14:07

Drugs are essentially chemically-induced hapiness. Saying people will always be doing drugs is like saying people will always need some God to comfort them.

As an emotionally developed species, humans will always have psychological ups and downs which no economic system can fix. As such, substances which artificially induce a placebo/hallucinogenic effect will probably always be popular. Many drugs such as MDMA, MDA and so on are relatively safe, and many drugs, particularly the families of Hallucinogenics and Marijuana, cannot be overdosed from. Thus, if people were educated and made aware of exactly how to use such substances safely, the health risks would be negated.

Moreover, the prohibition of such substances has still given rise to a stubbornly constant level of demand; the result of this, has been the distribution of dangerous unregulated substances. Legalisation would allow laws to be put in place which regulated the production of such substances. This would stop, for example, anthrax being found in heroin, or dishwasher cleaner being found in MDMA tablets.

khad

29th December 2009, 14:55

I've been up in the air for a bit on this issue, but after reading this I can say that I really don't give a shit about this guy. I don't have enough sympathy to go around wasting it on crooked cappies.

http://alondonerobserves.blogspot.com/

He had a kind of wariness about him whenever I went into his office. Was it unfriendliness, disdain? I didn't care, since I was my own boss, a freelance who chose his own working hours. I would be in there for, at most, twenty or thirty minutes at a time. He was at his most cagey whenever his female employee was in the office.

She was a homely young Polish woman, wholly devoted and protective of her boss. It soon became plain to me that, although he was married, he and the Polish secretary/ telephonist were more than colleagues. There were times when I would see her sitting on his lap as I entered the office. One day, right out of the blue, he announced that they were now married! Several months previously, he had begun to call her by a Muslim name which he had given her. She soon left the firm, went back to Poland after the birth of their first child---his fifth.

She was now living full-time in Poland, while he ran his business from London. He would go over for weeks at a time to be with his now-Muslim new wife. Since she left there was a vacancy for a telephonist. He employed a succession of pretty young ladies, mostly Poles, who were glad of the chance to work here. Their country had only recently emerged from Communist rule, and membership of the-then European Economic Community (now The European Union) was several years away.

During his return trips to London, it is rumoured that he had affairs with a succession of the young girls in his employ. Some claim that he set up home with one of them. When she left to continue travelling , he sought a replacement.

By this time, I had long since stopped working for him, having taken up a sedentary job as a controller with a rival firm. After a year or so, my new employer closed his doors, apparently because Akmal did not want a rival to be based only a hundred yards away from him; he claimed that Akmal had made numerous complaints about our drivers' noise-making to the local council, in which he had some influential friends.

I moved on, having secured a controller's post with yet another firm, this time about a mile away. I kept bumping into old colleagues from Akmal's office. None of them had a good word to say about him. There were constant rumours of unpaid wages, monies being unfairly held on to...One night he made a phone call to my employer ( a former employee of his with whom he had had a falling- out). He wanted him to know that he was selling up, quoted him a price, and demanded an answer there and then. Upon hearing this, I advised my employer not to have anything to do with it---I could smell a rat.

A few months later, we realised what had caused his hasty departure....The local newspaper had a shocking report of a mini-cab boss who had been charged with sexual harassment of a female employee. On the third page, there was Akmal's photo for all to see. He was fined a large sum of money by an Industrial Tribunal, after he lost the case which had been brought by the young woman. His loss of face was complete. He fled to Poland.Just another cappie coward who couldn't handle any honest work.

Patchd

29th December 2009, 15:23

What I'm wondering is, for all those who support this act, would you support the same treatment for bar workers, bar managers and bar owners, or anyone else who distributes alcohol? Afterall, in comparison to heroin (pure heroin that is, not the stuff which you find on the streets), alcohol addiction is more damaging, it's one of the few addictions which you can actually die off from the withdrawal effects. Not only that, but it's hardly worth mentioning that many working class families and communities are also broken up, or intimidated by users of alcohol. Alcohol induced domestic violence is an example, or even alcohol induced violence towards other working class people after a piss up.

Logically, you should support the execution of bar workers, bar managers, bar owners and anyone who sells alcohol, as you support the execution of dealers of other 'illegal' (as classified by the bourgeois state) drugs.

Jazzratt

29th December 2009, 15:27

I've been up in the air for a bit on this issue, but after reading this I can say that I really don't give a shit about this guy. I don't have enough sympathy to go around wasting it on crooked cappies.

:rolleyes: No one's asking you to feel sympathy for him for fuck's sake. What people object to is the policy, and rightly so. I object to the US policy of excecuting murderers (for the most part, anyway) this doesn't mean that I automatically have an overwhelming sympathy for every violent prick that gets their murder on. This guy was a fuck, truly, but that doesn't mean he should have been executed.

Just another cappie coward who couldn't handle any honest work.

Ah well in that case I guess a more enlightened death penalty policy would be "don't execute anyone unless khad deems them to be morally unworthy". Sheesh.

khad

29th December 2009, 15:32

The execution of Capitalists, counter-revolutionaries et al is a legitimate argument on the left. The execution of those who wish to move recreational substances which are stigmatised by the Capitalist system as 'drugs' because they probably would not turn as big a profit as other substances - Alcohol, Tobacco - is not a legitimate argument, it is a crime.
By your criteria then, you should support this execution because this man was a capitalist who sexually harassed (possibly more) and withheld the wages of his workers. On top of that he was a sexpat, and it's obvious he couldn't hack living like a prole and was looking for a get rich quick scheme.

Unless you wish to argue now that sexual harassment and not paying your workers are activities unfairly "stigmatized" by the capitalist system.

While I am not one to push for the death penalty, cappies killing their own--whatever.

RedStarOverChina

29th December 2009, 15:44

The chinese, ironically under the circumstances, have a traditional saying which goes something like this "blame the crime not the criminal".
Actually, no we don't have this saying. People tend to invent Chinese idioms for their own convenience.

In China, anyone caught with 50 grams of heroin automatically receives a death sentence. This guy had the gall to carry 4 kilograms of heroin. The attitude against drugs in China is understandable if you consider past history involving Brits and drug trafficking and the war it led to.

The British propaganda agencies have waged a "Heroin War" against China, with the same outcries of "Chinese barbarity" as the ones before.

Also, the "mentally ill" argument was raised as an last resort later on during the process. He was arrested in 2007. Neither his family nor the British authorities provided any proof of his supposed mental illness. Bipolar disorder gives sufferers mood-swings, but does not cloud his or her moral judgement.

Patchd

29th December 2009, 15:48

The British propaganda agencies have waged a "Heroin War" against China, with the same outcries of "Chinese barbarity" as the ones before.
I have to mention the hypocrisy of the imperialists in their condemnation of China for this though, considering that they pump millions of dollars into funding the 'War on Drugs' in regions like Colombia which are killing many working class people indiscriminately as a result.

Now, would you support the order to execute bar workers? (See this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1637457&postcount=64))
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1637457&postcount=64)

RedStarOverChina

29th December 2009, 15:53

I have to mention the hypocrisy of the imperialists in their condemnation of China for this though, considering that they pump millions of dollars into funding the 'War on Drugs' in regions like Colombia which are killing many working class people indiscriminately as a result.

Now, would you support the order to execute bar workers? (See this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1637457&postcount=64))
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1637457&postcount=64)
I was not arguing for or against death penalties for drug trafficking. I have a conflicting view of this myself. I was, however, responding to the propaganda campaign against China over this. The idea that British nationals are above the law in China is offensive to every Chinese person and brings back old memories.

Patchd

29th December 2009, 15:58

I was not arguing for or against death penalties for drug trafficking. I have a conflicting view of this myself. I was, however, responding to the propaganda campaign against China over this. The idea that British nationals are above the law in China is offensive to every Chinese person and brings back old memories.
Agreed, but when a Malaysian female drug trafficker was going to be executed in China, there was also an uproar with that, admittedly not so much in Britain (for obvious reasons of nationality), but you have to understand that users on this board are not attempting to claim that because he is a foreign national of Britain, he should not be executed. We are arguing that he shouldn't be executed for whatever he did in the first place, whoever he is, wherever he is from.

RedStarOverChina

29th December 2009, 16:14

Agreed, but when a Malaysian female drug trafficker was going to be executed in China, there was also an uproar with that, admittedly not so much in Britain (for obvious reasons of nationality), but you have to understand that users on this board are not attempting to claim that because he is a foreign national of Britain, he should not be executed. We are arguing that he shouldn't be executed for whatever he did in the first place, whoever he is, wherever he is from.
I know.

However, the only reason we are even talking about this case is because the person is a British national.

[edit:5] Chinese nationals were executed in Vietnam for the same crime, just days ago. All Asian countries have tough laws against drug trafficking, and it's not an issue unless a European or North American drug trafficker is involved.

In my opinion, the bigger issue here is why Western nationals are often above the law in Asia.

Patchd

29th December 2009, 16:29

However, the only reason we are even talking about this case is because the person is a British national.
Yes, true, but can you expect anything more? This is a board which is, unfortunately, dominated by Europeans and Americans (not saying that having US or European users is bad, just that it would be better with some more from other regions of the world), and so the information that we have access to will usually be more limited to that of reports of our 'own nationals', or of Europeans and Americans, afterall, we're living under a capitalist nation with it's own ambitions and interests in the Far East, the bourgeois media choose what to report on.

In my opinion, the bigger issue here is why Western nationals are often above the law in Asia.Because Western imperialist powers are more politically and economically powerful perhaps? It's a sad fact.

Tifosi

29th December 2009, 16:47

This man is a victim just like the people take these drugs are victim's. Irish Worker the next guy that get's out of the happy farm and ge's tricked into something wrongful, you going to kill him to? Thing is China put's people that want Democracy in mental homes (yes yes I know western Boursogeois news, whatever) so this guy that really was mental was fucked:rolleyes:

manic expression

29th December 2009, 16:56

Drugs have a long and horrible history of oppressing the people of China. When European colonialists wanted to rape and humiliate the whole of China, they did it with drugs that they forced Indian "subjects" to grow for them. When the Japanese imperialists tried to forever break the back of China, one of their weapons was drugs. When the thugs of the Guomindang wanted to support their cartel after they were pushed out of China, they did it with drugs.

Forgive the poetic license here, but from a certain perspective, drug pushing is to Chinese history what the middle passage is to Black and African history.

Tifosi

29th December 2009, 17:01

manic expression

29th December 2009, 17:07

Whether or not he was conscious of that history is entirely irrelevant. He's still part of it. I'm not about to pardon drug (or slave) dealers just because they're not fully aware of the legacies they're dragging and creating.

The death penalty in China is regrettable, but that's not really what I'm commenting on right now. The PRC is trying to rid China of a century-old menace, that's what I'm concerned with.

RedStarOverChina

29th December 2009, 17:08

and I'm sure the guy they killed knew that.

Did you know that 72% of state murdering happerns in China?
That is, if you discount the casualties of imperialist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Tifosi

29th December 2009, 17:15

That is, if you discount the casualties of imperialist wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

That is imperialist war and this is state law, two very different things. It's bad if you kill someone from another country but if you kill people in "your" own country it's ok :rolleyes:

RedStarOverChina

29th December 2009, 17:19

That is imperialist war and this is state law, two very different things. It's bad if you kill someone from another country but if you kill people in "your" own country it's ok :rolleyes:
So it's OK to kill people in imperialist wars?

See, this conversation is going no where.

I find it hard to discuss issues intelligently with people stuffed with Western propaganda.

Patchd

29th December 2009, 17:20

khad

29th December 2009, 17:25

Well well well, and there I thought capitalism was the problem.

http://blog.mlive.com/business_impact/2008/09/large_20080926-ap-banker-protest-sign-bailout.jpg

manic expression

29th December 2009, 17:28

Well well well, and there I thought capitalism was the problem.

Was that supposed to add something to the discussion? Anyway, the Opium Wars were (at least partially) colonialist in nature, but more importantly even if they weren't it doesn't change the legacy of drug pushing in Chinese history.

gorillafuck

29th December 2009, 17:29

That is imperialist war and this is state law, two very different things. It's bad if you kill someone from another country but if you kill people in "your" own country it's ok :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Killing people in your own country and in other countries are equally bad, I think that's what he was getting at. It's wrong when the PRC kills it's own citizens for ridiculous reasons and it's wrong when the US and NATO drop bombs in villages.

scarletghoul

29th December 2009, 17:47

66FB6hHNXlw
Liberty, sweet liberty
Charitable respectability
Then pacifism killed us all
For all the tourists on the Berlin wall
So we protest about human rights
Worship obesity as our birthright
But freedom of speech won't feed my children
Just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing
Just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing

We love to kiss the Dalai Lama's ass
Because he is such a holy man
Free to eat and buy anything
Free to fuck from Paris to Beijing
Little boys with dangerous toys
All bow down to the Beastie Boys
But freedom of speech won't feed my children
Just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing
Just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing

Bomb the Chinese Embassy
The west is free, oh the west is free
Laugh at the hammer and sickle
It is antique, oh it is antique
And see the love in Richard Gere's eyes
JS Pemberton saved our lives
But freedom of speech won't feed my children
Just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing
Just brings heart disease and bootleg clothing

Sam_b

29th December 2009, 17:51

The PRC is trying to rid China of a century-old menace

The fact that it is a century old and still rampant is a pretty good indicator at how successful the Chinese state and IrishWorker's method of drugs control is.

robbo203

29th December 2009, 17:52

Actually, no we don't have this saying. People tend to invent Chinese idioms for their own convenience.
.

