Anarchy and Prisons

[Ataxia]

I understand why as anarchists we oppose prisons. I also understand that in an anarchist world there would be less crime because the inequality of wealth and isolated social relations inherent to capitalism which cause a lot of crime would be abolished. My question is, after the revolution, how do we deal with individuals who transgress against each other's rights (through assault, murder, rape, the theft of legitimate possessions etc.)?

[meow]

anarchism is utopia. there is no crime! :cool:

[Blake's Baby]

What are 'legitimate possessions' that might be stolen? I'm thinking, toothbrushes? In which case, why would it matter? Just get another one.

I'm not taking the mickey, honestly, I just can't see what would be stolen. I suppose, personal momentoes, photographs maybe, that sort of thing, but, do we really need to sort that out in advance?

Murder, rape and assault, I think all would be lessened under socialism, but not completely eradicated. And I don't know the answer to the question 'how do we deal with that?'. But as a general principle, I'd say that restorative justice and rehabilitation are better principles for how to treat the anti-social than vengeance.

[Ataxia]

What are 'legitimate possessions' that might be stolen? I'm thinking, toothbrushes? In which case, why would it matter? Just get another one.

I'm not taking the mickey, honestly, I just can't see what would be stolen. I suppose, personal momentoes, photographs maybe, that sort of thing, but, do we really need to sort that out in advance?


As in if somebody broke into my house and took all my stuff. That can hardly be justified as expropriation or whatever.

[revolution inaction]

iF some one is a danger to other members of society then they can be separated from the rest of society, which basically means locking them up. It also makes sense to treat them.
Exile is a stupid idea, it just means dumping the problem on someone else, as well as leaving some one who most likely has mental or personality problems without help

[Fietsketting]

Its the one thing i haven't figured out for myself either. I don't have that much faith in humanity that we would go without prisons. Exile for a rapist or murderer doesn't seem to cut it, he moves on and does it again.

[AK]

Rehabilitation before punishment. Remember that, folks.

[Blake's Baby]

As in if somebody broke into my house and took all my stuff. That can hardly be justified as expropriation or whatever.

Right. I don't know what 'your house' and 'your stuff' means.

The house belongs to the community (commune) you're part of.

What's 'your stuff'? You get your bedding from a 'store' which hands it out for free, you get your food likewise, you get your books from a library, what 'stuff' do you have?

[meow]

iF some one is a danger to other members of society then they can be separated from the rest of society, which basically means locking them up. It also makes sense to treat them.
Exile is a stupid idea, it just means dumping the problem on someone else, as well as leaving some one who most likely has mental or personality problems without help
lock a person up and you need people to make sure they stayed locked up. you just made a hierarchy. you just lost your anarchy. well done. exile is seperating a person from the rest of society. at least the society that they are exiled from in which they committed the 'offence'.

if someone is known to be a danger to others then people will just generally stop associating with them. ostricism is certainly an option.

and of course rehabilitation is the key word. punishment is not compatible with anarchism.

[Ataxia]

Right. I don't know what 'your house' and 'your stuff' means.

The house belongs to the community (commune) you're part of.

What's 'your stuff'? You get your bedding from a 'store' which hands it out for free, you get your food likewise, you get your books from a library, what 'stuff' do you have?

Yes yes, I understand the concept of communal ownership. But it still presumably means I live in a house (my house) and possess things (my stuff). One day I come home to find that someone has taken all the stuff in my house. If you are trying to say that person hasn't committed a moral transgression then you misunderstand what communism means. Read about the difference between private property and possession.

[Fietsketting]

lock a person up and you need people to make sure they stayed locked up. you just made a hierarchy. you just lost your anarchy. well done. exile is seperating a person from the rest of society. at least the society that they are exiled from in which they committed the 'offence'.

What if in a gathering the people decide that a childmolester has to be locked away after raping and killing a child? How about a wifebeater in the community? Become a hierarchy and give him a warning?

Letting them run around after they commited such a horrible deed is not the wisest thing to do.


if someone is known to be a danger to others then people will just generally stop associating with them. ostricism is certainly an option.

Doesn't work that way. Ask the people who got pulled off there bike on the way home.




and of course rehabilitation is the key word. punishment is not compatible with anarchism.

I see no problem with dishing out punishment to capitalism of fascism. How exactly do you think a revolution takes place?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes yes, I understand the concept of communal ownership. But it still presumably means I live in a house (my house) and possess things (my stuff). One day I come home to find that someone has taken all the stuff in my house. If you are trying to say that person hasn't committed a moral transgression then you misunderstand what communism means. Read about the difference between private property and possession.

No, I'm still not getting it. What 'stuff'? I specifically mentioned toothbrushes and photographs as being 'personal' (and frankly if someone stole your toothbrush, hell, get another one), and then listed bedding, food and books as being communally owned. Please can you give me some concrete examples of things that you think might be burgled? It might make it easier for me to know what you're talking about.

[Blake's Baby]

...
I see no problem with dishing out punishment to capitalism of fascism. How exactly do you think a revolution takes place?

A revolution isn't 'punishment'. We're not doing it out of revenge but out of hope. A better world for everyone isn't going to be brought about by a worse world for some, hahaha, serves the capitalist bastards right.

[Fietsketting]

A revolution isn't 'punishment'. We're not doing it out of revenge but out of hope. A better world for everyone isn't going to be brought about by a worse world for some, hahaha, serves the capitalist bastards right.

But the first few days will be just that. Fact. Just look at about -any- revolution. Payback can also be a spark that starts a revolution.

[Ataxia]

No, I'm still not getting it. What 'stuff'? I specifically mentioned toothbrushes and photographs as being 'personal' (and frankly if someone stole your toothbrush, hell, get another one), and then listed bedding, food and books as being communally owned. Please can you give me some concrete examples of things that you think might be burgled? It might make it easier for me to know what you're talking about.

Well, looking around me I can see plenty of stuff that is both personal and non-trivial to replace. Lets say someone took my guitars. What do you think should happen in that circumstance?

[Ataxia]

But the first few days will be just that. Fact. Just look at about -any- revolution. Payback can also be a spark that starts a revolution.

Must disagree comrade. Our revolution should only be violent to the minimum extent necessary to defend it. We can't just murder expropriated capitalists because they are bastards.

