Crime in a stateless society?

[Nolan]

How would a stateless society (either Anarchist communist or Marxist communist) handle murder, theft, rape, etc. without the police? How would crimes be investigated and by who? A right-winger asked me this on Youtube and I wasn't quite sure how to answer.

[FreeFocus]

Personally I'm a fan of whoop-that-ass justice when it comes to stuff like theft. Murderers or rapists who don't have severe mental problems, I'm not sure how we would deal with them. Restorative/community justice if they show remorse, I suppose. Unlike a lot of other people, I'm not against the death penalty in a post-capitalist world (I oppose it under these circumstances because it is largely reserved for the working class and has a racist element to it, when you look at statistics and cases. After all, mass murderers like the heads of imperialist states, when have they gotten the death penalty? Not very often). I do think that some people are irredeemable.

The material motive for a lot of crime would be gone with the implementation of socialism, so theft should amount to a very minuscule amount of crime. Murders and rapes are just heinous acts, so barring extreme mental illness and sincere regret on the part of the perpetrator, they should be dealt with harshly, I think. Rape is never justified, although murder is sometimes justified.

[ArrowLance]

Corrective labour facilities is my choice. Along with reeducation where necessary of course.

Stateless doesn't mean orderless. The working class should be perfectly able to organize justice without the state apparatus once the revolution is complete.

[FreeFocus]

Corrective labour facilities is my choice. Along with reeducation where necessary of course.

Stateless doesn't mean orderless. The working class should be perfectly able to organize justice without the state apparatus once the revolution is complete.

"Corrective labor facilities?" "Reeducation?" So basically, you support labor camps. I don't think we should be bringing this stuff back.

[ArrowLance]

"Corrective labor facilities?" "Reeducation?" So basically, you support labor camps. I don't think we should be bringing this stuff back.
Why not? It is better for everyone. Those in custody get to be productive and those who are counter-revolutionary or reactionary can hopefully be reintegrated to society.

[Invincible Summer]

How would a stateless society (either Anarchist communist or Marxist communist) handle murder, theft, rape, etc. without the police? How would crimes be investigated and by who? A right-winger asked me this on Youtube and I wasn't quite sure how to answer.

Well, theft would be virtually non-existant. Why would you steal when you could pretty much get anything you needed for free?

Murder, rape, and more heinous crimes - I agree with FreeFocus when he mentioned restorative justice.

I think that local "Neighborhood Patrol" type things would replace state police. Everyone would be trained to subdue criminals, trained in using firearms, etc.

[Comrade Lucifer]

If there's no state, there's no legislation upheld by it, meaning technically, there is no crime. More seriously, I think it's far important, as a long-term solution, to deal with the causes of crime - which are mostly socio-economic. There's other things like taking narcotics that are currently illegal etc - personally, I think what you do with/to your own body is your own business. Needless to say, the causes by themselves won't eradicate problems, but hell, nothing's perfect. As for the actual incidence of crime, I don't know if a peoples' militia is necessary, or whether it's practical enough to just organise between friends/neighbours.

[whore]

Corrective labour facilities is my choice. Along with reeducation where necessary of course.

Stateless doesn't mean orderless. The working class should be perfectly able to organize justice without the state apparatus once the revolution is complete.
so you support slavery?

[sarmchain]

Why not? It is better for everyone. Those in custody get to be productive and those who are counter-revolutionary or reactionary can hopefully be reintegrated to society.
and who decides what is counter-revolutionary? :rolleyes:

[Vendetta]

Why not? It is better for everyone. Those in custody get to be productive and those who are counter-revolutionary or reactionary can hopefully be reintegrated to society.

Labor camps do nothing for 'reintegration'.

[ArrowLance]

so you support slavery?
So you support Hitler?

Same thing, I said nothing about slavery.

[whore]

So you support Hitler?

Same thing, I said nothing about slavery.
what does " Corrective labour facilities" mean then? what will you do to the people who refuse to work? punish them in some other way?

as soon as you force people to work, that's slavery. (which is why leftists often talk about wage-slavery. people are forced to work to earn a wage.)

oh, and godwin was correct. as discussion continues, likely hood of reference to hitler or the nazis approachs 1. well done. i don't know if the tradition of "losing the discusion" applys here, but if it does, you just lost.

[ArrowLance]

what does " Corrective labour facilities" mean then? what will you do to the people who refuse to work? punish them in some other way?

as soon as you force people to work, that's slavery. (which is why leftists often talk about wage-slavery. people are forced to work to earn a wage.)

oh, and godwin was correct. as discussion continues, likely hood of reference to hitler or the nazis approachs 1. well done. i don't know if the tradition of "losing the discusion" applys here, but if it does, you just lost.

Working is in fact something people enjoy, so having labour facilities is simply the right thing to do. We can expect people to work without it being slavery.

But anyway, isn't detaining someone against their will also a violation of rights?

What is 'losing the discussion' that doesn't even make sense.

[mikelepore]

This is one of the aspects of communist thought that gets practiced as a religion. The fact is, any communist system in the future will have police, because every human society, past, present or future, couldn't go five minutes without the police. It's unfortunate that Marx and Engels got stuck in this anarchist tar pit.

[AK]

Corrective labour facilities is my choice. Along with reeducation where necessary of course.
How awfully dictatorial of you.


Stateless doesn't mean orderless. The working class should be perfectly able to organize justice without the state apparatus once the revolution is complete.
I agree that justice must still exist in a stateless society, but these labour camps and re-education facilities sound an awful lot like a state to me.