Well, I understand you are based in Canada so Im not quite sure what makes you an authority on traditional Chinese idioms. I actually heard of it on a television programme on the chinese prison system a while back in which "Blame the crime, not the criminal" was said to be a traditional Chinese saying

In China, anyone caught with 50 grams of heroin automatically receives a death sentence. This guy had the gall to carry 4 kilograms of heroin. The attitude against drugs in China is understandable if you consider past history involving Brits and drug trafficking and the war it led to.

The British propaganda agencies have waged a "Heroin War" against China, with the same outcries of "Chinese barbarity" as the ones before. .

It matters not who carries out the death penalty. We are talking about a question of principle here. The death penalty is a barbaric practice.

khad

29th December 2009, 18:12

It matters not who carries out the death penalty. We are talking about a question of principle here. The death penalty is a barbaric practice.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1398718.html?storylink=mirelated

Vietnam sentences 5 Chinese to death in drug case
The Associated Press

A Vietnamese court sentenced five Chinese men to death by firing squad for trafficking nearly 8 tons of hashish in one of the country's biggest drug hauls ever, state media reported Saturday.

The hashish - with a street value of $90 million - was seized from two containers full of blue jeans on a ship that arrived in the northern port city of Hai Phong in April 2008, the Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper reported. A Hong Kong-based ring planned to transport the drugs from Vietnam to China, it said.

A court in the northern province of Quang Ninh, which borders China, sentenced the five men Friday after a four-day trial.

Vietnam has some of the world's toughest drug laws. About 100 people are executed by firing squad each year, many for committing drug-related offenses.

The court ordered the hashish to be destroyed. More than $180,000 and 19,758 pairs of jeans were confiscated, the newspaper said.

Sentenced to death were Lu Mingcheng, 52, and Wan Huilan, 42, both from China's Guangdong province; Chan Kwok Kwong, 52, and Ngan Chiu Kuen, 42, both from Hong Kong; and Ieong Chi Kai, 52, from Macau.

You ain't in Britain, so you got no excuse.

What's stopping you from crying 5x harder?

manic expression

29th December 2009, 18:13

The fact that it is a century old and still rampant is a pretty good indicator at how successful the Chinese state and IrishWorker's method of drugs control is.

I think you'll find that the situation today is far, far ahead of what China faced in 1949. Progress has been made by the policies of the PRC, and progress is being made presently, that's all I can really ask for. We can't forget that drug addiction isn't something you can get rid of easily, it's a problem that can take generations to heal in the best of circumstances. Plus, it's not as if the PRC has control over the production of drugs outside its borders (the Thai government, for example, was complicit in the Guomindang's production for years).

Also, I'm no expert, but I don't think it would be better to send the message that drug running is forgivable if you're British.

robbo203

29th December 2009, 18:18

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1398718.html?storylink=mirelated

Read what I said. I dont care a tinkers cuss who carries out the death penalty - whether it be the Chinese on UK nationals or the Vietnamese on chinese nationals - I oppose this barbaric practice on principle and irrespective of whether it applies to "cappies" or workers

khad

29th December 2009, 18:20

Read what I said. I dont care a tinkers cuss who carries out the death penalty - whether it be the Chinese on UK nationals or the Vietnamese on chinese nationals - I oppose this barbaric practice on principle and irrespective of whether it applies to "cappies" or workers
You all say that. But why such attention on this one crooked cappie? If you treated the death penalty with such equal disdain regardless of nation, then why aren't you crying your eyes out about this even greater miscarriage of justice?

RedStarOverChina

29th December 2009, 18:55

Well, I understand you are based in Canada so Im not quite sure what makes you an authority on traditional Chinese idioms. I actually heard of it on a television programme on the chinese prison system a while back in which "Blame the crime, not the criminal" was said to be a traditional Chinese saying

I still speak the language, you know. Though I am no authority of the English language either, I'm reasonably sure "fuck goods" isn't a real English phrase.

http://geekiam.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/fuckgood.jpg (http://geekiam.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/fuckgood.jpg)
http://img1.qq.com/luxury/pics/6234/6234545.jpg (http://luxury.qq.com/a/20070928/000010_21.htm)

It matters not who carries out the death penalty. We are talking about a question of principle here. The death penalty is a barbaric practice.

That's debatable.

*Viva La Revolucion*

29th December 2009, 19:01

You know as well as me it doesn’t work like that everyone is entitled to total equality and has the right to exist but in society there are bad people Murderers Rapists Drugs Traffickers etc and scum like this have no role in life only to spread misery.
So severe punishment is what I support and I am not ashamed of it either.

For what its worth my thoughts are with this mans family this morning it must be hard.

Yes, everyone is entitled to total equality and has the right to exist. Viewing people as either 'bad' or 'good' causes a lot of problems because human beings are a lot more complex than that. People aren't born evil. 'Good' people do bad things, 'bad' people do good things. You can't see inside this man's mind or see all of the events that have lead up to him being the person he is. Even if he is completely evil (which I'm sure he isn't), murdering him won't make anything better and it won't change the things he has done.

Bipolar disorder gives sufferers mood-swings, but does not cloud his or her moral judgement.

It doesn't seem as though you have much understanding of mental illness; bipolar disorder is far more than ''mood swings'' and I find it offensive that you're reducing it to feeling very happy and then very sad. Mental illness can never totally excuse someone or alleviate all of their responsibilities, but bipolar disorder can dramatically change someone's moral judgement even if it's only for short periods of time.

khad

29th December 2009, 19:08

It doesn't seem as though you have much understanding of mental illness; bipolar disorder is far more than ''mood swings'' and I find it offensive that you're reducing it to feeling very happy and then very sad. Mental illness can never totally excuse someone or alleviate all of their responsibilities, but bipolar disorder can dramatically change someone's moral judgement even if it's only for short periods of time.
While I do appreciate the concerns over mental instability, this particular man's mental instability obviously stemmed from the loss of his company, which deprived him of his money (which he got by not paying his employees) and his gaggle of young immigrant workers that he would sexually harass.

When compared to the shit other people go through, he has no right to be bipolar. To me, it's just a cop out he introduced later in the case as a part of his legal strategy.

Salyut

29th December 2009, 19:48

When compared to the shit other people go through, he has no right to be bipolar. To me, it's just a cop out he introduced later in the case as a part of his legal strategy.

what

Spawn of Stalin

29th December 2009, 20:07

If he was mentally fit enough to run a company, mentally fit enough to go all the way to China alone, and mentally fit enough to con women into sleeping with him, then he was mentally fit enough to know what he was doing when he supposedly got tricked into carrying 4kg of heroin. Time to face facts, he was a willing mule, we now know that that this guy was a moneygrabbing scumbag. I'd be willing to factor in the claim that he was mentally ill, but bipolar comes in various degrees, and if he was as bad as the BBC would like us to think, he would not have been running a business, he would have been claiming incapacity benefit, he was just a normal guy who had a mild form of a very common disorder which many many people live with and cope just fine, most of whom are never diagnosed with bipolar. I would also be willing to consider the fact that someone may have just asked him to carry their luggage onboard the plane for them, but the heroin was found in his suitcase. Why people are defending this guy I have no idea, maybe they just like to hate on China, maybe they just want to oppose the dreaded Stalinists, maybe they just have a lot of growing up to do. But, as usual, self-proclaimed socialists side with the bourgeois imperialist press, as they do with everything, always the same people who have a lot to say about other peoples' wrongdoings but nothing to say about their own positions, nothing that makes sense anyway.

Akmal Shaikh; capitalist, drug runner, womaniser, cheat. Anyone who still gives a shit is either a complete idiot or a family member.

*Viva La Revolucion*

29th December 2009, 20:33

Why people are defending this guy I have no idea, maybe they just like to hate on China, maybe they just want to oppose the dreaded Stalinists, maybe they just have a lot of growing up to do.

Or maybe they just don't think another human being should be murdered?

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 20:39

The war against Drugs is failing because most places hand out slaps on the wrist instead of punishing criminals like China.
China isn’t perfect by any means but they have got this one right credit where credits due.

Oh yeah, because countries which cut off hands for theft are so crime free. Just like the days of yore when public beheadings were carried out, no crime back then!

I don't understand how a Leftist could be so supportive of law and order as terrorism against the masses. I mean fuck, why not start drawing and quartering people for violating the law? Those fuckers have to learn if we're ever to build a worker's paradise, and I can think of no better way to scare the shit out of the workers into stepping in line than torturing the hell out of them in public.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 20:58

Time to face facts, he was a willing mule, we now know that that this guy was a moneygrabbing scumbag.

Who the fuck isn't a moneygrabbing scumbag under capitalism? Have you found a way to be totally blameless in your actions? You ever eaten a candy bar? You know a lot of chocolate is grown by slave labor? What about a cup of coffee? You know the shit that campesinos get put through by coffee growers? What about your clothes, do you grow your own cotton or wool maybe, and weave it by hand, or are you perfectly okay with benefitting from the exploitation of sweatshop workers? And shouldn't you be fucking shot for it, under your own logic? After all, the money you spend on clothes, on food, on medicine, all goes to fund a system which continues to torture, maim and oppress.

Or would it simply be more consistent and less holier-than-fucking-thou to concede that capitalism forces us all to become both pimp and prostitute?

Why people are defending this guy I have no idea, maybe they just like to hate on China, maybe they just want to oppose the dreaded Stalinists, maybe they just have a lot of growing up to do.Because we don't think executing people even if they break the law, even if the thing they did SHOULD be illegal, is a fucking acceptable thing. Your inability to understand the opinions and beliefs of other people who disagree with you, and chalk it up to simple prejudice or immaturity is not exactly a sign of being very grown up yourself.

But, as usual, self-proclaimed socialists side with the bourgeois imperialist press, as they do with everything, always the same people who have a lot to say about other peoples' wrongdoings but nothing to say about their own positions, nothing that makes sense anyway.
Well when the fuck have you criticized your own position lately? That wouldn't make much sense, would it? And is it possible to maybe disagree with you and with the bourgeois press? Or is there just two sides to any issue in life, and you happen to hold all the right viewpoints?

Akmal Shaikh; capitalist, drug runner, womaniser, cheat. Anyone who still gives a shit is either a complete idiot or a family member.I'm willing to bet that you've done some fucked up things at some point in your life, and that on occasion you yourself indulge in some kind of vice. Or has Socialism washed away your sins? Fortunately for you, most of us aren't going to want you put in front of a firing squad for fucking up because we value your life as a human being.

Authoritarians think that the bloody-handed exaction of justice is awesome because they only envision themselves being the ones who condemn people to die, never others who might see them as deserving of death.

khad

29th December 2009, 21:01

IrishWorker

29th December 2009, 21:43

Yes, everyone is entitled to total equality and has the right to exist. Viewing people as either 'bad' or 'good' causes a lot of problems because human beings are a lot more complex than that. People aren't born evil. 'Good' people do bad things, 'bad' people do good things. You can't see inside this man's mind or see all of the events that have lead up to him being the person he is. Even if he is completely evil (which I'm sure he isn't), murdering him won't make anything better and it won't change the things he has done.

Robocommie
Oh yeah, because countries which cut off hands for theft are so crime free. Just like the days of yore when public beheadings were carried out, no crime back then!

I don't understand how a Leftist could be so supportive of law and order as terrorism against the masses. I mean fuck, why not start drawing and quartering people for violating the law? Those fuckers have to learn if we're ever to build a worker's paradise, and I can think of no better way to scare the shit out of the workers into stepping in line than torturing the hell out of them in public.

Believe it or not lads under Socialism society will still need to deal with criminals serious crime will be crime against the people and personally I believe the peoples justice should be dealt with an iron fist.

Woyzeck

29th December 2009, 21:58

I see the western media are trying to portray this drug trafficker as mentally ill I do not believe this for one second he is getting what he deserves.
One less person prepared to poison our communities.
Fair play to the Chinese.

Yes fairplay to a brutal capitalist regime that can't even afford its people the same democratic rights they would be entitled to in "western" developed countries...

1] How do you know he wasn't mentally ill at the time and/or up until his execution?

2] What right does the Chinese state have to take his life?

If you're logic was followed every single person who distributes or sells alcohol or tobacco would be rounded up and shot. If you say "that's different" or "hard drugs do more damage" you're a hypocrite AND basing your position on bourgeois laws that state what people can and cannot consume.

Victory to the glorious socialist Chinese anti-drug revolution!

Onwards to the purging of Irish publicans and newsagents!

Woyzeck

29th December 2009, 22:02

Minotaur

29th December 2009, 22:08

Surely this story is just a tale of one authoritative capitalist state telling another capitalist state who is boss it is deluded to think of china as working in proletariat interest as plainly it is not for example in Tibet it was not working in the interests of the proletariat of the region. As leftists surely we should be thinking of proletariat freedom from tyranny and oppression which includes providing them with clean substances so they can experiment, as prohibition is costly and historically ineffective. Also I do not see the case for drugs being anti-working class rather some substances are very much the opposite I doubt people who support his execution expect alcohol to be made illegal, as surely that must be just as anti-working class under your definition (if not I would like to understand the reasoning behind it). Drugs have never been the problem it been the people supplying it.:laugh:

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 22:11

Believe it or not lads under Socialism society will still need to deal with criminals serious crime will be crime against the people and personally I believe the peoples justice should be dealt with an iron fist.

Yeah, crime will still exist, and crime will need to be dealt with. But explain to me why we should deal with crime with an iron fist? Give me some kind of evidence that it works, and it's not just some kind of thuggishness appealing to the same kind of emotional powertrip that fascists like to fetishize?

I mean fuck man, iron fist? Why not just add in a jackboot and a lash and complete the trifecta.