[Quail]

People who abuse others (and who commit most crimes that we can't attribute to capitalism) are likely to have psychological problems. Instead of prisons which are really designed to punish people, I would suggest we have rehabilitation centres that are basically psychiatric hospitals.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, looking around me I can see plenty of stuff that is both personal and non-trivial to replace. Lets say someone took my guitars. What do you think should happen in that circumstance?

Which is why I mentioned photos. OK, so you have your action set just how you want it and the truss-rod tightened just so and it has your favourite strap on it and that scratch it got when you dropped it the night you supported the Glorious People's Tractor Factory Skiffle Band. I understand that you regard your guitar as a personal thing.

So, if anyone did break in and steal your guitar, instead of them just getting one from the artistic supply store (next to the library), and if you didn't think 'never mind, I'll just get another one from the artistic supplies store', then yes I'd say some form of restitution should perhaps be made. I'd be against a permanent organisation charged with 'delivering' this restitution though.

As this, and photographs, are essentially the only examples we can think of (in other words, 'things of sentimental value'), do we really need to set up a repressive apparatus? The examples are fundamentally unlikely to occur; why would someone burgle your guitar if they can get one of their own? Why would someone steal your photos period?

If they did occur, I'd suggest that the main problem would be that the person doing it would appear to have mental health problems, in which case help rather than punishment would seem to be the order of the day.

[x359594]

I think it's possible to generalize to the extent that we can say crimes of profit will be rare or non-existent but crimes of passion will persist in some form or another.

In an immediate post-revolutionary situation there will certainly be counter-revolutionaries held in detention. The only historical example we have is the the brief period of anarchist ascendancy during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War, and we know that there were prisons and executions, there were police, there was street crime.

Also, in an anarchist society of con-federal communities there won't be a one size-fits all-social ethos. Some communities will no doubt develop new ways of dealing with crime that may not include prisons or other forms of detention, while others will establish some form of coventry to isolate anti-social individuals. There's bound to be a lot of trial and error in the first decades of anarchist society before a widely accepted method of crime deterrence emerges.

[Fietsketting]

I think it's possible to generalize to the extent that we can say crimes of profit will be rare or non-existent but crimes of passion will persist in some form or another.

In an immediate post-revolutionary situation there will certainly be counter-revolutionaries held in detention. The only historical example we have is the the brief period of anarchist ascendancy during the Spanish Revolution and Civil War, and we know that there were prisons and executions, there were police, there was street crime.

Also, in an anarchist society of con-federal communities there won't be a one size-fits all-social ethos. Some communities will no doubt develop new ways of dealing with crime that may not include prisons or other forms of detention, while others will establish some form of coventry to isolate anti-social individuals. There's bound to be a lot of trial and error in the first decades of anarchist society before a widely accepted method of crime deterrence emerges.

Good post. Agreed.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ostracism.

[revolution inaction]

lock a person up and you need people to make sure they stayed locked up. you just made a hierarchy. you just lost your anarchy. well done. exile is seperating a person from the rest of society. at least the society that they are exiled from in which they committed the 'offence'.


So how are you going to enforce the exilment? Acording to you if anyone tryes to force the exiled person to stay exiled then they are making a hierarchy.

In reality locking up dangerous people is defence, so if you are going to opose that then you should also oppose fighting back when attacked.




if someone is known to be a danger to others then people will just generally stop associating with them. ostricism is certainly an option.


so people should just not associate with murderers and rapists? If some one starts to beat them up they should ignore there attacker?

If only we had thought of this before!!



and of course rehabilitation is the key word. punishment is not compatible with anarchism.

Where have I suggested punishment?

[Invincible Summer]

Right. I don't know what 'your house' and 'your stuff' means.

The house belongs to the community (commune) you're part of.

What's 'your stuff'? You get your bedding from a 'store' which hands it out for free, you get your food likewise, you get your books from a library, what 'stuff' do you have?

You're really perpetuating the stereotype that commies don't want people to have their own things.

Regardless, you're basically saying that no one can feel that they "own" anything? Not even their own bed, just because it wasn't created out of their own labour? Only photographs and toothbrushes? But then one didn't actually create the photo or toothbrush either, so why the arbitrary designation?

Even in a post-scarcity scenario, such wasteful thinking ("Oh I just spilled wine on my bed, who cares I'll just get another one") should be discouraged, as it puts additional (albeit probably not that much) strain on productive forces.


Which is why I mentioned photos. OK, so you have your action set just how you want it and the truss-rod tightened just so and it has your favourite strap on it and that scratch it got when you dropped it the night you supported the Glorious People's Tractor Factory Skiffle Band. I understand that you regard your guitar as a personal thing.

So, if anyone did break in and steal your guitar, instead of them just getting one from the artistic supply store (next to the library), and if you didn't think 'never mind, I'll just get another one from the artistic supplies store', then yes I'd say some form of restitution should perhaps be made. I'd be against a permanent organisation charged with 'delivering' this restitution though.

As this, and photographs, are essentially the only examples we can think of (in other words, 'things of sentimental value'), do we really need to set up a repressive apparatus? The examples are fundamentally unlikely to occur; why would someone burgle your guitar if they can get one of their own? Why would someone steal your photos period?

If they did occur, I'd suggest that the main problem would be that the person doing it would appear to have mental health problems, in which case help rather than punishment would seem to be the order of the day.

I think you have a very idealized vision of how society would be set up and how people would act with such social norms.

With your definition of "personal thing," why can't anything that someone owns have these same characteristics? It just seems arbitrary to say that certain objects are personal but others can't be.



lock a person up and you need people to make sure they stayed locked up. you just made a hierarchy. you just lost your anarchy. well done. exile is seperating a person from the rest of society. at least the society that they are exiled from in which they committed the 'offence'.

if someone is known to be a danger to others then people will just generally stop associating with them. ostricism is certainly an option.

and of course rehabilitation is the key word. punishment is not compatible with anarchism.

I'd argue that locking a dangerous/repeating offender up is justifiable authority/hierarchy.

You're saying that if John stabbed a man multiple times, you'd just tell people to stay away from him?

[Ataxia]

You're really perpetuating the stereotype that commies don't want people to have their own things.


Exactly. Communism is about collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It has nothing to do with having to submit to a wave of continuous burglaries.

[x359594]

...I'd argue that locking a dangerous/repeating offender up is justifiable authority/hierarchy...You're saying that if John stabbed a man multiple times, you'd just tell people to stay away from him?

The solution is very simple. Helios+ will live in a community that locks up violent offenders and Blake's Baby will live in a community that merely warns people to watch out for John the stabber.