[Invincible Summer]

This is one of the aspects of communist thought that gets practiced as a religion. The fact is, any communist system in the future will have police, because every human society, past, present or future, couldn't go five minutes without the police. It's unfortunate that Marx and Engels got stuck in this anarchist tar pit.

But what provides assurance that the police will not simply be authoritarian bullies, and actually just monitor for crime?

[Spencer]

In Beevor's book 'The Spanish Civil War' I'm sure he mentions something along the lines of anarchists shooting their opponents because of their 'genuine horror of prisons'. How accurate would people say this is?

After all, one poster has just explicitly not ruled out the death penalty, but what offends everyone is the mention of labour camps!

Either way, I hardly think the death penalty has impeccable 'libertarian' credentials when a labour camp is 'dictatorial' or amounts to 'slavery'

[Zanthorus]

How would a stateless society (either Anarchist communist or Marxist communist) handle murder, theft, rape, etc. without the police? How would crimes be investigated and by who? A right-winger asked me this on Youtube and I wasn't quite sure how to answer.

I can't speak for any of the Marxists here.

However I would imagine something like the courts set up by communities during the "communal explosion" described by Kropotkin in "The State: It's Historic Role" with some kind of communal code of conduct and punishments being things like if you committ x crime you lose access to x service and have to care for all the old people in the commune for a week and laws being enforced by communal militia's. Really dangerous (As in murderers, rapists and what have you) criminals could be sent to psychiatric wards.

[whore]

Working is in fact something people enjoy, so having labour facilities is simply the right thing to do. We can expect people to work without it being slavery.
so you would not, in fact, force someone to work if they didnt want to?

But anyway, isn't detaining someone against their will also a violation of rights?
yes. and i would object to using detention as a means of punishment (i even object to punishment!) or retribution (and this too!). in a free society, it would only be used to briefly prevent a person from infringing the rights of others. for the long term, other options (including exile) would be found. depending on the case, and the community.

What is 'losing the discussion' that doesn't even make sense.
look up godwins law on wikipedia.

In Beevor's book 'The Spanish Civil War' I'm sure he mentions something along the lines of anarchists shooting their opponents because of their 'genuine horror of prisons'. How accurate would people say this is?

After all, one poster has just explicitly not ruled out the death penalty, but what offends everyone is the mention of labour camps!

Either way, I hardly think the death penalty has impeccable 'libertarian' credentials when a labour camp is 'dictatorial' or amounts to 'slavery'
forcing someone to work is slavery. shooting someone isnt. if i am attacked, i am allowed to defend myself. up to and including using lethal force (depending on the circumstances). and yes, anarchists do find prisons horrible.

anarchists are against punishment, retribution, reject the idea that prison (or punishment generally) is a "deterrence" (it obviously isnt). anarchists generally would suggest that rehabilitation is the best option, and where a person does not get on well with the community, exile is always an option. (some would also argue that execution is also an option in some cases).

[Belisarius]

interesting read on this is foucault's "discipline and punish".

first of all we need to divide criminals into nutjobs and the rest, 'cause the nutjobs need a mental facility in stead. Then the rest committed the crime, because they seemed to have some advantage in doing it (a thief gets money, a murderer gets revenge, etc.). in a communist society a lot of crime won't be necessary, because there is no advantage involved (why steal, when you just need to ask?).

what's left are basically people who did something to one another out of hate, jealousy, etc.. what is wrong with them is that they acted immorally (they did something bad with absolute knowledge. if not, then i think just telling someone how it should be done will suffice). this means they do have a sense of morality, which we should encourage. this encouraging, i think, is best done by education (making someone mentally realize what effects their actions have) and rehabilitation (making someone materially understand what effects their actions have), both make them also see that good behaviour gets good results. i think in this sense criminals will generally understand that their behaviour was bad and will do something about it.

so it keeps force to a minimum, while the criminals still get the message.

[tophat]

I can't even bring myself to respond to those who think the answer lies in labour camps.

The first point to make is that the causes for crime are largely socio-economic-political - and environment plays a greater role in shaping the criminal than innate nature. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that in different societies, and different segments of society, people behave in hugely different ways. Thus we just need to foster a kinder society in which people behave in ways conducive to the good of the community and themselves. Given the nature of this website, I don't feel I need to go into detail about why I think a post-capitalist stateless society would create that kind of society. And so in creating a free society we will greatly diminish the causes for crime, and so crime will be vastly reduced.
However, I concede that certain 'crimes' will persist, espeically passion crimes, presumably. In a society with more closely knit communities, I think the cold-hearted law will not be the best method for responding to these kind of crimes. Instead, accountability and rehabilitative (preferably the former) programs, each one individually created to better understand the circumstances (personal as well as social/cultural/political/economic) that led to the crime.
In more extreme cases, exclusionary tactics may have to be employed for the continued safety and harmony of the community. In even more extreme cases (that I think would be extremely rare) perhaps temporary holding cells may be necessary. However, I hope these would be unnecessary. Also, crucially, it would happen on a democratic, humane basis - administered by the community rather than some 'objective' court of law with its one-size-fits-all punishment techniques.

[tophat]

On top of that last post, I should add that it is absurd to draw up a strict blueprint of how every community within would operate in different contexts. We have no idea what humanity will be like if a free/anarchist/communist society ever emerges, and so at best we can give a vague sketch, which will only be filled in as the free society emerges.