Demogorgon

29th December 2009, 22:14

Believe it or not lads under Socialism society will still need to deal with criminals serious crime will be crime against the people and personally I believe the peoples justice should be dealt with an iron fist.
So you desire a high crime rate and social discord? That is, after all, what right wing approaches to law and order lead to.

*Viva La Revolucion*

29th December 2009, 22:14

Believe it or not lads under Socialism society will still need to deal with criminals serious crime will be crime against the people and personally I believe the peoples justice should be dealt with an iron fist.

I'm not denying that we'll always need to deal with crime, but there's more than one way of doing that, and I just think that the death penalty is an awful way of dealing with it. Prison provides a place where criminals can go so that they do not harm people and that's all that you need - anything more than that is unnecessary cruelty.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 22:21

Wow, I never expected a leftist to give a perfect rationalization for giving sympathy to capitalists, even as they continue to oppress workers.

I guess the working class is no better than the cappies, then. Might as well give up.

This guy was just a victim, refusing to pay his workers. He totally was a victim of capitalism.

No, but here's the dilemna, the guy can be an asshole and still not deserve to get fucking executed for it.

Are we going to start killing every teenager who sells drugs on the street corner now? Or what about the folks who boost cars or stereos? Fuck, what about the people WITH heroin addictions, they're the ones who are providing a marketplace for the drugs, and if we kill them all, there won't be any more drug dealing.

You know the more I think about it, the more targets manifest if we follow this logic, that anyone who breaks the law is better off dead for the protection of the workers. We might have our hands pretty full taking care of all these folks that need killing!

I'm curious, what's your attitude about the fact that statistically, crime is more common in low income neighborhoods? Or the fact that these low income neighborhoods are usually ethnic minorities?

Hey guys, WHAT ABOUT FARC?

IrishWorker

29th December 2009, 22:32

Yes fairplay to a brutal capitalist regime that can't even afford its people the same democratic rights they would be entitled to in "western" developed countries...
do you not think by trafficking enough heroin to kill 26,000 people he fore fitted that right?

1] How do you know he wasn't mentally ill at the time and/or up until his execution?

] What right does the Chinese state have to take his life?

he is in custody since 2007 that was ample time for his family to furnish the Chinese with whatever documentation they needed to prove he was unfit for execution.
they didn’t provide it as it doesn’t exist.
it was a last ditch attempt by his family to save his life.

If you're logic was followed every single person who distributes or sells alcohol or tobacco would be rounded up and shot. If you say "that's different" or "hard drugs do more damage" you're a hypocrite AND basing your position on bourgeois laws that state what people can and cannot consume.
i certainly don’t think we can compare heroin to alcohol or tobacco if heroin was legalized we would have the same problem with it as we do with alcohol and tobacco.

khad

29th December 2009, 22:36

No, but here's the dilemna, the guy can be an asshole and still not deserve to get fucking executed for it.

Are we going to start killing every teenager who sells drugs on the street corner now? Or what about the folks who boost cars or stereos? Fuck, what about the people WITH heroin addictions, they're the ones who are providing a marketplace for the drugs, and if we kill them all, there won't be any more drug dealing.

You know the more I think about it, the more targets manifest if we follow this logic, that anyone who breaks the law is better off dead for the protection of the workers. We might have our hands pretty full taking care of all these folks that need killing!

I'm curious, what's your attitude about the fact that statistically, crime is more common in low income neighborhoods? Or the fact that these low income neighborhoods are usually ethnic minorities?

Hey guys, WHAT ABOUT FARC?
If he were some poor African peasant I would argue for the full leniency of the court.

But if you love your capitalist exploiters so much, you can share their fate when the revolution comes.

Sam_b

29th December 2009, 22:37

he is in custody since 2007 that was ample time for his family to furnish the Chinese with whatever documentation they needed to prove he was unfit for execution.
they didn’t provide it as it doesn’t exist.
it was a last ditch attempt by his family to save his life.

Or, you know, ask for a medical report based on his 50-minute 'self defending' monologue which degenerated into farcical ideas of becoming a pop star.

i certainly don’t think we can compare heroin to alcohol or tobacco if heroin was legalized we would have the same problem with it as we do with alcohol and tobacco.

Again, what is your problem if I choose to take heroin? And why do you feel (by the logic of your sentence) a centralised power or the state should have rights to say what people can and cannot take?

You are apparently anti-statist, but yet again falling behind the state for a rationale!

manic expression

29th December 2009, 22:41

Or maybe they just don't think another human being should be murdered?

Not that I necessarily agree with the PRC's decision, but if "they" have a problem with people being subjected to capital punishment, then they should probably stop being revolutionaries. It might make things difficult since, you know, it's been a part of every single revolution in history.

I'm curious, what's your attitude about the fact that statistically, crime is more common in low income neighborhoods? Or the fact that these low income neighborhoods are usually ethnic minorities?

What's my attitude? A natural result of capitalism's dividing of workers against one another, in addition to the fact that desperation brought on by capitalist crimes against the working class.

So it has nothing to do with this case. At all. Anything else you'd like to float up in the absence of a relevant argument?

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 22:51

If he were some poor African peasant I would argue for the full leniency of the court.

But if you love your capitalist exploiters so much, you can share their fate when the revolution comes.

Did you just threaten to kill me over the internet? What are you, a child?

"Agree with my tendency or you'll be shot."

What the fuck went wrong with you when you were growing up that you think that's an acceptable way to talk to someone?

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 22:53

What's my attitude? A natural result of capitalism's dividing of workers against one another, in addition to the fact that desperation brought on by capitalist crimes against the working class.

So it has nothing to do with this case. At all. Anything else you'd like to float up in the absence of a relevant argument?

Isn't the attitude being expressed here just as applicable to all criminals? Do people want this guy executed because he's well off, or because he was smuggling heroin? Because frankly there's been a lot of indication that it's the latter, more than the former.

khad

29th December 2009, 22:54

Did you just threaten to kill me over the internet? What are you, a child?

"Agree with my tendency or you'll be shot."

Yeah, good luck achieving justice with that attitude.
No threat. Not even a tendency squabble.

I don't defend any capitalist who sexually harasses his workers and withholds their wages. It's a very basic moral principle for a leftist to side with the working class, a moral principle which you apparently lack.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 23:01

No threat. Not even a tendency squabble.

I don't defend any capitalist who sexually harasses his workers and withholds their wages. It's a very basic moral principle for a leftist to side with the working class, a moral principle which you apparently lack.

Or here's an alternative for your consideration; I don't see any reason to execute people for being a criminal. You feel I'm not siding with the working class, but that's purely an invention on your part because I don't have authoritarian strong-arm viewpoints.

And how the fuck is it NOT a threat to tell me I can share the fate of the capitalists? What is that fate, khad? You want to give them candy?

manic expression

29th December 2009, 23:04

Isn't the attitude being expressed here just as applicable to all criminals? Do people want this guy executed because he's well off, or because he was smuggling heroin? Because frankly there's been a lot of indication that it's the latter, more than the former.

It depends on how you define crime, and under what conditions "crime" is committed. A kid who steals a video game because it's the only way he can get his hands on it and a drug runner who is trying to enrich himself on the suffering and destruction of entire communities are two very different "criminals". More to the point, the former is simply a victim of the capitalist system, whereas the latter is an agent of capitalism and oppression of workers. So no, it's not applicable to all "criminals".

I don't necessarily want this person executed, but trying to get heroin into China is an unforgivable act, one that not only carries a dark legacy for the people of China but a real threat to countless Chinese people today. There's a very good reason why the Black Panthers and Young Lords worked as hard as they could to get drugs out of their communities, and there's a very good reason why they drew the disdain of the capitalists because of it.

By the way, this isn't a case of someone turning to crime because the local factory boss moved all the jobs out of town...this is a case of a drug dealer who wanted to enrich himself through injecting poison into China.

khad

29th December 2009, 23:05

Or here's an alternative for your consideration; I don't see any reason to execute people for being a criminal. You feel I'm not siding with the working class, but that's purely an invention on your part because I don't have authoritarian strong-arm viewpoints.
And because you apparently have difficulty reading between your fits of hysteria, I never argued for the death penalty in this thread.

I don't care about this capitalist exploiter shit. And I don't think any leftist should. If negligence leads to execution, so be it.

And how the fuck is it NOT a threat to tell me I can share the fate of the capitalists? What is that fate, khad? You want to give them candy?Just remarking on the how the wheel of history treats those caught on the counterrevolutionary side.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 23:07

Just remarking on the how the wheel of history treats those caught on the counterrevolutionary side.

Gee, I wonder what that's supposed to mean.

Go fuck yourself if you don't have the courage to be honest about what you're saying.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 23:09

It depends on how you define crime, and under what conditions "crime" is committed. A kid who steals a video game because it's the only way he can get his hands on it and a drug runner who is trying to enrich himself on the suffering and destruction of entire communities are two very different "criminals". More to the point, the former is simply a victim of the capitalist system, whereas the latter is an agent of capitalism and oppression of workers. So no, it's not applicable to all "criminals".

I don't necessarily want this person executed, but trying to get heroin into China is an unforgivable act, one that not only carries a dark legacy for the people of China but a real threat to countless Chinese people today. There's a very good reason why the Black Panthers and Young Lords worked as hard as they could to get drugs out of their communities, and there's a very good reason why they drew the disdain of the capitalists because of it.

By the way, this isn't a case of someone turning to crime because the local factory boss moved all the jobs out of town...this is a case of a drug dealer who wanted to enrich himself through injecting poison into China.

These are all good points and you're right, and I don't think that heroin smuggling, especially to China given its history, should be seen as a victimless crime or anything, and I'm not a libertarian when it comes to hard drugs. I just don't think that the death penalty is ever an effective way of handling crime. And I do have to say that there has been an implication that the death penalty is an acceptable response to criminals in general. At the very least IrishWorker has had no qualms about expressing a merciless response to criminals.

khad

29th December 2009, 23:14

Go fuck yourself if you don't have the courage to be honest about what you're saying.
You should come clean about your anti-worker understanding of class relations.

Or would it simply be more consistent and less holier-than-fucking-thou to concede that capitalism forces us all to become both pimp and prostitute?So capitalists are not the pimps but are oppressed prostitutes as well?

You should just call yourself a liberal and get it over with.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 23:21

You should be honest about your anti-worker understanding of class relations.

I'm about as anti-worker as you are pro-heroin. What I am however, is anti-thug, and I sure as shit don't like being threatened. You're an asshole, because rather than discuss the issues intelligently, and give me the benefit of the doubt of seeing your view as correct for it's own merits, you'd rather act like a tough guy, make vague threats about what history does to people like me, and let the understated menace of your words do the arguing for you. You're a fucking bully, and I very much doubt you'll ever actually have to face the horror of what killing is personally.

So capitalists are not the pimps but are oppressed prostitutes as well?

You should just call yourself a liberal and get it over with.Fuck off, "liberal." That's all you people ever have to say when someone disagrees with you. If we don't jump at the gate at firing squads and mass graves we're apparently trendies. That little issue of economic policy never factors in.

No, capitalists in general are NOT oppressed, but are the Chinese executing this guy because he's a capitalist, or for the drugs?

khad

29th December 2009, 23:24

No, capitalists in general are NOT oppressed
But then why write that everyone is equally guilty in the capitalist system, eh?

but are the Chinese executing this guy because he's a capitalist, or for the drugs?You won't see me lifting a finger to defend a crooked capitalist. That's something you can obsess over, because I certainly won't rush to defend our enemies.

Even when it's another enemy taking them out.

That little issue of economic policy never factors in.
My economic policy does not involve supporting capitalists.

manic expression

29th December 2009, 23:33

These are all good points and you're right, and I don't think that heroin smuggling, especially to China given its history, should be seen as a victimless crime or anything, and I'm not a libertarian when it comes to hard drugs. I just don't think that the death penalty is ever an effective way of handling crime.

Well, I'm no expert in crime prevention and punishment, so I think it's up to the PRC to decide this one. Anyway, capital punishment has been a part of every working-class revolution I can think of, so we should bear this in mind when considering the matter.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 23:34

But then why write that everyone is equally guilty in the capitalist system, eh?

That was not the point of what I was saying. My point was to state unequivocally that before we talk a great deal about law and order and crime and punishment, we have to be aware of the way that capitalism CAUSES crime. My point was also that we shouldn't be so high and mighty when talking about people, like we're completely blameless. I mean, what's your situation, khad? I'm willing to bet that since you're clearly using a computer regularly you're at least better off than some folks living in Senegal, and that means that you, and I as well, are right now exploiting someone. That's a system that both you and I want to change, but the fact is, just because we didn't make a conscious effort to make it so doesn't mean we don't have some of the blood on our hands. We shouldn't talk like we're the People's Avenging Angels. That's ridiculous and vainglorious.

You won't see me lifting a finger to defend a crooked capitalist. That's something you can obsess over, because I certainly won't rush to defend our enemies.

Even when it's another enemy taking them out.

If he's corrupt then it does us no harm to make him pay for what he's done and make him pay justly. This isn't justice, except in a draconian, authoritarian sense.

My economic policy does not involve supporting capitalists.

Neither does mine.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 23:35

Well, I'm no expert in crime prevention and punishment, so I think it's up to the PRC to decide this one. Anyway, capital punishment has been a part of every working-class revolution I can think of, so we should bear this in mind when considering the matter.

But just because a thing HAS been a part of something, doesn't mean it should be.

Ultimately though I agree that as this is in China, it's a Chinese issue. I just can't condone it, even though I condemn this guy's actions.

khad

29th December 2009, 23:43

I mean, what's your situation, khad? I'm willing to bet that since you're clearly using a computer regularly you're at least better off than some folks living in Senegal, and that means that you, and I as well, are right now exploiting someone.
So did that fucker.