The beauty of decentralization is that it allows for a variety of social arrangements without imposing one kind of organization on everyone. If one set up proves to be dysfunctional it doesn't contaminate all the others.

Again, the only instance of wide scale anarchist social organization took place during the Spanish Civil War, and it's by studying how life was managed in both urban centers and rural collectives that we'll get a clue as to how daily life will play out in an a future anarchist society.

[meow]

I'd argue that locking a dangerous/repeating offender up is justifiable authority/hierarchy.

You're saying that if John stabbed a man multiple times, you'd just tell people to stay away from him?
yes. and i would also suggest that if people know john is in the area that they be ready to defend themselves incase he tries to attack them or others. in reality though most murderers are safe to be around most of the time. known psychopaths will be either exiled or killed when they try to kill someone else. one off killers will be kept away from alcohol or whatever set them off. perhaps i should say alcohol will be kept away from them.

when you lock people up with other "criminals" you basically send them to crime school. when you setup a system where you lock people up you are creating a system which says that some people are worth less than others. you are creating a job (guard) which we know is going to be taken up by sadists (because that is what happens in this society). you want to set up a system where sadists and scum get to order around other scum in effect. class society in minature.

no thanks. you can keep your class society hierarchy and punishment. but i wnat to live in an anarchy where people are free.

[Sir Comradical]

Don't be naive. Prisons aren't enough, you need labour camps where criminals are forced to work while being reprogrammed through an education campaign.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

mm, for minor crimes, I'd have to say community service less they become habitual. For larger stuff, I'd have to say ostracization or work camps (though the idea of work camps is just a bit nerving to me.) Ultimately, whatever choice is taken, punishment needs to be done in a way in which it discourages people from repeating a crime, which is why prisons fail, because many of the people in them are unable to get jobs outside and therefore are left on the streets with not food. When they're in the prisons, they get food, shelter, clothing and in some cases cable... Now as to the extreme cases like psychopathic murderers and rapists, I'd have to say the death penalty unless there is evidence that they can be helped. I know that idea isn't popular, but what do you do with them... pick out some random island in the ocean that has enough resources to sustain life and just dump them there?

[AK]

Don't be naive. Prisons aren't enough, you need labour camps where criminals are forced to work while being reprogrammed through an education campaign.
What the fuck. This had better be a troll.

[Sir Comradical]

What the fuck. This had better be a troll.

No I'm being serious. Why should the obligation to work be removed for a criminal? [Under capitalism, prison labour drives down the wages of other workers while creating a new slave labour industry, but under socialism, every able-bodied person has to work]

Surely you're not against punishing people.

[AK]

No I'm being serious. Why should the obligation to work be removed for a criminal? [Under capitalism, prison labour drives down the wages of other workers while creating a new slave labour industry, but under socialism, every able-bodied person has to work]

Surely you're not against punishing people.
No, I'm against harsh punishment as a primary practise. Which is what your position seems to be.

[Sir Comradical]

No, I'm against harsh punishment as a primary practise. Which is what your position seems to be.

Basically what is a labour camp. A place where prisoners are forced to work. How do you force them? If they don't work, they don't eat. That's not harsh!

[Invincible Summer]

yes. and i would also suggest that if people know john is in the area that they be ready to defend themselves incase he tries to attack them or others. in reality though most murderers are safe to be around most of the time. known psychopaths will be either exiled or killed when they try to kill someone else. one off killers will be kept away from alcohol or whatever set them off. perhaps i should say alcohol will be kept away from them.

How would revolutionary/post-revolutionary society be so different socially that people will constantly be on the look out for John and be prepared at all times to defend themselves against John?

I mean, even today the police warns the populous when a killer/sex offender is on the loose, and sometimes people still get hurt. Again, what makes revolutionary/post-revolutionary so different in this social regard? It's not like magically, everyone will start caring more about each other's safety or something once the capitalists are disposed of.

Even if you think "murderers are safe to be around most of the time" (I would like a source for this), I'm not sure a whole community would feel the same way. You have a man who willingly and knowingly took a life in cold blood, and you're telling people "Chill out he probably won't hurt anyone else... but be prepared 24/7 in case he does!"

Real assuring.

Plus, how does one "exile" a murderer without basically imprisoning them? You can't just send them off to another community as they most likely won't take the guy, and you can't just say "Okay go live in the desert for a week then if you're better, come back."


when you lock people up with other "criminals" you basically send them to crime school. when you setup a system where you lock people up you are creating a system which says that some people are worth less than others. you are creating a job (guard) which we know is going to be taken up by sadists (because that is what happens in this society). you want to set up a system where sadists and scum get to order around other scum in effect. class society in minature.
Here's the problem - you're talking about this society. However, the topic is about a revolutionary/post-revolutionary society. We all agree that, hypothetically, most crimes are economically based. In a post-revolutionary society, these crimes will most likely be eliminated (at least for the most part). Therefore, I would think that the criminals that would be put in prison are killers and rapists. I mean, how many of those will there be in a given community that it will be a "crime school?"

Also, the job of a "guard" can be a rotating job that anyone can be trained to do; for sake of equality, everyone in the community should (in theory) have a turn at being the jail keeper.

It's funny that you try to sound all humanist and say that prison makes "some people worth less than others," yet you say "sadists and scum get to order around other scum." So what are they, people or scum?



no thanks. you can keep your class society hierarchy and punishment. but i wnat to live in an anarchy where people are free.
Just don't invite me over to your community where chainsaw murderers run free, or get sent over to the next community.

Oh wait, didn't you say that a psychopath may be killed? How is that not punishment? How is that letting them be "free?"


I don't think someone who purposefully and violently ended another person's freedom should be "free."

[Ataxia]

Ok, so the spread of opinions runs right the way from "if we just ignore them they'll stop raping" right along to the most brutalising Stalinist forms of punishment. I would argue that the former is Utopian and the latter is unanarchistic. I imagine the best system will be somewhere between these extremes.

Just out of interest, what do people think of communities coming up with a codified legal system? The advantages of everyone knowing where they stand in terms of what is or isn't permitted are obvious, but are we in danger of in some sense recreating the liberal courts if we go down that route?

[Sir Comradical]

Ok, so the spread of opinions runs right the way from "if we just ignore them they'll stop raping" right along to the most brutalising Stalinist forms of punishment. I would argue that the former is Utopian and the latter is unanarchistic. I imagine the best system will be somewhere between these extremes.