[Spencer]

forcing someone to work is slavery. shooting someone isnt. if i am attacked, i am allowed to defend myself. up to and including using lethal force (depending on the circumstances). and yes, anarchists do find prisons horrible.

anarchists are against punishment, retribution, reject the idea that prison (or punishment generally) is a "deterrence" (it obviously isnt). anarchists generally would suggest that rehabilitation is the best option, and where a person does not get on well with the community, exile is always an option. (some would also argue that execution is also an option in some cases).


I was never denying that it was slavery, so much as expressing confusion at how it is that the death penalty is an acceptable way (or at least a more acceptable way) for a libertarian society to deal with its 'moral nonconformists' whilst forced labour is not, at least to the extent that in this thread people chose to comment on the idea of 'corrective labour camps' but not the death penalty.
Surely the death penalty is not simply the more barbaric of the two but the more barbaric of the two by a significant margin?

Largely, I agree with what you're saying, I'm not exactly a fan of prisons and I'd go for rehabilitation over punishment any day of the week. However, the death penalty is not self defence. It is a punishment dished out after the event, and therefore amounts to little more than premeditated killing. As Amnesty International put it:
“The state can exercise no greater power over a person than deliberately depriving him or her of life.”
Whether it is carried out by the state, by an individual or by the democratically elected and instantly recallable people's militia should make little difference.

Even if it was self defence, given the nature of it there are other less serve methods to ensure that the individual in question poses no danger to society. After all, if you're in a position to execute them, they've probably already been restrained and killing them would just be excessive/cold-blooded murder.


Anyway, personally I imagine that any police force that does exist would be a more specialised affair than simply a few 'bobbies on the beat' so to speak since it would be dealing with what are now serious crimes. I don't think that any kind of militia or neighbourhood association would really be necessary on a day to day basis (unless far more people become serial killers/rapists in a socialist society), and certainly would lack the experience/training that might be necessary for the investigation of the sort of crimes that would still be committed.

[Robocommie]

But what provides assurance that the police will not simply be authoritarian bullies, and actually just monitor for crime?

I don't think anything can guarantee it won't happen, but it'd be essential to have community oversight and internal investigations.

[Uppercut]

Well, local courts could work, like the ones the USSR had, comrades' courts. These courts could be comprised of ordinary people and a decision (death penalty, corrective labor, banishment, community service, etc.) will be made by majority vote. By the time stateless Communism comes around, the masses will become fully involved in their commune/community and there will be no need for hierarchy of courts. Until then, they will be necessary to try international criminals and terrorists and high-ranking murderers.

[Crusade]

I'm very conflicted on this issue. Police corruption and brutality is one of the main reasons I got interested in anarchism, seeing no other alternative to fix this problem other than doing away with police all together. However, there needs to be order, and while I do think looking at the root CAUSES of such crimes should be the primary focus, we need a force to protect the vulnerable members of our society.

[Glenn Beck]

anarchist penal colonies. Just build a self-sufficient town out in the country and send all the cons there. Build a huge freaking moat filled with alligators around it and leave them to work their shit out.

[ArrowLance]

anarchist penal colonies. Just build a self-sufficient town out in the country and send all the cons there. Build a huge freaking moat filled with alligators around it and leave them to work their shit out.

Australia?

[AK]

Australia?
No, we have crocodiles here, not alligators. But back to the topic, eh?

[gemlouf]

I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed to see suggestions of the continuation of the death penalty and the reintroduction of labour camps on this thread. I think the fact that this question has been so difficult to answer implies that this is an area which we all need to research and come up with firm ideas on. 'Crime and punishment' is a social topic that has become more and more politicised and it would be naive to think that 'crime' would disappear immediately after revolution. We must be prepared to address these problems throughout revolution as best we can then hopefully, crime as we currently know it will reduce dramatically over time as a fair, just and equal society is established. I'm going off to do some research on this matter now!!

[Crusade]

I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed to see suggestions of the continuation of the death penalty and the reintroduction of labour camps on this thread. I think the fact that this question has been so difficult to answer implies that this is an area which we all need to research and come up with firm ideas on. 'Crime and punishment' is a social topic that has become more and more politicised and it would be naive to think that 'crime' would disappear immediately after revolution. We must be prepared to address these problems throughout revolution as best we can then hopefully, crime as we currently know it will reduce dramatically over time as a fair, just and equal society is established. I'm going off to do some research on this matter now!!

Terrific first post and exactly my thoughts. This issue is why I took "anarchist" out of my signature. :( Which is weird since I was an anarchist before I was a communist. And the issue that made me an anarchist was police corruption, brutality, and a moronic justice system. I was also surprised to see people suggest the death penalty and labor camps. Animal farm was right maybe? :lol:

[AK]

I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed to see suggestions of the continuation of the death penalty and the reintroduction of labour camps on this thread. I think the fact that this question has been so difficult to answer implies that this is an area which we all need to research and come up with firm ideas on. 'Crime and punishment' is a social topic that has become more and more politicised and it would be naive to think that 'crime' would disappear immediately after revolution. We must be prepared to address these problems throughout revolution as best we can then hopefully, crime as we currently know it will reduce dramatically over time as a fair, just and equal society is established. I'm going off to do some research on this matter now!!
His first post is just win. I like this guy/gal.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I think I read somewhere once that 1) Most crimes are money/nesescity related - these crimes would be virtually non existant as there would be no need to steal anything and everyone has all they need. 2) Most crimes are on the spot impulses - I think that it is wrong to punish people for 'a momentry lapse of reason'; I see it being that the first time you do it you get let off (unless it was pre planned), the second time you get conselling (by the way I described it, my friends called it brain washing) and for the third time the death penalty for most cases (as most crimes would be murder, rape, etc.).
I think it should be descided by like a council of the people and I do think that it should be looked at on a case by case basis, but bound within some sort of standerd practice.