But the bottom line is that I don't oppress workers by refusing to pay them, and I don't live as a disgusting sexpat. And I hope that you don't as well.

On an absolute scale of capitalist crime, he still comes out on top.

IrishWorker

29th December 2009, 23:44

Sam_bOr, you know, ask for a medical report based on his 50-minute 'self defending' monologue which degenerated into farcical ideas of becoming a pop star.

Cluching at straws?

Again, what is your problem if I choose to take heroin? And why do you feel (by the logic of your sentence) a centralised power or the state should have rights to say what people can and cannot take?

You are apparently anti-statist, but yet again falling behind the state for a rationale!

Anti-statist? Not me. I live for the day we here in Ireland see and end to the Imperialist occupation in the North and the demise of the Irish ruling class and the establishment of the 32 county Marxist Republic.
Your stance in this debate is everything that is wrong with the trendy left in the west no back bone or balls to call a spade a spade I will never ever support anyone taking Heroin it is counterproductive and harmful to society to have junkies in it.
Forced rehabilitation of the addicts and death to those who poison our class.
Simple really.

Robocommie

29th December 2009, 23:50

So did that fucker.

But the bottom line is that I don't oppress workers by refusing to pay them, and I don't live as a disgusting sexpat. And I hope that you don't as well.

On an absolute scale of capitalist crime, he still comes out on top.

I don't have workers, I barely have money. And I only have sex with girlfriends.

But the fucker could have been rehabilitated. We can't execute people for every kind of crime like this, or else we'll just end up executing everyone convicted of sexual harassment, and so on and so forth.

rednordman

29th December 2009, 23:58

Dam this thread has exploded. Personally, I think this all comes down to whether or not he is mentally ill. If he is, than the chinese should have shown a little mercy. If not...Well its their country and not ours, there is absolutly nothing we can do about that. What did he really expect?

The thing that does piss me of is how the BBC is making a real big deal out of his 'alledged' biopolar disorder. They should really know this for certain, rather than speculate about it. After all, in one sense, this is why it is not a bad thing to get properly diagnosed-at least things would be clearer+there is a rather high chance he would be alive right now:(.

Ironically, it is the fact that he isnt, that saves the british government from looking very bad, as it is their responsiblity to make sure that people with disabilities are properly looked after no matter which country they go to.

If the guy is guilty (doesnt have a disability/knew what he was doing), than despite the sentance being harsh, its very hard to argue the final outcome. As I said before, China are renowned for being very harsh on drug trafficing. What gave him the idea that he would be the one to get away with it? Thousands of people are execute each year for similar offences. We can only really argue the legal system in china. His case is no different than anyone elses. The law is the law.

I have seen first hand what heroine can do to people, and I will say that anyone who attempts to bring it into any country in the world is in essence committing genocide against that country. Especially, if there is alot of poverty in that country.

You can bring it back to the barrons all you like (and I agree with you) but despite all this talk of a war on drugs, its funny how they are usually the last of get caught (if they ever do). They are probably living it up right now, laughting at all of this. And I dont care what anyone says, they really DO deserve the death penalty.

There is definitly a difference between drugs like heroine, and drugs like cannabis and extacy. You can debate and discuss the latter two. You simply cannot with the former. Its pure fucking evil.

Another thing that has struck me a little, is how there was alledged to be 4kg in the guys bag. Would he not notice the extra weight?

manic expression

30th December 2009, 00:02

But just because a thing HAS been a part of something, doesn't mean it should be.

That, though, is a personal judgment that ignores the situation that revolutions inherently entail. Capital punishment may be barbaric, but we live in barbaric times, and revolutions have never been dinner parties.

And at any rate, if revolutions consistently and unfailingly exhibit a certain quality, it is more than reasonable to assume that that quality is naturally a part of revolutions. Plus, if you review the use of capital punishment in revolutions (Paris, Russia, Spain, Cuba, etc.), I think you will find that working-class revolutionaries have shown remarkable restraint, prudence and humanity in those difficult times. The use of capital punishment by revolutionaries in revolutions is not only reasonable in many cases, it is oftentimes merciful.

Robocommie

30th December 2009, 00:07

That, though, is a personal judgment that ignores the situation that revolutions inherently entail. Capital punishment may be barbaric, but we live in barbaric times, and revolutions have never been dinner parties.

And at any rate, if revolutions consistently and unfailingly exhibit a certain quality, it is more than reasonable to assume that that quality is naturally a part of revolutions. Plus, if you review the use of capital punishment in revolutions (Paris, Russia, Spain, Cuba, etc.), I think you will find that working-class revolutionaries have shown remarkable restraint, prudence and humanity in those difficult times. The use of capital punishment by revolutionaries in revolutions is not only reasonable in many cases, it is oftentimes merciful.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing. And I'm typically in favor of guerilla warfare, small elite cadres of revolutionaries to be used to topple the capitalist system in the style of the Viet Cong or the 26th of July movement, Zapatistas, etc. I just don't think I approve of violence outside of the practicalities of an armed, military struggle.

I will tell you that if I saw more people talk about capital punishment the way YOU do, I'd be more open to considering it's necessity.

khad

30th December 2009, 00:22

I'm not necessarily disagreeing. And I'm typically in favor of guerilla warfare, small elite cadres of revolutionaries to be used to topple the capitalist system in the style of the Viet Cong or the 26th of July movement, Zapatistas, etc. I just don't think I approve of violence outside of the practicalities of an armed, military struggle.
Not to rain on your parade, but the Viet Cong were finished after Tet. It was the NVA's superior firepower and mechanized mobility that won the war.

Weezer

30th December 2009, 00:32

FSL

30th December 2009, 00:58

Socialism is not supposed to reproduce the stupidities of capitalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm)

Fuck off.

That's 100% true. As shown here by Karl Marx

is there not a necessity for deeply reflecting upon an alteration of the system that breeds these crimes, instead of glorifying the hangman who executes a lot of criminals to make room only for the supply of new ones?

Socialism must aim in the elimination of production of drugs and correspondingly of their trade, thus having no further use of the hangman.

Which is why everyone must support the emancipation of the working class, the organization of production in the service of its own interests and not in the service of druglords and traffickers, and finally the freedom of workers from all the shackles that bind them in this present society, drugs being one.

Robocommie

30th December 2009, 01:11

Not to rain on your parade, but the Viet Cong were finished after Tet. It was the NVA's superior firepower and mechanized mobility that won the war.

Sure, but I said in the style of. Mao is an example of a successful guerilla commander, Che and Castro in Cuba, as well.

Guerilla warfare works sometimes, sometimes it doesn't. But in the absence of a more professional military, like the NVA, sometimes it's the only option.

Patchd

30th December 2009, 04:46

http://blog.mlive.com/business_impact/2008/09/large_20080926-ap-banker-protest-sign-bailout.jpg
Awww, so immature as to post silly pictures which imply positions which I don't actually hold. How old are you, cos you've got the mental age of a 5 year old, grow up.

As for the record, as someone mentioned earlier;
Opposition to this action =/= support for the dealer, the condoning of his actions or his wealth and privilege.

Abc

30th December 2009, 05:28

the point that he wasn't a nice guy is mute, that not why he was killed he was killed for traffacing heroin. if a poor farmer from laos had of been caught doing it he would probally been killed too (though it sure the hell would not see as much media attenion) , also people change over time the guy may have been a asshole but he could have got around it but he sure won't now because hes dead

Intelligitimate

30th December 2009, 05:31

I would gamble that Shaikh received the maximum probably because he refused to cooperate with authorities when asked to rat out others, and because there appears to be a general crackdown going on in China at this time. Back in September, 4 guys were sentenced to death after being caught with 12,660 kilograms of meth. In 2008, 6,379 people were convicted of drug sentences, though I don't know how many were sentenced to death. I would guess China probably does not have mandatory death sentencing for carrying drugs.

Weezer

30th December 2009, 06:04

Awww, so immature as to post silly pictures which imply positions which I don't actually hold. How old are you, cos you've got the mental age of a 5 year old, grow up.

As for the record, as someone mentioned earlier;
Opposition to this action =/= support for the dealer, the condoning of his actions or his wealth and privilege.

You shouldn't use big words in front of khad like that.

Edit:Thanks for the feedback khad. :)

Spawn of Stalin

30th December 2009, 09:16

Who the fuck isn't a moneygrabbing scumbag under capitalism? Have you found a way to be totally blameless in your actions? You ever eaten a candy bar? You know a lot of chocolate is grown by slave labor? What about a cup of coffee? You know the shit that campesinos get put through by coffee growers? What about your clothes, do you grow your own cotton or wool maybe, and weave it by hand, or are you perfectly okay with benefitting from the exploitation of sweatshop workers? And shouldn't you be fucking shot for it, under your own logic? After all, the money you spend on clothes, on food, on medicine, all goes to fund a system which continues to torture, maim and oppress.
I am a consumer, we all are, we have no choice but to consume, drugs dealers have a choice. And no, I'm not okay with benefiting from exploitation hence I am a socialist.

Or would it simply be more consistent and less holier-than-fucking-thou to concede that capitalism forces us all to become both pimp and prostitute?
No, capitalism forces us to become the prostitute, only the capitalists get to play at being the pimp, they get that choice, we don't. This is only a dog eat dog world if you want it to be, even under capitalism we can all survive without resorting to selling drugs.

Because we don't think executing people even if they break the law, even if the thing they did SHOULD be illegal, is a fucking acceptable thing. Your inability to understand the opinions and beliefs of other people who disagree with you, and chalk it up to simple prejudice or immaturity is not exactly a sign of being very grown up yourself.
I'm okay with most peoples' opinions, but naturally I'm not going to pretend to respect an opinion which I believe to be totally backwards, simple common sense really.

Well when the fuck have you criticized your own position lately?
I'm constantly rethinking my positions though not necessarily criticising them because I'm fairly confident that they are correct. But that isn't what I was talking about, I was mostly referring to the people here who just whine and moan about other peoples' opinions and then when confronted with the question of an alternative they just scream "TAKE OVER THE FACTORIES, BUILD WORKER DEMOCRACY, DEFEND SOCIALISM, LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER".

That wouldn't make much sense, would it? And is it possible to maybe disagree with you and with the bourgeois press? Or is there just two sides to any issue in life, and you happen to hold all the right viewpoints?
Yes, I do believe I hold all the right viewpoints, I think that most people do, that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen.

I'm willing to bet that you've done some fucked up things at some point in your life, and that on occasion you yourself indulge in some kind of vice. Or has Socialism washed away your sins? Fortunately for you, most of us aren't going to want you put in front of a firing squad for fucking up because we value your life as a human being.
I have certainly never done anything deserving of the death penalty, we have all made mistakes, some more fucked up than others, I've paid the price for my screw ups, luckily I never resorted to smuggling heroin so I am still alive.

Authoritarians think that the bloody-handed exaction of justice is awesome because they only envision themselves being the ones who condemn people to die, never others who might see them as deserving of death.
Nobody thinks it is awesome, but sometimes it is necessary. When put to practice basically every revolutionary anti-capitalist has made use of the death penalty, Russia, Cuba, Korea, and not just the authoritarians either, the anarchists too.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 12:10

Nobody thinks it is awesome, but sometimes it is necessary. When put to practice basically every revolutionary anti-capitalist has made use of the death penalty, Russia, Cuba, Korea, and not just the authoritarians either, the anarchists too.And is it any coincidence that all of those revolutions went badly wrong?

The role of progressives is to be (you'll never guess) progressive. That means building on the good done so far and take us forward. Not undoing progressive measures and taking us backwards. That is what reactionaries do. The abolition of the death penalty in most Western Countries as well as a fair few in other parts of the world is certainly a progressive move, therefore it should be preserved and built upon.

Some will call it "bourgeoisie politics" or whatever in an effort to get around the issue. But it was also the self same bourgeoisie politics that legalised homosexuality, a degree of reproductive freedom, liberalised divorce and so forth. Are we going to undo those reforms as well?

The goal is to be far more progressive than the bourgeoisie ever were, even at their best. Not to return to some form of pseudo-feudal social structure.

IrishWorker

30th December 2009, 13:30

Socialism is not supposed to reproduce the stupidities of capitalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm)

Fuck off.
Thank you for your kind words.

manic expression

30th December 2009, 13:35

Socialism is not supposed to reproduce the stupidities of capitalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm)

Fuck off.

If you're saying that capital punishment is a "stupidity of capitalism", you're beyond lost. I guess you can tell the Paris Commune and its defenders to "Fuck off", too. :rolleyes:

manic expression

30th December 2009, 13:43

And is it any coincidence that all of those revolutions went badly wrong?

Are you saying the Russian Revolution was "badly wrong" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) because it emplyed capital punishment? Jesus Christ on toast, the Spanish anarchists employed an extensive use of capital punishment, as did the Communards in Paris. I hope you'll extend your condemnation to them as well.

The death penalty is not a function of what revolutionaries want to do, it's a function of what revolutionaries must do. Revolutions are life-and-death struggles between two classes, they are the most brutal and naked manifestations of class antipathy known to mankind...and you're saying revolutionaries should act like a choir of angels in such a climate? It would be a betrayal of progress to NOT accept the role of capital punishment in the decisive moments of history, just as it would be a betrayal of the Revolution to promote some vague morality when the real question is how to defend the working class.

scarletghoul

30th December 2009, 13:44

And is it any coincidence that all of those revolutions went badly wrong?

The role of progressives is to be (you'll never guess) progressive. That means building on the good done so far and take us forward. Not undoing progressive measures and taking us backwards. That is what reactionaries do. The abolition of the death penalty in most Western Countries as well as a fair few in other parts of the world is certainly a progressive move, therefore it should be preserved and built upon.