Just out of interest, what do people think of communities coming up with a codified legal system? The advantages of everyone knowing where they stand in terms of what is or isn't permitted are obvious, but are we in danger of in some sense recreating the liberal courts if we go down that route?

Are labour camps a brutalising Stalinist form of punishment?

[Ataxia]

Are labour camps a brutalising Stalinist form of punishment?

Yes.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Just out of interest, what do people think of communities coming up with a codified legal system? The advantages of everyone knowing where they stand in terms of what is or isn't permitted are obvious, but are we in danger of in some sense recreating the liberal courts if we go down that route?

I'm a bit worried that without presence of law, that if communities get to decide who is and isn't a criminal and what their sentence is rather than law courts, we will be subject to prejudice and ignorance.

Example, Sarah, who is popular and admired by everone, says that Michael, who is quiet, a little weird and rarely comes out of the house, is a rapist. Nobody likes Michael and he must be a rapist because Sarah said so, therefore he deserves to be hung, drawn and quartered.

No, we need basic laws which will establish what crimes are/aren't,what action needs to be taken and what qualifies as legalised law court. For this we need some kind of governmental structure (though not a state).

So in other words, no I'm against individual communities deciding on a legal code.

I also believe that serious criminals need to be imprisoned (focusing rehabilitation, though as opposed to punishment) while less serious criminals should maybe have to do some form of community service. I'm also against capital punishment. Am I a libertarian socialist rather than an anarchist?

[Sir Comradical]

Yes.

Why do you oppose labour camps?

[Blake's Baby]

Exactly. Communism is about collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It has nothing to do with having to submit to a wave of continuous burglaries.

It has nothing to do with with whistling at elephants either, but as no-one has suggested it has, than it's as irrelevant as saying it has nothing to do with 'having to submit to a continuous wave of burglaries'.

Please explain, with quotes, where anyone on this thread has suggested that "Communism is about ... having to submit to a wave of continuous burglaries."

Or, admit it's a strawman, it's your choice.

BTW... just noticed - "exchange"? Are you one of those pro-capitalist 'communists' who think there will be 'exchange' after the revolution?

[Zanthorus]

BTW... just noticed - "exchange"? Are you one of those pro-capitalist 'communists' who think there will be 'exchange' after the revolution?

Yeah, it looked to me like he'd just pulled that definition out of the Labour party's old clause four.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm sympathetic to anarchist principles of non-hierarchical organization, but I have to admit that some opinions on these problems seem to me really naive.

As far as minor transgressions are concerned, there is absolutely no need for any kind of detention system (and other users also emphasized that the material motif behind such acts will have been eliminated).
BUT, ostracising and "voluntary" exile are not adequate measures when it comes to serious crimes - murder, rape, child molesting. Let's not get delusional - such types anti-social behavior (which may not be socially triggered) will persist.
In my opinion, a form of detention center, fused with medical facilities, could be adequate. So, rehabilitation first, with help from the medical staff, and not punishment. But these people should not be left alone to roam free.

[Ataxia]

I think realistically, some communities will choose to implement some form of mutualism, in which case there will be means of exchange.

[RedandBlack]

Each community would have its own basic guidelines to follow in regards to ensuring justice is served. Perhaps a method of branding (to identify), and exile would be sufficient enough - not exactly cruel and unusual especially if it was for murder.

[Zanthorus]

I think realistically, some communities will choose to implement some form of mutualism, in which case there will be means of exchange.

But exchange implies commodities, a commodity being something with both a use-value and an exchange-value. And for exchange-value to exist it needs to be expressed in some other commodity which acts as an equivalent. In primitive barter economies it's possible for all sorts of commodities to act as equivalents however eventually it becomes necessary to establish one commodity as the general equivalent by which the relative value of other commodities can be easily expressed, and the solidification of one particular general equivalent in typical social practice gives rise to money.

For money to function properly it needs to act not only as the general equivalent of value but also as a means of exchange, it needs to circulate. The original form of circulation of money is that one producer takes his product to market, sells it for a certain amount, then buys another product which he consumes. However this simple form of circulation is problematic since it is predicated on the existence of an autonomous unit of value, money, but this money only realises itself by being consumed and therefore destroyed. The simple form of circulation can only exist in a society which is only partly commodified and in which the usefulness of goods is still the object of production. For society to become fully commodified exchange-value, money, needs to become the object of production. People need to begin carrying out economic activity solely for the purpose of gaining money instead of anything really useful.

In a society in which money is the purpose of production we find a new form of circulation. People start off with a sum of money, then buy commodities with their money, and sell those commodities on for more than their original price. This can take the form of merchants capital in which you buy low in one market and then go into another market (Usually foreign) and sell high (Which is still going on today through the magic of the exchange-rate mechanism!). It can also take the form of finance capital in which the owner of money lends it out to someone else so that they can use it productively and then reaps a profit by charging interest. The most common form however is our good friend the capitalist mode of production in which a capitalist buys means of production and labour-power and uses them to create a commodity whose value is above that of the original inputs then sells it on for a profit.

Exchange leads to capitalism, in fact it is practically synonymous with it. The only difference between "mutualism" and capitalism is that the workers collectively act as the capitalist, managing the capital relationship themselves along with all the things that go with it (Falling rate of profit and crises).

(Sorry if you already knew some of the above but I tend to assume people are unfamiliar with with Marx's critique of political economy unless I see evidence to the contrary)

(I also apologise for the off-topic post, although it was Blake's Baby who started this conversation)

[Ataxia]

Why do you oppose labour camps?

It doesn't work like that. You want to turn criminals into slaves, the burden is on you to justify it.

[Ataxia]

But exchange implies commodities, a commodity being something with both a use-value and an exchange-value. And for exchange-value to exist it needs to be expressed in some other commodity which acts as an equivalent. In primitive barter economies it's possible for all sorts of commodities to act as equivalents however eventually it becomes necessary to establish one commodity as the general equivalent by which the relative value of other commodities can be easily expressed, and the solidification of one particular general equivalent in typical social practice gives rise to money.