[Luisrah]

I understand many people are against labor camps, but what is wrong with them?

Isn't a labor camp a place where you send prisoners to do hard work to pay for their crimes? What's bad about that? I mean, it has an ugly name, but if a prisoner stays in prison, we are spending money on him, he might atleast make himself useful right?

What's the problem with forcing someone to work, if they forced someone to die, or have sex with them?

I completely oppose death penalty though, but I am confused as to why people oppose labor camps, honestly, this is an innocent question.

[Nolan]

I understand many people are against labor camps, but what is wrong with them?

Isn't a labor camp a place where you send prisoners to do hard work to pay for their crimes? What's bad about that? I mean, it has an ugly name, but if a prisoner stays in prison, we are spending money on him, he might atleast make himself useful right?

What's the problem with forcing someone to work, if they forced someone to die, or have sex with them?

I completely oppose death penalty though, but I am confused as to why people oppose labor camps, honestly, this is an innocent question.

Meh. Anarchist gut reaction.

[More Fire for the People]

Constant wielding of a standard Louisville slugger.

[JacobVardy]

I would like to add upon what Tophat has written - that many 'crimes against people' are caused by capitalism. For example, there is a strong correlation between domestic violence and household financial trouble. This is why DV tends to peak in January: the Xmas bills come in; couples start fighting...

This analysis seams to hold with a lot of crimes against people, that the stresses of capitalism are a proximate cause of a lot of violence. Remove these stresses and many opportunities for violence disappear.

Some crimes can not be reduced to capitalism, like child molestation. A majority of paedophiles were molested as child* so this problem will be with us for some generations after the revolution. However, in a post-capitalist world adults will have a lot more free time, with more adults around kids there will be less opportunity for this crime to occur. Also, when there is no need to work there will be a lot more comrades around to help someone avoid these urges. A whole commune of counselors and supporters.

This is the model i see for those crimes that will not be eliminated by capitalism. Whereas capitalism forces us all into narrow specialisations, anarchy will free us to be generalists again. No more specialist in enforcing order but everyone helping to create order. No coppers because everyone will police themselves and their neighbours. No Child Protection Officers because who would not protect a child?


*please note that molestation alone does not cause pedophilia - the vast majority of children who have been molested do not become pedophiles

[bcbm]

Working is in fact something people enjoy

what world do you live in?


The fact is, any communist system in the future will have police, because every human society, past, present or future, couldn't go five minutes without the police.

the police as we know them have only existed for about two centuries, and it is absolutely false to say that every human society has had them. this argument sounds a lot like the "people have always had money/wars/government/whatever" people pull out to justify them. i think we can be a bit more creative that that.

[Hit The North]

This is one of the aspects of communist thought that gets practiced as a religion. The fact is, any communist system in the future will have police, because every human society, past, present or future, couldn't go five minutes without the police. It's unfortunate that Marx and Engels got stuck in this anarchist tar pit.

All this tells us (apart from a possible pessimism about humanity on your part. I mean, couldn't go five minutes!?) is that human communities have to police themselves. But the question about departing from the current oppressive state (over)provision of militarised policing, after the revolution, is more than just an "anarchist tar pit".

[Patchd]

How would a stateless society (either Anarchist communist or Marxist communist) handle murder, theft, rape, etc. without the police? How would crimes be investigated and by who? A right-winger asked me this on Youtube and I wasn't quite sure how to answer.
Class society is hierarchical and authoritarian, and that's replicated in the social, people are greeted constantly every day with the notion of dominance, I'm not to say that people will no longer be dominant in post-revolutionary society, that's natural to many people, what isn't natural is acting upon them, rape and murder being examples of dominance over someone else, dehumanising them or simply killing them. That I think is caused partly by the social, patriarchy prevalent in society makes many men discriminate, rape or harm women, homophobia, transphobia, racism, all elements that split the class (and humanity), will be combated and hopefully largely eradicated through education, there would be no motive to murder on those lines.

As someone I know said; "Rehabilitation of even the worst offenders IS possible - as long as someone blows up all the tabloid printing presses and interns the writers"

That leaves the motive to be someone's mentality, in which case they need to be treated, rehabilitated if possible.

There will still be workers who specialise in forensics in post-revolutionary society, if I'm not mistaken, in some countries, the forensic department for the police is separate and not state controlled, or is quasi-state controlled. The community, and federations will handle the 'crime', other worker collectives that can be of use will help.

Theft is another product of a society that overproduces yet restricts consumption in order to keep afloat the market. Why do people steal food? Because the European Union nations burn more crop than they consume, and the USA burns more crop than the whole of the EU produces. Meat is chucked away if it can't be sold for a high enough price, fruits are thrown away because they don't look up to standard. It's mad, we have enough food to feed the world, but the system of the ruling class restricts that.

Why do people steal products? Because in capitalist society, the only way to get a produce is by producing it yourself (which is rare), buying it, getting it free second hand or by chance a prize, or stealing it. We're pummelled with advertisements everyday, telling us that so-and-so is awesome so you should buy it, people will want stuff they can't get hold of.

[mikelepore]

But what provides assurance that the police will not simply be authoritarian bullies, and actually just monitor for crime?