Some will call it "bourgeoisie politics" or whatever in an effort to get around the issue. But it was also the self same bourgeoisie politics that legalised homosexuality, a degree of reproductive freedom, liberalised divorce and so forth. Are we going to undo those reforms as well?

The goal is to be far more progressive than the bourgeoisie ever were, even at their best. Not to return to some form of pseudo-feudal social structure.
This post fails so hard.
First, you seem to measure progressiveness only on the level of bourgeois reforms, not on the level of radical changes in the relations of production and political system. Sure, gay rights, abolition of the death penalty etc are all cool, but to say those things are more progressive than creating a socialist economic system is just plain ridiculous and shows allegiance to liberal bourgeois society rather than revolutionary socialism.
Second, a revolution is not a dinner party. People are gonna be killed n stuff. Point is too look past these unpleasantries and see the wider picture, that of a new society being built. The lives of a few bourgie-ass exploiters is a small price to pay for the liberation of mankind imo
Third, look up what 'pseudo' means.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 14:17

Are you saying the Russian Revolution was "badly wrong" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) because it emplyed capital punishment? Jesus Christ on toast, the Spanish anarchists employed an extensive use of capital punishment, as did the Communards in Paris. I hope you'll extend your condemnation to them as well.

The death penalty is not a function of what revolutionaries want to do, it's a function of what revolutionaries must do. Revolutions are life-and-death struggles between two classes, they are the most brutal and naked manifestations of class antipathy known to mankind...and you're saying revolutionaries should act like a choir of angels in such a climate? It would be a betrayal of progress to NOT accept the role of capital punishment in the decisive moments of history, just as it would be a betrayal of the Revolution to promote some vague morality when the real question is how to defend the working class.I did not say it was the sole reason that those revolutions went terribly wrong, but it was one of them. As soon as courts give themselves the power to take the lives of others in cold blood, you have an unacceptable level of power being employed by some over others. When the Russian Revolution happened the death penalty was abolished, then it was quickly brought back again for political crimes, it supposedly being necessary to "safeguard the revolution". Of course what it quickly became was a tool to terrorise dissidents within the revolutionary movement into towing the line. Realistically you don't need the death penalty for your enemies, they are going to oppose you anyway and if you capture them you can put them in prison. What it is used for is to keep discipline within your own ranks and cement the power of the leaders of that movement over others.

Little wonder the Soviet Union became a dictatorship given the behaviour that went on early on. I don't think that was how it was intended to be, the leaders of the revolution opposed the death penalty after all and banned it when they came to power and probably thought they were doing what had to be done when they allowed it again. But given history shows where it ended up, there seems to be little need to repeat that mistake.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 14:21

This post fails so hard.
First, you seem to measure progressiveness only on the level of bourgeois reforms, not on the level of radical changes in the relations of production and political system. Sure, gay rights, abolition of the death penalty etc are all cool, but to say those things are more progressive than creating a socialist economic system is just plain ridiculous and shows allegiance to liberal bourgeois society rather than revolutionary socialism.
Second, a revolution is not a dinner party. People are gonna be killed n stuff. Point is too look past these unpleasantries and see the wider picture, that of a new society being built. The lives of a few bourgie-ass exploiters is a small price to pay for the liberation of mankind imo
Third, look up what 'pseudo' means.Did I say they were more progressive than creating a socialist society? No. I said they were necessary conditions for a socialist society. You seem to be under the impression that bringing about socialism means undoing the good that has been done since the end of feudalism. Things like abolition of the death penalty and gay rights fall into that category. To undo them would make socialism impossible as it would render a society in which equality simply cannot exist.

The only way defenders of the death penalty here can defend it is if they claim that its abolition was reactionary and its reintroduction (or continuing use) is progressive. I doubt many are willing to go that far.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 14:23

manic expression

30th December 2009, 14:35

I did not say it was the sole reason that those revolutions went terribly wrong, but it was one of them.

And this assertion is supported by what, precisely? Your personal moral concerns, that's what. For all your sanctimonious talk, you fail to take into account any of the material conditions which faced the workers of Russia (or Spain or Paris, for that matter). In all the body of revolutionary practice, capital punishment has been used because it is a natural method for defending working-class gains in barbaric times. How do you respond to this? "Dictatorship! It's dictatorship I say!". How pertinent.

Little wonder the Soviet Union became a dictatorship given the behaviour that went on early on. I don't think that was how it was intended to be, the leaders of the revolution opposed the death penalty after all and banned it when they came to power and probably thought they were doing what had to be done when they allowed it again. But given history shows where it ended up, there seems to be little need to repeat that mistake.
Ah yes, it was a dictatorship because it employed the death penalty. Little wonder. So I'm sure you'll call the Spanish anarchists a bunch of little dictators, right? I'd like to see you enforce at least a modicum of consistency on this issue.

By the way, you keep trying to convince everyone that workers should act like a choir of angels, so until you contend with the realities of revolutionary situations and the life-and-death conflicts they involve, your arguments are little more than sermons.

manic expression

30th December 2009, 14:39

Did you click the link he gave? If he is lost, so was Marx. If opponents of the death penalty are "lost" then at least we are in good company.

Marx endorsed the Communards enthusiastically, who used firing squads early in their struggle for liberation. When he did criticize their methods, he criticized them for not going far enough; much the opposite of what you're doing. Workers putting reactionary enemies to death for counterrevolutionary crimes is not the same as capitalists putting workers to death because they broke bourgeois laws in desperation and hopelessness...and yet you're taking Marx's statements on the latter and trying to apply them to the former.

So no, you're not in good company, and in fact you're arguing against that company right now.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 14:54

And this assertion is supported by what, precisely? Your personal moral concerns, that's what. For all your sanctimonious talk, you fail to take into account any of the material conditions which faced the workers of Russia (or Spain or Paris, for that matter). In all the body of revolutionary practice, capital punishment has been used because it is a natural method for defending working-class gains in barbaric times. How do you respond to this? "Dictatorship! It's dictatorship I say!". How pertinent.
It did not defend the working class though, did it? It formed part of the arsenal that the likes of Stalin used to oppress the working class and create a new ruling class.

Ah yes, it was a dictatorship because it employed the death penalty. Little wonder. So I'm sure you'll call the Spanish anarchists a bunch of little dictators, right? I'd like to see you enforce at least a modicum of consistency on this issue.Christ, since when have I become an anarchist? They did not last long enough to see whether they would have become dictators or not. People do brutal things in brutal times, so it is hard to know what they will be like in peaceful times. It is possible they would have moved in a progressive direction if they had won and abolished the death penalty, it is also possible that they would have created a new dictatorship. We just don't know, and never will. The reason, I use the Soviet Union as an example is because we do know where that ended up.

By the way, you keep trying to convince everyone that workers should act like a choir of angels, so until you contend with the realities of revolutionary situations and the life-and-death conflicts they involve, your arguments are little more than sermons.
How about you try contending with a little reality yourself. Go out and try to convince people to join a political movement calling for a frenzied bloodbath and see how much support you will get. It seems to me you are hoping revolution will be as violent as possible, while I hope the opposite. I acknowledge the fact of course that some hot blooded killing might happen, though I hope not, but to extend that to ever justifying cold blooded killing is unacceptable. Moreover to extend it to attempting to justify the death penalty in other circumstances is a joke. Let's remember what this thread was about. The social conservatives here have, in their desperation attempted to die the execution of this man, to some notion of "protecting the working class". How dishonest can you get.

robbo203

30th December 2009, 14:56

Karl Marx and his opposition to the death penalty

Written: by Karl Marx on January 28, 1853;
First published: in the New-York Daily Tribune, February 17-18 1853.

London, Friday, January 28, 1853
The Times of Jan. 25 contains the following observations under the head of “Amateur Hanging”:
“It has often been remarked that in this country a public execution is generally followed closely by instances of death by hanging, either suicidal or accidental, in consequence of the powerful effect which the execution of a noted criminal produces upon a morbid and unmatured mind.”
Of the several cases which are alleged by The Times in illustration of this remark, one is that of a lunatic at Sheffield, who, after talking with other lunatics respecting the execution of Barbour, put an end to his existence by hanging himself. Another case is that of a boy of 14 years, who also hung himself.
The doctrine to which the enumeration of these facts was intended to give its support, is one which no reasonable man would be likely to guess, it being no less than a direct apotheosis of the hangman, while capital punishment is extolled as the ultima ratio of society. This is done in a leading article of the “leading journal.”
The Morning Advertiser, in some very bitter but just strictures on the hanging predilections and bloody logic of The Times, has the following interesting data on 43 days of the year 1849:
Executions of:Murders and Suicides:MillanMarch 20 Hannah SandlesMarch 22 M. G. NewtonMarch 22PulleyMarch 26 J. G. Gleeson — 4 murders at LiverpoolMarch 27SmithMarch 27 Murder and suicide at LeicesterApril 2HoweMarch 31 Poisoning at BathApril 7 W. BaileyApril 8LandickApril 9 J. Ward murders his motherApril 13Sarah ThomasApril 13 YardleyApril 14 Doxey, parricideApril 14 J. Bailey kills his two children and himselfApril 17J. GriffithsApril 18 Charles OvertonApril 18J. RushApril 21 Daniel HolmsdenMay 2
This table, as The Times concedes, shows not only suicides, but also murders of the most atrocious kind, following closely upon the execution of criminals. It is astonishing that the article in question does not even produce a single argument or pretext for indulging in the savage theory therein propounded; and it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization. Punishment in general has been defended as a means either of ameliorating or of intimidating. Now what right have you to punish me for the amelioration or intimidation of others? And besides, there is history — there is such a thing as statistics — which prove with the most complete evidence that since Cain the world has neither been intimidated nor ameliorated by punishment. Quite the contrary. From the point of view of abstract right, there is only one theory of punishment which recognizes human dignity in the abstract, and that is the theory of Kant, especially in the more rigid formula given to it by Hegel. Hegel says:
“Punishment is the right of the criminal. It is an act of his own will. The violation of right has been proclaimed by the criminal as his own right. His crime is the negation of right. Punishment is the negation of this negation, and consequently an affirmation of right, solicited and forced upon the criminal by himself.” [Hegel, Philosophy of Right (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prwrong.htm#PRn100a)]
There is no doubt something specious in this formula, inasmuch as Hegel, instead of looking upon the criminal as the mere object, the slave of justice, elevates him to the position of a free and self-determined being. Looking, however, more closely into the matter, we discover that German idealism here, as in most other instances, has but given a transcendental sanction to the rules of existing society. Is it not a delusion to substitute for the individual with his real motives, with multifarious social circumstances pressing upon him, the abstraction of “free-will” — one among the many qualities of man for man himself! This theory, considering punishment as the result of the criminal’s own will, is only a metaphysical expression for the old “jus talionis” [the right of retaliation by inflicting punishment of the same kind] eye against eye, tooth against tooth, blood against blood. Plainly speaking, and dispensing with all paraphrases, punishment is nothing but a means of society to defend itself against the infraction of its vital conditions, whatever may be their character. Now, what a state of society is that, which knows of no better Instrument for its own defense than the hangman, and which proclaims through the “leading journal of the world” its own brutality as eternal law?

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 15:00

Marx endorsed the Communards enthusiastically, who used firing squads early in their struggle for liberation. When he did criticize their methods, he criticized them for not going far enough; much the opposite of what you're doing. Workers putting reactionary enemies to death for counterrevolutionary crimes is not the same as capitalists putting workers to death because they broke bourgeois laws in desperation and hopelessness...and yet you're taking Marx's statements on the latter and trying to apply them to the former.

So no, you're not in good company, and in fact you're arguing against that company right now.
The time of the Paris Commune was a brutal time when brutal things happen. I wish the Paris Commune succeeded and hopefully it would have gone on to abolish the death penalty. If not, it would not have bade well. Marx endorsed the Communards fighting against the bourgeoisie, so do I. Where I have the problem is when they killed people who were already in their custody and under their control. That is the difference.

Some people here seem to think that actions that are reactionary when the bourgeoisie do them are fine when done by workers. That is plain nonsense. And the red herring being thrown up of "oh you have to kill in revolutions is dishonest" because what some are actually calling for here is the regular use of the death penalty in ordinary situations in a socialist society.

anticap

30th December 2009, 15:05

If you're saying that capital punishment is a "stupidity of capitalism", you're beyond lost. I guess you can tell the Paris Commune and its defenders to "Fuck off", too. :rolleyes:

I generally try to steer clear of these petty sectarian squabbles, but I want to be sure that I understand you here. Are you suggesting that whatever the Communards did, it's OK, and even good policy? I don't believe that you would be so foolish as to suggest that if, for example, an individual rogue Communard committed rape, then rape is OK or good; but you do seem to be suggesting that if the Communards did something in their capacity as such, as a matter of policy, then it must be OK and even emulable. That would of course be ridiculous, and wholly fallacious, and an embarrassment to yourself and to those who thanked you for your comment.

FSL

30th December 2009, 15:08

Some people have huge trouble reading

is there not a necessity for deeply reflecting upon an alteration of the system that breeds these crimes, instead of glorifying the hangman who executes a lot of criminals to make room only for the supply of new ones?

Marx opposed the exploitative nature of societies that breed crimes, he wasn't some inherently good idealist like many people here. You can be as idealistic as you want, probably a revolution will be getting most of its support from idealists who put their morals aside for a while, when "action" is needed. Just don't pretend it's something more or better than idealism and don't argue that marxism is itself idealistic.

if, for example, an individual rogue Communard committed rape, then rape is OK or good;

Yeah man, that's exactly what he means. Basically, all we want is to be able to rape and kill everyone because we have the devil inside us.