For money to function properly it needs to act not only as the general equivalent of value but also as a means of exchange, it needs to circulate. The original form of circulation of money is that one producer takes his product to market, sells it for a certain amount, then buys another product which he consumes. However this simple form of circulation is problematic since it is predicated on the existence of an autonomous unit of value, money, but this money only realises itself by being consumed and therefore destroyed. The simple form of circulation can only exist in a society which is only partly commodified and in which the usefulness of goods is still the object of production. For society to become fully commodified exchange-value, money, needs to become the object of production. People need to begin carrying out economic activity solely for the purpose of gaining money instead of anything really useful.

In a society in which money is the purpose of production we find a new form of circulation. People start off with a sum of money, then buy commodities with their money, and sell those commodities on for more than their original price. This can take the form of merchants capital in which you buy low in one market and then go into another market (Usually foreign) and sell high (Which is still going on today through the magic of the exchange-rate mechanism!). It can also take the form of finance capital in which the owner of money lends it out to someone else so that they can use it productively and then reaps a profit by charging interest. The most common form however is our good friend the capitalist mode of production in which a capitalist buys means of production and labour-power and uses them to create a commodity whose value is above that of the original inputs then sells it on for a profit.

Exchange leads to capitalism, in fact it is practically synonymous with it. The only difference between "mutualism" and capitalism is that the workers collectively act as the capitalist, managing the capital relationship themselves along with all the things that go with it (Falling rate of profit and crises).

(Sorry if you already knew some of the above but I tend to assume people are unfamiliar with with Marx's critique of political economy unless I see evidence to the contrary)

(I also apologise for the off-topic post, although it was Blake's Baby who started this conversation)

I don't really like mutualism as a theory, but it seems to appeal to some people.

[AnthArmo]

I'm just going to leave this here...

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

Edit: It's section 8 by the way, just go Ctrl-F and type in "Crime"

[Zanthorus]

I don't really like mutualism as a theory, but it seems to appeal to some people.

Well that's their problem since what appeals to them is capitalism and it's crises.

[Quail]

I can't believe anyone would actually advocate forced labour camps (or that there is no facepalm smilie to express my reaction to that idea). Forcing criminals to do shitty work would not stop them from reoffending, and wouldn't help them with whatever was making them commit the crime in the first place, and nor would exile for that matter. Exile would basically involve unleashing a mentally unstable and potentially dangerous person on a nearby community. It wouldn't do anything for the criminal, and would be detrimental to the community they ended up in.

I also think that it should be up to each community to decide what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, and how they're going to deal with it, but ideally criminals should be rehabilitated in a medical facility.

[nuisance]

Fucks sake, I'm more anarchy than you all.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fucks sake, I'm more anarchy than you all.

Nuh-uh!

[Sir Comradical]

It doesn't work like that. You want to turn criminals into slaves, the burden is on you to justify it.

Ahh yes, okay.

Many criminals need to be removed from society, this requires a prison. While in prison, they need to work like everyone else. What does this equal - a labour camp. Tada!

[Ataxia]

Ahh yes, okay.

Many criminals need to be removed from society, this requires a prison. While in prison, they need to work like everyone else. What does this equal - a labour camp. Tada!

Forced labour of any kind is inconsistent with anarchy.

[Sir Comradical]

Forced labour of any kind is inconsistent with anarchy.

Why is it inconsistent with Anarchy?

Unfortunately there are greedy, selfish, callous and cold hearted people out there. They do exist and there's no guarantee that providing positive economic conditions in society will prevent such people from emerging. You have to punish people when they commit crimes and they should be obliged to work like everyone else. Like Lenin said "he who does not work, neither shall he eat".

[Ataxia]

Why is it inconsistent with Anarchy?

Unfortunately there are greedy, selfish, callous and cold hearted people out there. They do exist and there's no guarantee that providing positive economic conditions in society will prevent such people from emerging. You have to punish people when they commit crimes and they should be obliged to work like everyone else. Like Lenin said "he who does not work, neither shall he eat".

Fuck Lenin. The reason I'm an anarchist is because I reject his totalitarian bullshit which ultimately destroyed the credibility of communism in the eyes of the international working class.

A society where everyone must work or starve is not particularly different from the system we are trying to overthrow. Similarly, a justice system where criminals are sent to gulags is not particularly different from the prison system we want to eliminate. (I really don't understand the attraction of totalitarian communism, except for would-be Stalins.)

[meow]

forced labor = slavery. one of the reasons leftists dont like capitalism is because it forces people to work. wage slavery. so fuck you! communists are anti work. we dont want to work. if we wanted to work we would stay in capitalism. if you want to force everyone to work it seems you want a slave society. fuck you.

onto punishment killing and prisons.
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/crime_and_punishment.html
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/anarchism_and_capital_punishment
http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/prisons.html

anarchists are against revenge and punishment because it is wrong. not only is it wrong though, it does not achive anything. it does not discourage people from committing crime.

anarchists are against capital punishment. however when someone attacks someone else, the person being attacked has the right to defend themselves.


i am sure that there are many other essays out there on these topics. i am not willing to engage any longer here. my ideas are not unique. and i would rather those better able to write do the arguing for me. some of those are in the links above.

[Sir Comradical]

Fuck Lenin. The reason I'm an anarchist is because I reject his totalitarian bullshit which ultimately destroyed the credibility of communism in the eyes of the international working class.

A society where everyone must work or starve is not particularly different from the system we are trying to overthrow. Similarly, a justice system where criminals are sent to gulags is not particularly different from the prison system we want to eliminate. (I really don't understand the attraction of totalitarian communism, except for would-be Stalins.)

The imperfect reality of the socialism that actually existed will always come off second best when compared to the imaginary and utopian ideals of what socialism is supposed to be.

The problem with capitalism is that people starve needlessly even though our productive capabilities have developed to a point where everyone can potentially live comfortably. Since we haven't developed to a stage where everything is automated to the point where only a small amount of labour is needed, yes everyone needs to pull their weight. This utopian idea that perfect communism won't produce criminals is NOT a solution to the actual problem. It's just a convenient way of dodging the question a lot like the right-libertarian idea that perfect capitalism won't produce crises.

[AK]

For anyone who wishes to question the ideal of abolition of work and why we are for it, check it out:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI4.html#seci42

[Invincible Summer]

forced labor = slavery. one of the reasons leftists dont like capitalism is because it forces people to work. wage slavery. so fuck you! communists are anti work. we dont want to work. if we wanted to work we would stay in capitalism. if you want to force everyone to work it seems you want a slave society. fuck you.


Yeah, um, I'd say most communists are against capitalism because it creates and perpetuates inequality, not because you "have" to do work.