I wrote in this forum last October:


I consider a classless society having a police department to be a much better idea that a "workers' militia." It's a job that should be done by people who have years of education in the fields of psychology, sociology, social work, the philosophy of civil liberties, etc. They will also need to know how to use their specialized computers and other tools. They must be trained to study empirical evidence, including what may be seen on microscope slides. They will need to know, like the people who today are trained to work in mental hospitals, when someone goes violently berserk, how to restrain them with compassion and patience, not out of anger. All this points to the necessity to be have a specialized career, no less than that of the doctor, the engineer, etc.

[mikelepore]

Isn't a labor camp a place where you send prisoners to do hard work to pay for their crimes? What's bad about that? I mean, it has an ugly name, but if a prisoner stays in prison, we are spending money on him, he might atleast make himself useful right?

I think you are right. If society has to confine a rapist or killer in a closed institution, but while he's in there he isn't required to work for his sustenance, then he would be an economic exploiter of other people. As in the case of a capitalist, the workday of the society of workers would have a longer duration than necessary, in order to economically sustain this nonproductive person.

[whore]

I understand many people are against labor camps, but what is wrong with them?

i understand many people are against capitalism, but what is wrong with it?

well, we object to capitalism because it is exploitative, and forces people to work (wage slavery). we object to labor camps because for the same reason, except instead of wage-slavery, you just have ordinary slavery.

it is still slavery!

Isn't a labor camp a place where you send prisoners to do hard work to pay for their crimes? What's bad about that? I mean, it has an ugly name, but if a prisoner stays in prison, we are spending money on him, he might atleast make himself useful right?
what does "pay for their crimes" mean? what is punishment for anyway? it obviously doesnt stop or deter people from committing crime. is it just a sadistic streak in the population that makes them want to punish people?


What's the problem with forcing someone to work, if they forced someone to die, or have sex with them?
a trite quote, but still. two wrongs dont make a right.
slavery is wrong. just because murder and rape are wrong, it doesnt mean that slavery suddenly becomes right.


I completely oppose death penalty though, but I am confused as to why people oppose labor camps, honestly, this is an innocent question.
well, as i said above, i oppose slavery, and labor camps equal slavery.
would you object to person a shooting person b who was raping person c?


I think you are right. If society has to confine a rapist or killer in a closed institution, but while he's in there he isn't required to work for his sustenance, then he would be an economic exploiter of other people. As in the case of a capitalist, the workday of the society of workers would have a longer duration than necessary, in order to economically sustain this nonproductive person.
how about you dont confine people. if they are a danger to society, they need treatment. if they dont respond, exile them.

there are a variety of possibilities that should be explored before any communist or anarchist society should even think about bringing back prisons.

ok, lets think about this for a minute. what does a prison (or a labor camp) need? well, for a start, walls, fences and cells. so, you are producing a place which is designed to restrict the freedom of people. from the start.

you then need to have staff, prison guards. screws. funny thing about that term, some basic research suggests it comes from thumbscrews, used to torture prisoners.

these are people whos job is to have power over others. regiment other peoples day. a hierarchy is established, prisoners at the bottom, guards (screws) on top. prisons today are pretty horrid places, with brutal hierarchies being established within the prisoner population. i dont see why it would be different in other prisons.

so, you detain a person, force them to obey others, and put them in a situation where their dignity as a human is removed. (and if you make a stupid comment about rape or murder removing a persons dignity, and therefore its ok, see what i said above about two wrongs. also, if it is ok to remove a persons dignity as a person, then why not shoot them?).

and you call yourselfs socialist.

and you fucking idiots want to have that in a society where we are aiming for equality? for freedom?

oh yeah, and thinking about the whole labor camp thing specifically, the "we are going to force these people to work" thing. you know, the fucking slavery thing. what happens if a person refuses to work? i know! you will advocate beating them a little, or perhaps not giving them food, or putting them in solitary. well, i cant think of any other options, come through for me, give me another option that is not as disgusting as those.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think you are right. If society has to confine a rapist or killer in a closed institution, but while he's in there he isn't required to work for his sustenance, then he would be an economic exploiter of other people. As in the case of a capitalist, the workday of the society of workers would have a longer duration than necessary, in order to economically sustain this nonproductive person.
To be honest, I don't have much of a problem with people not having to work in order to get fed, for example, in the case of hermits and such, and don't think it would make much sense to call paraplegics and such exploiters, given that exploitation as an economic category is the expropriation of surplus-value, which would not exist in socialist society, given production under a social plan. I'm not sure it would be particularly beneficial to threaten people with death for not working.


and you call yourselfs socialist. Generally, they do so because they are. Socialism is not reducible to French Revolution slogans.

[bricolage]

I understand many people are against labor camps, but what is wrong with them?

We strive for the eradication of forced labour, the abolition of work, not it's reproduction;


It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them... Probably it's insufficient to say that behind the governments, behind the apparatus of the State, there is the dominant class; one must locate the point of activity, the places and forms in which its domination is exercised... Well, if one fails to recognise these points of support of class power, one risks allowing them to continue to exist; and to see this class power reconstitute itself even after an apparent revolutionary process.

It's even worse when one recognises these points of class power and actively proposes allowing them to continue to exist...