Sigh.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 15:12

It should be noted as well that use of the death penalty during revolutions is often the result of the oppressed "losing control" as it were thanks to their brutal conditions. People are products of their environments and in the worst kind of environments we can do the worst things. A good example is in South Africa where the liberation movement sometimes used necklacing. Now I think it should be pretty self evident that putting a burning tire round somebody's neck is not a very good thing to do and most of those who did it would never do something like that in normal circumstances, but the reality of the situation they were in makes it inevitable that something like that would happen.

That means that any propaganda that came from the apartheid government that their opponents were brutal because of things like this was baseless because it was the Governments own fault for setting up the situation where it happened. That does not mean the acts themselves were good though, just that it is foolish to condemn those that did so. In some instances certain people were nearly necklaced but cooler heads prevailed and managed to stop it on those occasions, those cases are to be celebrated, not condemned.

The case of "execution" during revolution is much the same (when it is carried out spontaneously, not when it is legitimised by an order from the centre). It is wrong in of itself of course, but difficult to condemn because of the situation. It cannot be used under any circumstances to extend justification to judicial executions though and that is where people here are making a big mistake.

robbo203

30th December 2009, 15:39

Some people have huge trouble reading

Yes, indeed, some people do have huge trouble reading. Marx is saying in no mistaken terms that finds capital punishment "very difficult if not impossible to justify" and regards a society that promotes it as demonstrating its own "brutality"

Marx opposed the exploitative nature of societies that breed crimes, he wasn't some inherently good idealist like many people here. You can be as idealistic as you want, probably a revolution will be getting most of its support from idealists who put their morals aside for a while, when "action" is needed. Just don't pretend it's something more or better than idealism and don't argue that marxism is itself idealistic.

Its got nothing to do with idealism. Marx like any other thinking person on the planet had a moral perspective. He evidently found the death penalty repugnant and irrational as do I and many others on this list.

manic expression

30th December 2009, 15:51

It did not defend the working class though, did it? It formed part of the arsenal that the likes of Stalin used to oppress the working class and create a new ruling class.

OK, so you really don't know what you're talking about. Stalin played a relatively small role in the Civil War period, and only became significant later on, and even then he didn't reach a central position until 1928 or so.

Christ, since when have I become an anarchist?I'm sorry if I implied that, because anarchists, for all their faults, are still far more practical than you are.

They did not last long enough to see whether they would have become dictators or not.But they used the death penalty. So obviously they were dictators in training, according to your logic. Consistency must be annoying when you're dancing around the issue.

People do brutal things in brutal times, so it is hard to know what they will be like in peaceful times.Peace is unattainable in an epoch of class warfare, in case someone forgot to tell you. And on edit, even if we agree that "peaceful times" means no open warfare between states (which isn't an unreasonable definition), what of anti-socialist mass-murder? Cuba executed the individuals responsible for murdering innocent civilians by blowing up an airplane; it would be absurd to argue that such times were "peaceful times", as a plane-full of innocent people were massacred by anti-socialist goons. So long as capitalism exists, the menace against the working class will not disappear, and so barbarism persists even in "peace".

It is possible they would have moved in a progressive direction if they had won and abolished the death penalty, it is also possible that they would have created a new dictatorship. We just don't know, and never will. The reason, I use the Soviet Union as an example is because we do know where that ended up.So in other words, you're unwilling to consistently apply your warped logic. Good to know.

How about you try contending with a little reality yourself. Go out and try to convince people to join a political movement calling for a frenzied bloodbath and see how much support you will get. It seems to me you are hoping revolution will be as violent as possible, while I hope the opposite.Exactly, you hope for a peaceful revolution because you deal in contradictions and hope for an oxymoron. You might as well "hope" for dry water.

Read a history book: revolutions involve violence as a matter of course, it doesn't matter what I hope or don't hope.

So again, until you contend with the reality of the Russian Civil War (which you haven't), you can keep the sermons to yourself, pastor.

The time of the Paris Commune was a brutal time when brutal things happen. I wish the Paris Commune succeeded and hopefully it would have gone on to abolish the death penalty. If not, it would not have bade well. Marx endorsed the Communards fighting against the bourgeoisie, so do I. Where I have the problem is when they killed people who were already in their custody and under their control. That is the difference.

Some people here seem to think that actions that are reactionary when the bourgeoisie do them are fine when done by workers. That is plain nonsense. And the red herring being thrown up of "oh you have to kill in revolutions is dishonest" because what some are actually calling for here is the regular use of the death penalty in ordinary situations in a socialist society.:lol: So it was OK because it was "a brutal time". Which means you don't think the Russian Civil War was a "brutal time". :lol: Does anyone on the bleeding-heart side of this debate have any conception of history? Anyone? Bueller?

So which is it? Was the Russian Civil War not brutal, or was the Paris Commune reactionary? If you admit that the Civil War was brutal, then your argument falls apart.

Oh, and by the way, the Communards DID execute people "under their control" at the beginning of the Commune. Where did Marx preach against this, as you do now? Right, he didn't.

On your second paragraph, we're not talking about "ordinary situations", we're talking about revolutionary situations in which the workers are threatened by the worst reaction imaginable. So really, you're already retreating from your initial position. And anyway, I doubt you'd ever be able to define an "ordinary situation" to any satisfactory degree.

manic expression

30th December 2009, 15:57

I generally try to steer clear of these petty sectarian squabbles, but I want to be sure that I understand you here. Are you suggesting that whatever the Communards did, it's OK, and even good policy? I don't believe that you would be so foolish as to suggest that if, for example, an individual rogue Communard committed rape, then rape is OK or good; but you do seem to be suggesting that if the Communards did something in their capacity as such, as a matter of policy, then it must be OK and even emulable.

a.) The executions were not carried out by "an individual rogue Communard", so the comparison is both meaningless and irrelevant. The executions were part-in-parcel of the establishment of the Commune when revolutionary soldiers turned their guns on their reactionary generals, and were also part of declarations made by the government of the proletariat after it was established.

b.) Capital punishment in the Commune was an early indicator of how serious class warfare really is. The anti-Commune forces executed countless Communards; it was no longer about moral purity, it was about defense of the workers against reaction. That's what it's still about.

anticap

30th December 2009, 15:58

Yeah man, that's exactly what he means. Basically, all we want is to be able to rape and kill everyone because we have the devil inside us.

Sigh.

You left out this part:

I don't believe that you would be so foolish as to suggest that if, for example, an individual rogue Communard committed rape, then rape is OK or good;

...which is, you know, kinda fucking important.

You see, this is why I avoid these hornets' nests. They're full of intentional misrepresentation, willful ignorance, and are little more than Internet chest-pounding for sad little individuals. But hey, I thought I'd ask.

Groan.

anticap

30th December 2009, 16:02

a.) The executions were not carried out by "an individual rogue Communard", so the comparison is both meaningless and irrelevant.

That's why the example was offered as a preemptive recognition of your intellectual honesty, not as a comparison. Perhaps I jumped the gun there? or are you lacking more in reading comprehension than in honesty? I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The executions were part-in-parcel of the establishment of the Commune when revolutionary soldiers turned their guns on their reactionary generals, and were also part of declarations made by the government of the proletariat after it was established.

Right, and I asked you if this is your criteria for determining whether their various actions are acceptable or not. Why am I having to repeat myself?

b.) ...

... also fails to answer my question. How about we just forget it?

manic expression

30th December 2009, 16:08

That's why the example was offered as a preemptive recognition of your intellectual honesty, not as a comparison. Perhaps I jumped the gun there?

Don't be silly, of course it was a comparison, albeit an indirect one. That example led immediately into a line of questioning that implied that executions by the Commune were not necessarily acceptable in spite of the reasons I have listed previously.

Is this not what you're implying? Was the example part of this argument? Yes, you are; yes, it was.

Right, and I asked you if this is your criteria for determining whether their various actions are acceptable or not. Why am I having to repeat myself?

Are they acceptable if they are part of the defense of working-class gains in revolutionary situations? Yes, why in the world wouldn't they be? Capital punishment is not something to be taken lightly, it is barbaric and regrettable, but the conditions that the workers of Paris, Russia, Spain, Cuba, China and elsewhere were also barbaric and demanded decisive action.

FSL

30th December 2009, 16:08

Marx like any other thinking person on the planet had a moral perspective.

No. Stop it.

Anyway, I wanted to edit my previous post to clarify this part. Since i was late,I'll just do it here

Marx opposed the exploitative nature of societies that breed crimes, he wasn't some inherently good idealist like many people here

Marx did not oppose the "wrongness" and "injustice" he saw around him. He opposed the very real exploitation that occurs when someone is producing 10 but is only payed 4 or when perfectly able-bodied men remained unemployed and were thusly cast aside. He opposed the exploitative nature of production that constituted the base of the capitalistic society -and every previous one for that matter until the primitive age.
The judicial system in a given society, along with its penalties strict or lenient, is part of the society's superstructure and the thing that defines it is -first and foremost- the character of this society, the society's base.
Marx doesn't make a direct attack on the capital punishment because attributing a certain characteristic to it, saying it's bad or good, is idealistic, as things can't be described in such a manner. He attacks the base of this society, that puts people on the side, that breeds crime. The fact that it needs an unpleasant, strict judicial system is but a symptom to that.

Marx argues for the abolition of present society which is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the installation of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The Paris Commune represents the first example of this society and the russian revolution the second. Marx approved of the methods the Communards used because as there was now a radical change in the base, there was a radical change in the superstructure as well. Now, the executions didn't target the bravest among the people that were calling for a revolution or those that were cast aside, forced to steal their daily bread. The executions were targetting the opressors, who had now fallen from power. If there was one thing that went wrong, it was that the workers lost the power to the reactionaries instead of being able to continue their effort and complete their task of achieving a classless society.

So Marx doesn't take a "moral stand" (it pains me to even think of it) nor does he resort to idealism to say that this or that is good or evil. Marx opposes the capitalist exploitation and the superstructure it brings along, with the judicial system being just a part of it. He supports of the "exploitative" nature of socialism when the workers have seized power and for this, he also supports the superstructure socialism will bring with it. A socialism at first infected with the ills of the old society and in dire need of combating them, later on with the opposing, reactionary elements of the society weakened and about to disappear. A socialism at first "harsh", a dictatorship of the proletariat, and later on a socialism with a firm hold in society and with the state's oppresive character withering away.

FSL

30th December 2009, 16:10

You left out this part:

...which is, you know, kinda fucking important.

You see, this is why I avoid these hornets' nests. They're full of intentional misrepresentation, willful ignorance, and are little more than Internet chest-pounding for sad little individuals. But hey, I thought I'd ask.

Groan.

You didn't believe it but felt the need to ask anyway because you were having doubts? I'd say you simply wanted a strawman argument to sound like the reasonable guy in the confrontation.

robbo203

30th December 2009, 16:28

No. Stop it.
So Marx doesn't take a "moral stand" (it pains me to even think of it) nor does he resort to idealism to say that this or that is good or evil. Marx opposes the capitalist exploitation and the superstructure it brings along, with the judicial system being just a part of it. He supports of the "exploitative" nature of socialism when the workers have seized power and for this, he also supports the superstructure socialism will bring with it. A socialism at first infected with the ills of the old society and in dire need of combating them, later on with the opposing, reactionary elements of the society weakened and about to disappear. A socialism at first "harsh", a dictatorship of the proletariat, and later on a socialism with a firm hold in society and with the state's oppresive character withering away.

Oh come now. This is mechanistic bullshit. "Marx didnt take a moral stand". As if. Marx's writings seethe with moral condemnation. What was all that about legalised robbery and the exploitation of workers if not a moral statement (of course its other things as well but it is also a moral statement). Anyone who claims not to take a moral perspective on society is either a lier or an android. Take your pick

As for Marx and socialism, I think you are confusing Marx with Lenin. Marx did not hold this idea of socialism at all. It was Lenin who talked of socialism as some kind of statist transitional society

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 16:35

There seems to be little point in continuing this with someone who evidently has so little grasp of written English as to interpret what I wrote as you have, but to try and explain a few points.
OK, so you really don't know what you're talking about. Stalin played a relatively small role in the Civil War period, and only became significant later on, and even then he didn't reach a central position until 1928 or so.I said it formed part of the arsenal. In other words it was there and he used it. He was able to use the precedent.

But they used the death penalty. So obviously they were dictators in training, according to your logic. Consistency must be annoying when you're dancing around the issue.What exactly am I dancing around? I said it is impossible to know how it would ended up because it was never allowed to develop. There was no clear unified group present in Spain, so what would have happened would have depended on who prevailed and where and what subsequent policies might have been carried out. Certainly there were some amongst the Spanish anarchists who would have gone on to be dictators given the opportunity, but whether or not they would have had the opportunity is impossible now to know.

Peace is unattainable in an epoch of class warfare, in case someone forgot to tell you. And on edit, even if we agree that "peaceful times" means no open warfare between states (which isn't an unreasonable definition), what of anti-socialist mass-murder? Cuba executed the individuals responsible for murdering innocent civilians by blowing up an airplane; it would be absurd to argue that such times were "peaceful times", as a plane-full of innocent people were massacred by anti-socialist goons. So long as capitalism exists, the menace against the working class will not disappear, and so barbarism persists even in "peace".What? When exactly did I say there must be peace? I referred to brutal times, by which I meant fairly extraordinary times. In the midst of these times sometimes oppressed people do things we would ordinarily consider wrong but which it would be unreasonable to blame them for. The Cuban Government however does not fall under the definition of "oppressed person" though, no matter how you might wish to look at it.