Although I am for the complete automation of menial labour, I think that some amount of "work" is necessary in a post-revolutionary society. Besides, I think people like to work, just working on things that they like/don't like is the difference. I know quite a few professors who dedicate endless hours to their own research, and even refuse early retirement because they want to continue doing research and teaching.

"Work" doesn't have to mean service-industry drudgery or tilling fields.


onto punishment killing and prisons.
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/crime_and_punishment.html
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/anarchism_and_capital_punishment
http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/prisons.html

I don't have time to read all of that yet, why don't you just tell us your point?


anarchists are against revenge and punishment because it is wrong. not only is it wrong though, it does not achive anything. it does not discourage people from committing crime.
From where do you derive this moral standard? How are revenge and punishment intrinsically "wrong?"

I also don't think telling a murderer to 'stay on the city limits' would discourage them from committing crime.


anarchists are against capital punishment. however when someone attacks someone else, the person being attacked has the right to defend themselves.
Isn't this a type of "punishment?" You're only justifying it under the auspices of "self-defence," but you're essentially "punishing" the attacker for hurting someone.

[AK]

The imperfect reality of the socialism that actually existed will always come off second best when compared to the imaginary and utopian ideals of what socialism is supposed to be.
You can dismiss anything as utopian, but it doesn't come a step closer to helping your argument. It just shows your inability to deliver a structured argument.

[AK]

Isn't this a type of "punishment?" You're only justifying it under the auspices of "self-defence," but you're essentially "punishing" the attacker for hurting someone.
It's not punishment, it is what it is; it's self defence. It's making sure that your attacker is unable to harm you further in the short term.

[IllicitPopsicle]

forced labor = slavery. one of the reasons leftists dont like capitalism is because it forces people to work. wage slavery. so fuck you! communists are anti work. we dont want to work. if we wanted to work we would stay in capitalism. if you want to force everyone to work it seems you want a slave society. fuck you.

Erm, no, you've missed the point...

Communists and (most) anarchists are against capitalism, not the idea of work - in this context any meaningful action that is not forced labor. Primitivists are against the idea of work.

[AK]

Erm, no, you've missed the point...

Communists and (most) anarchists are against capitalism, not the idea of work - in this context any meaningful action that is not forced labor. Primitivists are against the idea of work.
Primitivists are against technology. Anarchists are against work (as well as capitalism, class-based society and social hierarchy), as I have already shown in my previous post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1796027&postcount=58).

[Ataxia]

The imperfect reality of the socialism that actually existed will always come off second best when compared to the imaginary and utopian ideals of what socialism is supposed to be.

The problem with capitalism is that people starve needlessly even though our productive capabilities have developed to a point where everyone can potentially live comfortably. Since we haven't developed to a stage where everything is automated to the point where only a small amount of labour is needed, yes everyone needs to pull their weight. This utopian idea that perfect communism won't produce criminals is NOT a solution to the actual problem. It's just a convenient way of dodging the question a lot like the right-libertarian idea that perfect capitalism won't produce crises.

Come on, gulags and forced labour (under threat of starvation) goes beyond being not ideal. It's oppressive. What the fuck is the point of fighting a revolution if you get Stalinism at the end?

[IllicitPopsicle]

Primitivists are against technology. Anarchists are against work (as well as capitalism, class-based society and social hierarchy), as I have already shown in my previous post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1796027&postcount=58).

My apologies, Alpha Kappa. I was reading all of the other posts, and I didn't refresh my page before posting.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Come on, gulags and forced labour (under threat of starvation) goes beyond being not ideal. It's oppressive. What the fuck is the point of fighting a revolution if you get Stalinism at the end?

Well, if you're a Stalinist, everything's fine (I guess?)

[Sir Comradical]

Come on, gulags and forced labour (under threat of starvation) goes beyond being not ideal. It's oppressive. What the fuck is the point of fighting a revolution if you get Stalinism at the end?

Why invoke the spectre of Stalin when discussing crime and punishment? Is it so outrageous to suggest that a convicted murderer who's being clothed, fed, rehabilitated and reeducated, should be asked to work like everyone else?

What's your alternative?

[Invincible Summer]

It's not punishment, it is what it is; it's self defence. It's making sure that your attacker is unable to harm you further in the short term.

Yeah, but can't it be seen as a very vulgar form of "punishment?"

What if you see someone attempting to murder a boy, and you attack that man in return? At the core, you are "punishing" the man for attacking a boy, but it is justified within the auspices of "defense."



Primitivists are against technology. Anarchists are against work (as well as capitalism, class-based society and social hierarchy), as I have already shown in my previous post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1796027&postcount=58).

I think the Anarchist/Anarchist FAQ definition of "work" is hazy. The FAQ appears to agree with what most communists would propose: automation of as much labour as possible. However, people would still be pursuing other forms of "work" that, due to the pursuit of elimination of drudgery, they would enjoy much more.

It seems more accurate to state that Anarchists are not against work in general, but alienating/menial work.

[AK]

Yeah, but can't it be seen as a very vulgar form of "punishment?"

What if you see someone attempting to murder a boy, and you attack that man in return? At the core, you are "punishing" the man for attacking a boy, but it is justified within the auspices of "defense."
It could be taken both ways. But you are defending the boy because he is physically unable to defend himself from a much larger and stronger assailant.


I think the Anarchist/Anarchist FAQ definition of "work" is hazy. The FAQ appears to agree with what most communists would propose: automation of as much labour as possible. However, people would still be pursuing other forms of "work" that, due to the pursuit of elimination of drudgery, they would enjoy much more.

It seems more accurate to state that Anarchists are not against work in general, but alienating/menial work.
This, probably.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, but can't it be seen as a very vulgar form of "punishment?"

What if you see someone attempting to murder a boy, and you attack that man in return? At the core, you are "punishing" the man for attacking a boy, but it is justified within the auspices of "defense."..

No, that's not what 'punishment' is. If it was a bear attacking a boy, would you be 'punishing' the bear? If it was a landslide you rescued him from, would you be 'punishing' the landslide? Of course not. In each case, you're saving the boy from harm.

If you go on to kick shit out of the guy (or the bear, or the landslide) after the boy has been safely dilivered to the relevant child-carers, yes, that's punishment. But then, it's no longer 'self-defense' is it?



...

I think the Anarchist/Anarchist FAQ definition of "work" is hazy. The FAQ appears to agree with what most communists would propose: automation of as much labour as possible. However, people would still be pursuing other forms of "work" that, due to the pursuit of elimination of drudgery, they would enjoy much more.