[Luisrah]

i understand many people are against capitalism, but what is wrong with it?

well, we object to capitalism because it is exploitative, and forces people to work (wage slavery). we object to labor camps because for the same reason, except instead of wage-slavery, you just have ordinary slavery.

it is still slavery!

what does "pay for their crimes" mean? what is punishment for anyway? it obviously doesnt stop or deter people from committing crime. is it just a sadistic streak in the population that makes them want to punish people?


a trite quote, but still. two wrongs dont make a right.
slavery is wrong. just because murder and rape are wrong, it doesnt mean that slavery suddenly becomes right.


well, as i said above, i oppose slavery, and labor camps equal slavery.
would you object to person a shooting person b who was raping person c?


how about you dont confine people. if they are a danger to society, they need treatment. if they dont respond, exile them.

there are a variety of possibilities that should be explored before any communist or anarchist society should even think about bringing back prisons.

ok, lets think about this for a minute. what does a prison (or a labor camp) need? well, for a start, walls, fences and cells. so, you are producing a place which is designed to restrict the freedom of people. from the start.

you then need to have staff, prison guards. screws. funny thing about that term, some basic research suggests it comes from thumbscrews, used to torture prisoners.

these are people whos job is to have power over others. regiment other peoples day. a hierarchy is established, prisoners at the bottom, guards (screws) on top. prisons today are pretty horrid places, with brutal hierarchies being established within the prisoner population. i dont see why it would be different in other prisons.

so, you detain a person, force them to obey others, and put them in a situation where their dignity as a human is removed. (and if you make a stupid comment about rape or murder removing a persons dignity, and therefore its ok, see what i said above about two wrongs. also, if it is ok to remove a persons dignity as a person, then why not shoot them?).

and you call yourselfs socialist.

and you fucking idiots want to have that in a society where we are aiming for equality? for freedom?

oh yeah, and thinking about the whole labor camp thing specifically, the "we are going to force these people to work" thing. you know, the fucking slavery thing. what happens if a person refuses to work? i know! you will advocate beating them a little, or perhaps not giving them food, or putting them in solitary. well, i cant think of any other options, come through for me, give me another option that is not as disgusting as those.

The thing is, having just treatment for rehabilitation makes that noone will think twice before committing a crime.

If I feel like killing my wife, hey, I'll kill her, I just have to go to rehab later and then I'm ''free'' again (since I never lost my freedom according to you)

How do you propose to reduce the criminality then? Without something to make you be afraid of commiting a crime, wouldn't criminality rise?

And I still don't understand how two wrongs don't make a right. So if someone gets in a mall and pretty much kills everyone, it's ok, he'll just go to rehab? That's it?

Absolute freedom, even to kill someone else? How about the others having the freedom to live?

Don't they say that your freedom ends when someone else's starts?
Well if you take a bit of someone else's freedom, why shouldn't you loose some of yours too?

[Belisarius]

The thing is, having just treatment for rehabilitation makes that noone will think twice before committing a crime.

If I feel like killing my wife, hey, I'll kill her, I just have to go to rehab later and then I'm ''free'' again (since I never lost my freedom according to you)

How do you propose to reduce the criminality then? Without something to make you be afraid of commiting a crime, wouldn't criminality rise?

And I still don't understand how two wrongs don't make a right. So if someone gets in a mall and pretty much kills everyone, it's ok, he'll just go to rehab? That's it?

Absolute freedom, even to kill someone else? How about the others having the freedom to live?

Don't they say that your freedom ends when someone else's starts?
Well if you take a bit of someone else's freedom, why shouldn't you loose some of yours too?
i don't think a criminal should be afraid of others as much as of himself. he is the one who needs to live with the guilt of killing his wife.

i think you get the point of rehabilitation wrong. it's not just some facility where you stay for a while and then continue with your life like nothing happened. it is an institution that educates people's moral sense.

i think you will adhere more to the rules you give yourself (morality), than the ones the state gives you and punishes you if you don't obey.

most of the time absolute freedom is seen not as also the freedom to kill but as the most freedom for every individual. every individual is thus free as long as he doesn't limit the freedom of someone else. freedom and equality go hand in hand, they are not opposites.

[syndicat]

A society without a state still must have a means of social self-defense. This means that it must have a means for the society to directly decide what the basic rules are...such as no hiring others to be your wage-slave. And the rules must be enforced...even against those who disagree. It's possible for a society to be self-governing in this way without a state, that is, without a bureaucratic apparatus ruling over the society, apart from real control by the mass of the people.

When people are raised in a society where poverty is rife, and many people face disrespect and harsh conditions in work, and are powerless in society, they may take out the resulting rage on members of their own family...men may beat their wives or parents may beat children. When children are raised in an environment where they have a sense that no one cares about them, and that brutality is okay, they may then go on to callous and amoral in their bahvior towards others.

A society where we ensure that children always are cared for and educated from their earliest years, and where parents are not subject to powerlessness and disrespect and poverty, we can expect that the result will be a reduction in crime.

But it's unlikely that we can totally eliminate crime. And, as I said, a society has the right to defend itself.

Many mistakes people make can be dealt with without imprisoning them. There is an approach called "restorative justice" that requires people who have injured others to make up for this, through things like paying the victims, or paying back the society through community service. There are also things like requiring them to attend classes or counselor sessions to try to change their attitudes. Also, getting them involved in productive activities and training.

But there may be hardened individuals who are repeat offenders in violent ways. And they thus show themselves to be a threat to society. And, as I say, a society has the right to defend itself.

It doesn't follow they should be put in cages with sadistic guards to rule over them. But they can be segregated from the society. Anarchists in the past suggested something like sending people to an island or large ranch where the inmates would collectively be in charge, and would do work to feed themselves, make things for themselves. This has the advantage that it reduces society's costs to maintain them since they are doing much of this work themselves. But guards would be required to ensure they don't escape.