So in other words, you're unwilling to consistently apply your warped logic. Good to know.Using an example where the outcome is known is inconsistent, is it?

Read a history book: revolutions involve violence as a matter of course, it doesn't matter what I hope or don't hope.Actually you might want to check your history a little more thoroughly. The truth is that revolutions happen in a vast number of different ways. The Japanese shift from feudalism to capitalism was utterly different from the French one to take one example and cannot be considered to be a violent revolution to any great extent. The truth is we do not know how a future revolution will play out, though to imagine that a revolution in a Western country for instance could possibly look like the Russian Revolution is naive in the extreme. I hope at any rate that any revolution is as peaceful as possible. It might not be of course, it may involve hot blooded killing, but I cannot and will not ever accept killing in cold blood.

:lol: So it was OK because it was "a brutal time". Which means you don't think the Russian Civil War was a "brutal time". :lol: Does anyone on the bleeding-heart side of this debate have any conception of history? Anyone? Bueller?

So which is it? Was the Russian Civil War not brutal, or was the Paris Commune reactionary? If you admit that the Civil War was brutal, then your argument falls apart.Where did I deny the Russian revolution was a brutal time. I specifically said that explains a lot of what happened. I also said that while it is difficult to condemn the oppressed losing control and killing their oppressors, it is never justifiable for centrally authorised judicial executions to be carried out.

Oh, and by the way, the Communards DID execute people "under their control" at the beginning of the Commune.Yes, which is why I said I had a problem with that.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 16:41

Marx did not oppose the "wrongness" and "injustice" he saw around him. He opposed the very real exploitation that occurs when someone is producing 10 but is only payed 4 or when perfectly able-bodied men remained unemployed and were thusly cast aside. He opposed the exploitative nature of production that constituted the base of the capitalistic society -and every previous one for that matter until the primitive age.

Why didn't he celebrate this? Why didn't he think it was a wonderful thing? He had a reasonably privileged background and a superb education, he could-and would-have benefited from this had he chosen to do so. Unless he had a functioning sense of right and wrong, it is impossible to see any rational reason why he would not have used his incite into how the economy works to make himself a millionaire.

You seem to think that having a conscience and believing that there is a difference between right and wrong is idealist. That is nonsense, if we didn't have that we wouldn't be able to function as a social species.

So next time you criticise someone for somehow moralising when they criticise something as being unjust, ask yourself what it is about exploitation that is so objectionable.

BobKKKindle$

30th December 2009, 16:58

It's interesting in the context of this discussion that the drug trade in China has hardly been exclusive to imperialist powers like Britain or the KMT, as some of the people who have posted in this thread seem to believe. In 1942-3, when the CPC had established itself in Yan'an whilst also facing economic and political difficulties at the height of the war against Japan, the party sought to ease its financial crisis by encouraging the peasants in the region to resume opium production which was then shipped to areas under the control of both the KMT and the Japanese occupation forces, with the opium being disguised in the records of the CPC through the use of euphemisms like "soap" and "special products" in order to make it appear as if the party was not encouraging something that would lead to its patriotic image being undermined, if uncovered. In addition, peasants at this time were also allowed to use revenues from the sale of opium to meet tax demands. This is not the only instance of Chinese political actors taking an unusual stance towards drugs. When discussions were taking place at the apex of the Qing state during the 1830s about the stance that the government should adopt towards the growing impact of opium on China's balance of trade and the condition of Chinese society, there were some officials who proposed that the drug should be legalized, thereby allowing the Chinese to grow it within China's borders, and to compete with the British and other traders, who had hitherto been the sole suppliers. The conservatives ultimately won out, which led to the first Opium War in 1839, but in these respects it's clear that the history of drugs in China is a lot more complex than drugs simply being an oppressive tool in the hands of imperialists or oppressive governments.

Anyway, socialists should oppose the death penalty, and oppose the banning of drugs. If not in this case then in many others it is overwhelmingly working class men and women who are pushed into becoming street-level drugs dealers (as distinct from drugs barons etc.) because they have no other options open to them. But the response of the British government and a large segment of the British media towards the Chinese government just shows how prevalent colonial attitudes are, which means that socialists need to deal with this carefully and make it clear that we do not believe that the British government has a right to condemn other countries as "barbaric" or that British people should expect not to be subject to the laws of other governments when they visit countries like China, just because they're British, or don't regard those laws as just.

FSL

30th December 2009, 17:04

Why didn't he celebrate this? Why didn't he think it was a wonderful thing? He had a reasonably privileged background and a superb education, he could-and would-have benefited from this had he chosen to do so. Unless he had a functioning sense of right and wrong, it is impossible to see any rational reason why he would not have used his incite into how the economy works to make himself a millionaire.

You seem to think that having a conscience and believing that there is a difference between right and wrong is idealist. That is nonsense, if we didn't have that we wouldn't be able to function as a social species.

So next time you criticise someone for somehow moralising when they criticise something as being unjust, ask yourself what it is about exploitation that is so objectionable.

That I produce more than what I'm payed for. It is objectionable on my behalf because it means less food on my table. It is not objectionable at all on the capitalist's behalf because it means more food for him.

So the socialist superstructure holds capitalists to be the equal to pigs while capitalist superstructure puts them on the cover of Forbes and it seeks to make them rolemodels.

See why when you say that the capitalist relations of productions are unfair, you're resorting to idealism? Unfair is an idea, its meaning is defined through society's base. Stealing someone's property is unfair in capitalism, him being allowed that property when it's the result of wage labour exploitation is unfair in socialism. You can't say that something like punishment is generally unfair and end it there. It's unfair to certain people at certain times and promotes the wellfare of other people in these times.

Believing there is right and wrong is idealist. I don't mean it as a curse, the present society is based on Socrates' nonsense. He was searching all his life to find what's good and right and fair. To him, right and good and fair were all compatible with slavery. Wanna guess why?

And Marx did believe that someone's being was as a rule the defining factor in their conscience. Which is why socialism will be brought through working class struggle and not through bourgeois philanthropists. But the superstructure and the base in each society are also dialectically tied. Which means that a worker who is the subject of everyday exploitation might still hold bourgeois principles, like believing there is a need to defend private property. On the other hand there can also be bourgeois class trators, Engels being a common example. If these people started thinking that way out of compassion to the plight of the common man, the admiration for popular uprisings or for whatever other reason can be the subject of a lengthy but with little importance debate. They are and will always be a minority in the working class movement, because the bourgeois' being defines his conscience as well.

FSL

30th December 2009, 17:09

Oh come now. This is mechanistic bullshit. "Marx didnt take a moral stand". As if. Marx's writings seethe with moral condemnation. What was all that about legalised robbery and the exploitation of workers if not a moral statement (of course its other things as well but it is also a moral statement). Anyone who claims not to take a moral perspective on society is either a lier or an android. Take your pick

As for Marx and socialism, I think you are confusing Marx with Lenin. Marx did not hold this idea of socialism at all. It was Lenin who talked of socialism as some kind of statist transitional society

I have no interest whatsoever in discussing whatever your cult believes regarding Marx and Lenin and why "socialism is actually indistinguishable from communism despite all the lies we've been fed!!!".

But if what you could get from reading Marx is that he seethes with moral condemnation, that's just saddening.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 17:23

That I produce more than what I'm payed for. It is objectionable on my behalf because it means less food on my table. It is not objectionable at all on the capitalist's behalf because it means more food for him.
So in other words, Marx was an idealist? After all he opposed something which could very easily have been very lucrative indeed for him. Unless you factor in him having a conscience, he was a deeply irrational man.

Now I shouldn't have to explain this next bit, but as the social conservatives here are determined to misread my every word, I had best do so. Marx was not an idealist. He was a materialist, as am I. Materialism does not preclude having a sense that some things are right and others are wrong. Indeed not having such a sense is a diagnosable personality disorder.

I can list you a whole host of things that you will want to claim are wrong: murder, rape, assault and so on. Can you really give a good answer as to why they are wrong without coming back to "they hurt people" or "they cause human misery" or whatever? There is your starting point. Working from there we can easily see why the death penalty is wrong. We have the simple hurting people and causing misery, both to the one who is killed and their family and friends. It also raises the crime rate and if Marx is right, (and modern evidence suggests he may well be) the suicide rate, none of which we see as desirable. Again because it hurts people. None of this is relying on idealism.

If you want to simply say however things like exploitation are wrong simply because it affects you, then you are going to struggle when faced with other things. If one is white, why oppose racism? If one is straight, why oppose homophobia? If one is male, why oppose restrictions on reproductive freedom, and so forth?

The reason is solidarity and compassion and if you ignore that you will have a problem.

robbo203

30th December 2009, 17:49

I have no interest whatsoever in discussing whatever your cult believes regarding Marx and Lenin and why "socialism is actually indistinguishable from communism despite all the lies we've been fed!!!"..

I dont belong to a cult. I can think or mysel thank you very much. Socialism and communism were actually widely held to be synonyms prior to Lenin's redefinition of socialism to mean state capitalist monopoly supposedly run in the interests of the whole people. Are you disputing this

But if what you could get from reading Marx is that he seethes with moral condemnation, that's just saddening.

Really? Have you perchance ever read any Marx? Somehow I wonder. Here's a passage from Stephen Lukes' Marxism and Morality, in which he identifies some of judgements made by Marx and argues that they only make sense against Marx's own moral ideal of the good life:

Hence all the passages in Capital about ‘naked self-interest and callous cash payment’, ‘oppression’, ‘degradation of personal dignity’, ‘accumulation of misery’, ‘physical and mental degradation’, ‘shameless, direct and brutal exploitation’, the ‘modern slavery of capital’, ‘subjugation’, the ‘horrors’… and ‘torture’ and ‘brutality’ of overwork, the ‘murderous’ search for economy in the production process, capital ‘laying waste and squandering’ of labour power and ‘altogether too prodigal with its human material’ and exacting ‘ceaseless human sacrifices.’ (Lukes 1985 Oxford Clarendon Press p1).

It seems to me that you dont understand the distinction between making an explicit moral case for or against something and implicitly having a moral perspective on society. Every human on the ace of the planet has such a perspective - it is part of what makes us human beings - and if you deny this I can only conclude that you must be an android

manic expression

30th December 2009, 19:50

I said it formed part of the arsenal. In other words it was there and he used it. He was able to use the precedent.

That's nice. Now try to keep to the issue at hand: the Russian Civil War. Screaming about Stalin has nothing (I repeat: nothing) to do with what we were talking about. Further, the Soviet Union was struggling against counterrevolutionary forces within the country in the 1930's, so it wasn't really a time of "peace", as you like to call it. The kulaks, for example, were trying to starve the cities and bring down the Soviet state. Is this a time of "peace"? You keep neglecting the concrete conditions of the periods you criticize.

What exactly am I dancing around? I said it is impossible to know how it would ended up because it was never allowed to develop.

Did they or did they not use the death penalty? Did you or did you not equate capital punishment with dictatorship? Those are the questions you're refusing to answer.

There was no clear unified group present in Spain,

There were many groups present in Spain, and all of the anti-fascists engaged in capital punishment during the conflict. Nice try.

What? When exactly did I say there must be peace? I referred to brutal times, by which I meant fairly extraordinary times. In the midst of these times sometimes oppressed people do things we would ordinarily consider wrong but which it would be unreasonable to blame them for. The Cuban Government however does not fall under the definition of "oppressed person" though, no matter how you might wish to look at it.

People do brutal things in brutal times, so it is hard to know what they will be like in peaceful times.

I'd LOVE to know what "peaceful times" you're referring to, because it's purely nonsense from any rational perspective. The Cuban Revolution does not exist in "peaceful times" when they face sabotage and terrorism on the part of the imperialists; coincidentally enough, it was in response to this terrorism that the Cuban Revolution employed capital punishment. So really, your criticisms hold no water when compared to your own words.

Using an example where the outcome is known is inconsistent, is it?

The outcome is known for both Spain and Russia. Both the Spanish and Russian revolutionaries used capital punishment. But keep dancing around those facts.

Actually you might want to check your history a little more thoroughly. The truth is that revolutions happen in a vast number of different ways. The Japanese shift from feudalism to capitalism was utterly different from the French one to take one example and cannot be considered to be a violent revolution to any great extent.

Satsuma Rebellion. Check your math.

The truth is we do not know how a future revolution will play out, though to imagine that a revolution in a Western country for instance could possibly look like the Russian Revolution is naive in the extreme. I hope at any rate that any revolution is as peaceful as possible. It might not be of course, it may involve hot blooded killing, but I cannot and will not ever accept killing in cold blood.

We have a very good idea of how a future revolution will play out, because we have a wealth of experience in past revolutions in the epoch of imperialism. Name me one working-class revolution that didn't see violence, pastor, and you might have a starting point. Until then, you're guilty of the worst sort of bleeding-heart wishful thinking.

And it's touching to see you have so much sympathy for those murderous, raping, exploitation-happy capitalists, but my concern is how to defeat them to move forward. That happens through force.

The most ridiculous thing is that your quasi-pacifism flies in the face of Marx's clearest words, his promotion of "revolutionary terror":

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

...And to think you were pretentious enough to say you were in his "good company"!

Where did I deny the Russian revolution was a brutal time.

You distinguished between the situations in Spain and in Russia, saying Spain was in a "brutal time", and thus capital punishment was "unreasonable to blame them for". Why the dichotomy? There's no reason for it, other than your bias.

I specifically said that explains a lot of what happened. I also said that while it is difficult to condemn the oppressed losing control and killing their oppressors, it is never justifiable for centrally authorised judicial executions to be carried out.