It seems more accurate to state that Anarchists are not against work in general, but alienating/menial work.

'Work' is sometimes given that meaning, ie 'alienated labour', as opposed to 'creative labour'. So in that sense, yes, anti-work; but, as someone who's currently unemployed, I actually quite like the idea that I could do more directly productive and socially useful stuff.

[Widerstand]

Yeah, but can't it be seen as a very vulgar form of "punishment?"

What if you see someone attempting to murder a boy, and you attack that man in return? At the core, you are "punishing" the man for attacking a boy, but it is justified within the auspices of "defense."

Or you could call it "helping" the boy and pass it off as an act of solidarity. Are you trying to make an argument from semantics? Frankly, I don't think it can work that way:

Let's, for the sake of argument, agree that defending yourself, or another person, against an attacker can be called punishment. Would that make it morally wrong per se? Shouldn't we look at the motivation for the deed when judging it's moral value, rather than the name we assign to it? The motivation for this form of immediate punishment obviously is to assure you or another persons wellbeing (in the most extreme case, save a life).

Hanging the attacker after throwing him in prison would have a totally different motivation, namely satisfying your/societies craving for vengeance - most likely as a symbolic restoration of justice, or maybe because some people happen to be sadist bastards, I don't know. This is, I think, morally indefensible, as it's selfish and anti-social and paying very little to no respect to whatever personal interests, needs, feelings, etc. the aggressor may have.

Now of course, if you get attacked, fight back and pursue the attacker, after he runs from you, to beat him up, that's more like the second example. But I wouldn't call that self defense in any case.

[Pavlov's House Party]

What's with this labour camp shit? The USSR inherited the practice from the Russian Empire, there is no use for them today. Convicts could be put to work cleaning streets and doing other constructive community services, depending how the workers who live there decide. That's the important thing, what the workers decide is the punishment is what it should be. During a revolutionary situation where there can be no chances taken I think prisons and worker's run police forces would be necessary though.

This reminds me of a Communist Part of Canada nutter who told me the vast wilderness of the Canadian north would be the ideal place to set up gulags once the revolution was over.

[Wolf Larson]

crimes of passion and violence from the severely mentally ill would be the most prevalent crimes. in the case of the mentally ill i'd say humane treatment and in the case of crimes of passion i'd say we as a society take a second look at jealousy and or relationship dynamics. i'm not suggesting abolishing monogamy but.... i also think many crimes of passion or crimes where loved ones kill each other are also rooted in money in one way or another. Either money or jealousy.

Once money is gone and abundance facilitated you'd have to be a sick person (child molester etc) to commit crimes. Most people in prisons today are not child molesters but minorities and poor whites who have no access to the means of production and inevitably end up on drugs or do desperate things to provide sustenance. Doing drugs in a a capitalist society with no access to the means of production = prison. If one has access to the means of production doing drugs will = rehab at the worst.

[Invincible Summer]

No, that's not what 'punishment' is. If it was a bear attacking a boy, would you be 'punishing' the bear? If it was a landslide you rescued him from, would you be 'punishing' the landslide? Of course not. In each case, you're saving the boy from harm.

If you go on to kick shit out of the guy (or the bear, or the landslide) after the boy has been safely dilivered to the relevant child-carers, yes, that's punishment. But then, it's no longer 'self-defense' is it?

The thing is, the bear is acting out of natural instincts, and the landslide is a natural disaster. A murderer is (most likely) acting with some level of awareness about what they are doing.

Punishing a landslide? Really? :lol:





'Work' is sometimes given that meaning, ie 'alienated labour', as opposed to 'creative labour'. So in that sense, yes, anti-work; but, as someone who's currently unemployed, I actually quite like the idea that I could do more directly productive and socially useful stuff.
Yeah, precisely. I assume you are not one of those "I like anarchy so I can sit on my ass all day" anarchists. The "work" you are against is not just any form of mental/physical labouring, but rather alienating labour.


Or you could call it "helping" the boy and pass it off as an act of solidarity. Are you trying to make an argument from semantics? Frankly, I don't think it can work that way:

Let's, for the sake of argument, agree that defending yourself, or another person, against an attacker can be called punishment. Would that make it morally wrong per se? Shouldn't we look at the motivation for the deed when judging it's moral value, rather than the name we assign to it? The motivation for this form of immediate punishment obviously is to assure you or another persons wellbeing (in the most extreme case, save a life).

Hanging the attacker after throwing him in prison would have a totally different motivation, namely satisfying your/societies craving for vengeance - most likely as a symbolic restoration of justice, or maybe because some people happen to be sadist bastards, I don't know. This is, I think, morally indefensible, as it's selfish and anti-social and paying very little to no respect to whatever personal interests, needs, feelings, etc. the aggressor may have.

Now of course, if you get attacked, fight back and pursue the attacker, after he runs from you, to beat him up, that's more like the second example. But I wouldn't call that self defense in any case.

I'm not making a moral judgment based on the word "punishment"; that is, I wouldn't consider it morally reprehensible necessarily. Like you say, the subjective "value" of the act differs upon the context.

Basically, I agree that the motivation for this punishment is justified due to the assurance of the preservation of life.

I am not using "punishment" in a negative manner, just as a term that was used previously to denote what anarchists are evidently "against." I don't think - no matter how "progressive" one is - that any revolutionary leftist is 100% against any sort of "punishment." That is pretty naive. People need to be more specific about their terms.

[Wolf Larson]

The thing is, the bear is acting out of natural instincts, and the landslide is a natural disaster. A murderer is (most likely) acting with some level of awareness about what they are doing.

Punishing a landslide? Really? :lol:





Yeah, precisely. I assume you are not one of those "I like anarchy so I can sit on my ass all day" anarchists. The "work" you are against is not just any form of mental/physical labouring, but rather alienating labour.



I'm not making a moral judgment based on the word "punishment"; that is, I wouldn't consider it morally reprehensible necessarily. Like you say, the subjective "value" of the act differs upon the context.

Basically, I agree that the motivation for this punishment is justified due to the assurance of the preservation of life.

I am not using "punishment" in a negative manner, just as a term that was used previously to denote what anarchists are evidently "against." I don't think - no matter how "progressive" one is - that any revolutionary leftist is 100% against any sort of "punishment." That is pretty naive. People need to be more specific about their terms.