During the Spanish revolution, the anarchist head of prisons introduced labor camps as a small move in this direction, and as a way for prisoners to be able to do productive work.

On the other hand, any facility where criminals are concentrated together has a tendency to become a school of crime. This is why it is important that only the repeat offenders, the most hopeless cases, are put in such circumstances, otherwise it may actually increase crime.

And not allowing people to completely clear the decks after serving their time also encourages more crime. In the USA people are denied the vote and employers routinely discriminate against them. This simply makes for hoplessness and a likely return to crime.

[Nosotros]

I think murderers, rapists and paedophiles would have to be kept in some kind of prison, you can't have people like that mixing with the rest of society. Restorative Justice sounds a good idea aswell.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Working is in fact something people enjoy, so having labour facilities is simply the right thing to do. We can expect people to work without it being slavery.

But anyway, isn't detaining someone against their will also a violation of rights?

What is 'losing the discussion' that doesn't even make sense.
ArrowLance forced labor is not fun at all, I doubt you've had to do it before. It's the same thing our capitalist states do today and I don't think it should be something we bring over into communist society.

[MarxSchmarx]

As a matter of propaganda, all these appeals to "the causes of crime" etc... fall on deaf ears. I think most people in essence agree that there is such a thing as an inter-generational cycle of violence, for instance. And current "victimless crimes" are no brainers slated for immediate abolition. Indeed, we need to speak directly to what we will do with "inherently evil" people.

Looking through the responses, there is a desire to be explicit about what we will do with the handful of incurable maniacs and the occasional crime of passion.

A starting point would be to understand that there is no metaphysical "justice" or "balance of the universe" that has to be restored. Crimes basically are conflicts between individuals and their scope should be seen as no more.

As such, resolving these differences between individuals needs to be what criminal policy should be about. If an individual is killed or otherwise incapacitated, perhaps family members or a pre-designated representative of the community can seek to address their greivances in front of a randomly selected group of the community.


A society without a state still must have a means of social self-defense. This means that it must have a means for the society to directly decide what the basic rules are...such as no hiring others to be your wage-slave. And the rules must be enforced...even against those who disagree. It's possible for a society to be self-governing in this way without a state, that is, without a bureaucratic apparatus ruling over the society, apart from real control by the mass of the people.

When people are raised in a society where poverty is rife, and many people face disrespect and harsh conditions in work, and are powerless in society, they may take out the resulting rage on members of their own family...men may beat their wives or parents may beat children. When children are raised in an environment where they have a sense that no one cares about them, and that brutality is okay, they may then go on to callous and amoral in their bahvior towards others.

A society where we ensure that children always are cared for and educated from their earliest years, and where parents are not subject to powerlessness and disrespect and poverty, we can expect that the result will be a reduction in crime.

But it's unlikely that we can totally eliminate crime. And, as I said, a society has the right to defend itself.

Many mistakes people make can be dealt with without imprisoning them. There is an approach called "restorative justice" that requires people who have injured others to make up for this, through things like paying the victims, or paying back the society through community service. There are also things like requiring them to attend classes or counselor sessions to try to change their attitudes. Also, getting them involved in productive activities and training.

But there may be hardened individuals who are repeat offenders in violent ways. And they thus show themselves to be a threat to society. And, as I say, a society has the right to defend itself.

It doesn't follow they should be put in cages with sadistic guards to rule over them. But they can be segregated from the society. Anarchists in the past suggested something like sending people to an island or large ranch where the inmates would collectively be in charge, and would do work to feed themselves, make things for themselves. This has the advantage that it reduces society's costs to maintain them since they are doing much of this work themselves. But guards would be required to ensure they don't escape.

During the Spanish revolution, the anarchist head of prisons introduced labor camps as a small move in this direction, and as a way for prisoners to be able to do productive work.

On the other hand, any facility where criminals are concentrated together has a tendency to become a school of crime. This is why it is important that only the repeat offenders, the most hopeless cases, are put in such circumstances, otherwise it may actually increase crime.

And not allowing people to completely clear the decks after serving their time also encourages more crime. In the USA people are denied the vote and employers routinely discriminate against them. This simply makes for hoplessness and a likely return to crime.

Out of curiosity, do you know of any scholarly work or serious research that has been done on how the Spanish anarchists dealt with issues of crime and punishment?

[mikelepore]

I approve of this part very much:


if they are a danger to society, they need treatment

But it's not so simply achieved. If society teaches 1000 people to have empathy for the feelings of other people, and 999 do acquire that empathy, but one does not, it's quite possible that that one has a defective brain. Science doesn't yet know how to make the necessary repairs. We don't know how many centuries will pass before science knows how to do it. I suppose the day will come when a brain surgeon will look at a three-dimensional image of the brain and say, "Oh, here it is. This odd connection to your amygdala. If someone looks at you funny, you will want to kill them. I'll have to fix it at this point."

Until that day comes, society needs the institution of involuntary confinement. It doesn't have to be a dungeon, but it must be some kind of structure with a locked door.

***

I don't know what you mean by "exile." Do you want to pick some island on the map, say, Hawaii or Polynesia or Madagascar, and send a bunch of serial killers and baby kidnappers there?

[S. Zetor]

As regards the question of labour as a a means to (re)integrate someone into society, that's so old school.. Like someone suggested, people should read Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish to get an idea where this ideology came from.. basically it was the justification to assimilate vagabonds, landless people, "loiterers" etc. as productive members of society in a Europe that was moving from feudalism to capitalism, IIRC. This ideology kept on living e.g. in the USSR, and probably elsewhere where "labour" was put on a pedestal.