So execution is OK if it's done without a trial? Are you seriously putting this forward as your next argument? Why is capital punishment automatically "bad" if it's "judicial"? What's wrong with having a trial before deciding their fate?

So what you're saying is that extra-judicial killings are fine, but once you establish a system of judging the accused with evidence and witnesses presented, it's bad. Nothing really for me to add.

Yes, which is why I said I had a problem with that.

Good for you, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the central acts in the establishment was a series of executions. Marx didn't criticize this from a moralizing perspective, and neither should any genuine revolutionary.

FSL

30th December 2009, 20:47

Marx was not an idealist. He was a materialist, as am I. Materialism does not preclude having a sense that some things are right and others are wrong.

If you want to simply say however things like exploitation are wrong simply because it affects you, then you are going to struggle when faced with other things. If one is white, why oppose racism? If one is straight, why oppose homophobia? If one is male, why oppose restrictions on reproductive freedom, and so forth?

The reason is solidarity and compassion and if you ignore that you will have a problem.

Solidarity or compassion for others as part of the working class ideology arise from the fact that production is a social phenomenon in which people of all colors, nationalities and sexual orientations offer alike. If we were to examine some other society like the slave owning society of early America, we could see that there production was mostly a matter of black people and the exploitation of their labour was a matter of whites. And indeed, whites had little compassion or solidarity towards the blacks.

In short, yes you're an idealist. You can start accepting it, it's hardly the worst thing imaginable.

It seems to me that you dont understand the distinction between making an explicit moral case for or against something and implicitly having a moral perspective on society. Every human on the ace of the planet has such a perspective - it is part of what makes us human beings - and if you deny this I can only conclude that you must be an android

People do have a moral perspective on society. But this moral perspective stems from the material conditions of society itself. If you separate something, anything, say capital punishment, from the society and judge it in that manner finding it wrong, you've resorted to idealism.
Marx could speak against the capital punishment when used as a punishment for thieves, because he judged it without separating it from the material conditions that gave birth to it. The same material conditions that produced thievery. Marx could speak in favour of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and regard with great admiration the Communards because he, once again, did not separate these facts from the conditions thanks to which they rose.

By the way, I'd rather be as cold as an android than as incoherent as a priest, so you can stop repeating that.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 20:52

There is little point in continuing if you are going to attack me for what you wish I had said rather than what I said. For this reason I will be extremely brief.

Satsuma Rebellion. Check your math.
Not really. An uprising by reactionary elements after the fact. To be expected given the circumstances but not something that happened during the actual transition of power.

You distinguished between the situations in Spain and in Russia, saying Spain was in a "brutal time", and thus capital punishment was "unreasonable to blame them for". Why the dichotomy? There's no reason for it, other than your bias.

I am struggling to see where my bias must be coming into it, given I have no bias whatsoever in favour of the Spanish revolutionaries. I said it is unreasonable to blame the oppressed to lose control when rebelling against their oppressors. People do bad things when pushed to breaking point. That was true in both Spain and Russia. The criticism of what happened in Russia was that it was carried out in a far more organised fashion by the state.

So execution is OK if it's done without a trial? Are you seriously putting this forward as your next argument? Why is capital punishment automatically "bad" if it's "judicial"? What's wrong with having a trial before deciding their fate?

So what you're saying is that extra-judicial killings are fine, but once you establish a system of judging the accused with evidence and witnesses presented, it's bad. Nothing really for me to add.

This is what I mean by arguing against something I never said. All execution is murder. But there is a difference between hot blooded murder with provocation, which can be excused under some circumstances and cold blooded murder that can never be excused (except where the perpetrator cannot be held fully responsible for their actions).

manic expression

30th December 2009, 21:35

There is little point in continuing if you are going to attack me for what you wish I had said rather than what I said. For this reason I will be extremely brief.

I'm pressing you on important points. If you're taking it personally, you shouldn't.

Not really. An uprising by reactionary elements after the fact. To be expected given the circumstances but not something that happened during the actual transition of power.

So was the Vendee, which is where most of the violence during the French Revolution happened.

I am struggling to see where my bias must be coming into it, given I have no bias whatsoever in favour of the Spanish revolutionaries. I said it is unreasonable to blame the oppressed to lose control when rebelling against their oppressors. People do bad things when pushed to breaking point. That was true in both Spain and Russia. The criticism of what happened in Russia was that it was carried out in a far more organised fashion by the state.

Your bias is against capital punishment. Your argument runs against the presence of it in every revolution, and so you're trying to distinguish between Russia and Spain even if there's nothing to distinguish. That's your bias.

This is what I mean by arguing against something I never said. All execution is murder. But there is a difference between hot blooded murder with provocation, which can be excused under some circumstances and cold blooded murder that can never be excused (except where the perpetrator cannot be held fully responsible for their actions).

So you're fine with vigilante and mob killings with no transparency or judicial oversight, but reviewing evidence and witness statements in a fair trial is "bad" and "cold blooded". Let me ask you: if the jury gets emotionally upset during deliberation, does it then make it OK to put the defendant to death? The logic makes one's head spin.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 22:01

So you're fine with vigilante and mob killings with no transparency or judicial oversight, but reviewing evidence and witness statements in a fair trial is "bad" and "cold blooded". Let me ask you: if the jury gets emotionally upset during deliberation, does it then make it OK to put the defendant to death? The logic makes one's head spin.
And this is the reason this answer will be even briefer. Exactly how this relates to what I said, I do not know, but I will try to explain again. The reason why I think that killing an oppressor in the heat of the moment is excusable is because if you do terrible things to people, you can hardly be surprised when they react. The reason it is not excusable once you have them in custody is that you have had the chance to calm down and the chance to realise there are plenty of other options beyond killing.

It comes down to the concept of provocation. There is a principle that is generally thought of as sound that if a person is put in such a position that would cause a reasonable person to snap, we should be understanding if they do. But if they do nothing at the time and then get revenge in cold blood later after they have calmed down, they have no excuse.

If somebody attacks me and I need to kill him to defend myself, I will do it and be entirely justified. If he fails to kill me and in the heat of the moment I retaliate and kill him, I will be wrong to do so, but it would be unreasonable to blame me. If neither of us kills the other but sometime later I kill him for revenge, I have no excuse.

manic expression

30th December 2009, 22:29

And this is the reason this answer will be even briefer. Exactly how this relates to what I said, I do not know, but I will try to explain again. The reason why I think that killing an oppressor in the heat of the moment is excusable is because if you do terrible things to people, you can hardly be surprised when they react. The reason it is not excusable once you have them in custody is that you have had the chance to calm down and the chance to realise there are plenty of other options beyond killing.

Demogorgon, the only difference between execution in "the heat of the moment" and "in custody" is that the former has NO judicial process, no oversight, no contemplation, no fair trial. The latter has all those things, making it far more reasonable and just than the former.

Killing an oppressor in the heat of the moment is not necessarily bad, but bringing an oppressor to the justice of the working class is no worse.

Once again: if a jury gets upset during deliberation, does that make execution OK? If the judge loses control of a trial and it falls into disarray and emotional uproar, is capital punishment now acceptable?

It comes down to the concept of provocation. There is a principle that is generally thought of as sound that if a person is put in such a position that would cause a reasonable person to snap, we should be understanding if they do. But if they do nothing at the time and then get revenge in cold blood later after they have calmed down, they have no excuse.

Provocation is not a baked cake, it does not cool down if you take it out of an oven for 15 minutes. Crimes against the working class are no less heinous and no more heinous 10 years after the fact than 10 minutes.

If somebody attacks me and I need to kill him to defend myself, I will do it and be entirely justified. If he fails to kill me and in the heat of the moment I retaliate and kill him, I will be wrong to do so, but it would be unreasonable to blame me. If neither of us kills the other but sometime later I kill him for revenge, I have no excuse.

And if he succeeded in killing someone, he should face the consequences of his actions, no? The oppressors of the workers are not trying and failing, they're succeeding on a daily basis, and they MUST answer for this after the workers conquer state power. Rapists, murderers, mass-murderers, professional torturers all in the employ of the capitalists...this isn't just about retaliation, let's make this clear, this is about people answering for the crimes they've committed.

Demogorgon

30th December 2009, 22:45

Demogorgon, the only difference between execution in "the heat of the moment" and "in custody" is that the former has NO judicial process, no oversight, no contemplation, no fair trial. The latter has all those things, making it far more reasonable and just than the former.I didn't say it was more just. I said it was more understandable. One cannot oppress others and expect them not to retaliate, perhaps excessively. That isn't justice, but it would also be unjust to recognise the provocation involved. Once cooler heads have prevailed however, it is no longer excusable

Once again: if a jury gets upset during deliberation, does that make execution OK? If the judge loses control of a trial and it falls into disarray and emotional uproar, is capital punishment now acceptable?

Of course not, because there has already been the chance for things to calm down and also of course because no court should ever have the death penalty available to it. I don't think it is acceptable to execute people under any circumstances, including in the heat of the moment but if oppressed people suddenly find themselves with their oppressor at their mercy. Well I am going to be pretty understanding if they react badly. I will commend them if they restrain themselves and take him into custody, I hope they do. But realistically, if someone has caused enough hurt, people might not be able to do so.

That is not to say I condone such a killing, as I say, it is wrong, but it is a far lesser crime than a cold blooded killing later.

And if he succeeded in killing someone, he should face the consequences of his actions, no? The oppressors of the workers are not trying and failing, they're succeeding on a daily basis, and they MUST answer for this after the workers conquer state power. Rapists, murderers, mass-murderers, professional torturers all in the employ of the capitalists...this isn't just about retaliation, let's make this clear, this is about people answering for the crimes they've committed.
Certainly I agree that people answer for their crimes (though it is quite possible many will agree to go quietly in exchange for amnesty), such people should be put on trial and if found guilty of sufficiently grave crimes sent to prison. However corporal and capital punishment must be out of the question. A progressive society must not resort to reactionary measures.

manic expression

30th December 2009, 23:05

I didn't say it was more just. I said it was more understandable. One cannot oppress others and expect them not to retaliate, perhaps excessively. That isn't justice, but it would also be unjust to recognise the provocation involved. Once cooler heads have prevailed however, it is no longer excusable

So if this isn't about justice, what is it about?

I get physically ill when thinking about crimes against workers more than 100 years ago...you can talk about "cooler heads" all you like, but atrocities don't have expiration dates. Aside from this, "cooler heads" win revolutions, "cooler heads" realize that capital punishment is oftentimes called for, however unpleasant we may find it.

Of course not, because there has already been the chance for things to calm down and also of course because no court should ever have the death penalty available to it. I don't think it is acceptable to execute people under any circumstances, including in the heat of the moment but if oppressed people suddenly find themselves with their oppressor at their mercy. Well I am going to be pretty understanding if they react badly. I will commend them if they restrain themselves and take him into custody, I hope they do. But realistically, if someone has caused enough hurt, people might not be able to do so.Why shouldn't a court have the death penalty available? Keep in mind that we do not live in "times of peace", we live in times of barbarism, times that demand decisive and stern action against reactionaries.

So from your post, your only reason for opposing capital punishment is...personal morality. "I don't think it is acceptable". That's it, is it? Your moral sensibilities do not define revolutions.

That is not to say I condone such a killing, as I say, it is wrong, but it is a far lesser crime than a cold blooded killing later.So the only way you find capital punishment acceptable is if emotional outrage causes it, and if the judicial process is driven not by an objective review of facts but by consternation. Unbelievable. The sheer impossibility of that logic is enough to cure one of sympathy to quasi-pacifism for the rest of one's life.

Certainly I agree that people answer for their crimes (though it is quite possible many will agree to go quietly in exchange for amnesty), such people should be put on trial and if found guilty of sufficiently grave crimes sent to prison. However corporal and capital punishment must be out of the question. A progressive society must not resort to reactionary measures.If you really think people will leave revolutionary areas after being caught and stop opposing socialism, you have no business being anywhere near a revolutionary organization. I say that not out of hostility towards you, I say that out of concern for the safety of revolutionaries.

A progressive society cannot decide what epoch it exists in. A progressive society cannot click its heels together and remove reactionary violence from its midst. A progressive society must deal with the conditions it is faced with, whether it likes it or not. A progressive society must defend itself by any means necessary. A progressive society does not hamstring itself and help its enemies because some people put their moral sensibilities above the interests of workers.

robbo203

31st December 2009, 00:27

People do have a moral perspective on society. But this moral perspective stems from the material conditions of society itself. If you separate something, anything, say capital punishment, from the society and judge it in that manner finding it wrong, you've resorted to idealism.
Marx could speak against the capital punishment when used as a punishment for thieves, because he judged it without separating it from the material conditions that gave birth to it. The same material conditions that produced thievery. Marx could speak in favour of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and regard with great admiration the Communards because he, once again, did not separate these facts from the conditions thanks to which they rose..

Weasel words Im afriad. You said, and this is what I found objectionable, that "Marx doesn't take a "moral stand" (it pains me to even think of it)" and now you flatly contradict yourself by admitting that "people do have a moral perspective on society" if one presumes by "people" you include Marx. Taking a moral stand and having a moral perspective is one and the same thing. Glad to see you have finally recanted.

Perhaps you might now care to withdraw your earlier ridiculous comment - viz. "Marx did not oppose the "wrongness" and "injustice" he saw around him. He opposed the very real exploitation that occurs when someone is producing 10 but is only payed "Why would he oppose exploitation if not for moral reasons amongst others. Ah, says the narrow minded mechanical materialist, its becuase exploitation is not in our self interest as workers. Self interest, eh? So if self interest was the motivation for opposing exploitation then why bother with class solidarity and all that jazz. Might just as well strive to become a capitalist in that case