As to crime in a classless society, it will always exist (whether we call it "crime" or not). In general I think syndicat put it very well.

I think there is a tendency to reduce all (or most) crime to oppression, relations of production etc., but I don't believe that's the case; I don't really believe that crime is just a product of capitalist oppression. For example where I come from (Finland) most murders are not premeditated or committed for economical reasons, but instead committed after some stupid argument while both victim and perpetrator were intoxicated. Some people are more impulsive and aggressive than others, and capitalist oppression might twist that one way or another, but those characteristics were not created by relations of production etc.. aggravated or diminished at most. That's certainly a factor to be taken into account, but I don't believe any amount of "education" will do very much to "correct" people who commit (and perhaps keep committing) crimes.. the faith in "(re)education" so much enlightenment stuff.. :-) I don't think grown-up people need to be told what's right or wrong, i.e. committing crime is not a function of "oh, I didn't know it was wrong".

What the methods of punishment will be is up to the future society to decide. I'm sure there will be need to punish people break the rules the majority has decided on, and that decision is naturally a always question of political struggle where one group of people insist on this, and another group on that. In that sense there is no society that's independent of the political struggle between different views. I believe for personal offenses a certain aspect of revenge in dealing out punishment will be there (and I think it's ok): the consternation against "someone getting away with" something wrong they did isn't some bourgeois prejudice, but a basic fact of people's social existence that will not go away. The society has all the right to define what it considers a breach of its standards, and to take measures against individuals who breach them. That's pretty much the way any society works.

[bcbm]

I think there is a tendency to reduce all (or most) crime to oppression, relations of production etc., but I don't believe that's the case; I don't really believe that crime is just a product of capitalist oppression.

crime is never just a product of oppression alone, in any society, but a reflection of the social landscape as a whole.

[AK]

crime is never just a product of oppression alone, in any society, but a reflection of the social landscape as a whole.
Exactly, and it says alot about the current order of things that murder, theft and rape are issues that need to be addressed due to their high prevalence.

[ArrowLance]

ArrowLance forced labor is not fun at all, I doubt you've had to do it before. It's the same thing our capitalist states do today and I don't think it should be something we bring over into communist society.

Fun is different from enjoyment. I suppose if you would rather sit in custody and do nothing all day that is an option. But people should be able to expect other people to contribute, and expect them to expect the same.

I think labour camps are extremely useful tools when extra labour is needed, we wouldn't just be working them for the hell of it.

[whore]

I don't know what you mean by "exile." Do you want to pick some island on the map, say, Hawaii or Polynesia or Madagascar, and send a bunch of serial killers and baby kidnappers there?
certainly that might be an option for a world wide community.

i was actually thinking more of a, "you are no longer welcome, leave" sort of exile.


Fun is different from enjoyment. I suppose if you would rather sit in custody and do nothing all day that is an option. But people should be able to expect other people to contribute, and expect them to expect the same.

I think labour camps are extremely useful tools when extra labour is needed, we wouldn't just be working them for the hell of it.
ah, so you are saying, we are going to punish you by locking you up. and, while you are locked up, we arent going to give you anything to do except do some hard labor for us. oh, but it isnt compulsary. only if you want to. but, well, seeing as there is nothing else to do.

yeah, see, i dont see prisons as good things either. the only excuse is to seperate people who are a danger to a community from that community. they should not be treated as sub-human otherwise. and that means, no forcing them to work, and giving them the means of self-actualization as much as possible.

fuck prisons though. creating a hierarchy of guards over prisoners is not in anyones interests (except those that build the prisons!)

[Die Rote Fahne]

and who decides what is counter-revolutionary? :rolleyes:

Whatever groups wish to revert to capitalism would be considered counter-revolutionary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Corrective labour goes hand in hand with two related concepts:

1) Socialist primitive accumulation
2) Aggravation von dem Klassenkampf ("of the class struggle") along with the transition to socialist production

I'd apply the harshest corrective labour (read: gulag) towards every non-political criminal who under today's circumstances are either executed or jailed for life. More generous corrective labour a la Magnitogorsk for those down the scale.

Comrade MarxSchmarx has in the past stated his disagreement with my tough approach. ;)

[syndicat]

MarxShmarx:
Out of curiosity, do you know of any scholarly work or serious research that has been done on how the Spanish anarchists dealt with issues of crime and punishment?

There is, I believe, a biography of Melchior Rodriguez, the anarchist head of the Spanish prisons system in 1936-37. He was nicknamed "the Red Angel" by the right wing political prisoners because he ensured that they would not be summarily executed (this had sometimes been done without even a trial) and would be treated humanely. At the end of the civil war, this saved his life. He had been arrested by the fascist government and condemned to death, but various former right-wing prisoners spoke up in his behalf.

[AK]

MarxShmarx:

There is, I believe, a biography of Melchior Rodriguez, the anarchist head of the Spanish prisons system in 1936-37. He was nicknamed "the Red Angel" by the right wing political prisoners because he ensured that they would not be summarily executed (this had sometimes been done without even a trial) and would be treated humanely. At the end of the civil war, this saved his life. He had been arrested by the fascist government and condemned to death, but various former right-wing prisoners spoke up in his behalf.
Good going this guy. I believe that all execution is unethical and inhumane; even if it is an execution of a fascist or a Bourgeois motherfucker.