The title doesn't say "Technocracy and prisons". How can you go from praising "leadership of the skilled" in place of direct worker democracy over to giving 'advice' or opinions on what an anarchist society will look like?

Neg rep me some more.

This is what you Technocracy people see as anarchism:


From the poster "Technocrat": "Technocracy is a meritocracy - not a democracy. Popular opinion of the masses by itself is not sufficient to determine who will lead. It will be the merit of the individuals themselves, considered within the framework of the project at hand, that will determine who will take what job. If we look at history, the single longest lasting political institution in the history of humanity was meritocratic in nature - Confucianism, which lasted for almost 2,000 years - long enough to make the Roman Empire seem ephemeral. In fact, Meritocracy is what the Founding Fathers were aiming for with Democracy - the idea was that with sufficient education, an enlightened citizenry would select leaders on the basis of their merit (not their popularity). I don't think I need to explain how poorly that's worked out. *under NET's proposed plan, a simple majority is sufficient to remove someone from their position. The basic idea is still a 'meritocratic ascent of volunteers."

And what was the technocrat moderators comment below his post?

Was it this :

"Excellent post. Bumped because it seems I can't sticky it"



So it looks like your fake claim to "anarchism" just went out the window once more.
The technocracy people on this site are in no position to even discuss anarchism (and be taken seriously).

[Widerstand]

I'm not making a moral judgment based on the word "punishment"; that is, I wouldn't consider it morally reprehensible necessarily. Like you say, the subjective "value" of the act differs upon the context.

Basically, I agree that the motivation for this punishment is justified due to the assurance of the preservation of life.

I am not using "punishment" in a negative manner, just as a term that was used previously to denote what anarchists are evidently "against." I don't think - no matter how "progressive" one is - that any revolutionary leftist is 100% against any sort of "punishment." That is pretty naive. People need to be more specific about their terms.

Ah. I agree that one shouldn't make blank statements such as "I'm against work" or "I'm against punishment". Actually my argument was supportive of that, I just misunderstood your point :)

[Blake's Baby]

The thing is, the bear is acting out of natural instincts, and the landslide is a natural disaster. A murderer is (most likely) acting with some level of awareness about what they are doing.

Punishing a landslide? Really? :lol:...

Only 'most likely'? Are you not sure that this man you are punishing was acting with awareness? Seems pretty moronic and pretty anti-social to beat someone up in case they have an awareness that they are doing something you disapprove of. Of course, as I disapprove of you punishing the man (as opposed to saving the boy) shall I punish you too? I don't need to question your awareness, of course, you've already made it clear you know what you're doing.

You're the one who keeps banging on about punishment -that is, a vengeful act. Sure, take revenge against a landslide if you wish, I doubt it will care. The point is not 'punishing' the man, the bear, or the landslide; the point is saving the boy. If violence is necessary to do that - if I have to punch the guy or even whack him with a shovel to make him let the boy go, that isn't punishment and it is justified.

If I continue to whack him with the shovel after the boy is safe, that is punishment and it's not justified. What that is, can be one of two things - the feeling that some 'payment' should be extracted from the man, physically; in other words, vengeance; or, it could be that you think that by committing violence on him now you may prevent violence in the future; this is 'attack is the best form of defence' and it's a justification for any amount of violence by the state and other anti-social forces.

What you are doing is seeking to justify your own real anti-social action by conjouring the possibility of a future anti-social action - see also 'Invading Iraq in case there are terrorist attacks on the West', 'lynching black men in case they rape a white woman', 'giving the Asians a kicking in case they are suicide bombers' etc.




...
Yeah, precisely. I assume you are not one of those "I like anarchy so I can sit on my ass all day" anarchists. The "work" you are against is not just any form of mental/physical labouring, but rather alienating labour...

I'm glad I live up to your exacting expectations.


...
I'm not making a moral judgment based on the word "punishment"; that is, I wouldn't consider it morally reprehensible necessarily. Like you say, the subjective "value" of the act differs upon the context.

Basically, I agree that the motivation for this punishment is justified due to the assurance of the preservation of life...

... which you are as qualified to make as a judge in an American court that can pass the death penalty.


...I am not using "punishment" in a negative manner, just as a term that was used previously to denote what anarchists are evidently "against." I don't think - no matter how "progressive" one is - that any revolutionary leftist is 100% against any sort of "punishment." That is pretty naive. People need to be more specific about their terms.

Oh, I'm pretty specific. 'Punishment' means vengeance; not restraint, not avoidance of harm to others. 'Punishment' is an anti-social, anti-human, religious concept, not a socialist concept. Restitution, that can be seen as a socialist concept - trying to put right what you broke, for the good of society. Re-habilitation, that is a socialist concept - trying to make yourself (with help from society) a better (more social) person. Even, just about 'exile' up to and including imprisonment, can be seen as a socialist concept if it can nbe reasonably demonstrated that the 'offender' represents a danger to others, and therfore removal of the offender from society can be seen as promoting the general (social) good.

But punishment comes from a backward medievalist mindset and, yes, I am absolutely opposed to it. I don't think that anyone in favour of 'punishment' has any right to claim that they're a socialist of any description.

[meow]

i wish to thank blake baby a 1000 times! this idea of punishment is exactly what i was trying to get at. punishment is barbaric. vengence is not something we should promote. retribution revenge are both wrong.

[Invincible Summer]

The title doesn't say "Technocracy and prisons". How can you go from praising "leadership of the skilled" in place of direct worker democracy over to giving 'advice' or opinions on what an anarchist society will look like?


So it looks like your fake claim to "anarchism" just went out the window once more.
The technocracy people on this site are in no position to even discuss anarchism (and be taken seriously).

Although I very much like Technocracy, I do have some issues with it. I'm a critical supporter, as we should all be with our political views. Why do you assume people are so naive?

Also, I don't identify as an anarchist, so fuck off and stop trolling and harassing.


Only 'most likely'? Are you not sure that this man you are punishing was acting with awareness? Seems pretty moronic and pretty anti-social to beat someone up in case they have an awareness that they are doing something you disapprove of. Of course, as I disapprove of you punishing the man (as opposed to saving the boy) shall I punish you too? I don't need to question your awareness, of course, you've already made it clear you know what you're doing.

You're the one who keeps banging on about punishment -that is, a vengeful act. Sure, take revenge against a landslide if you wish, I doubt it will care. The point is not 'punishing' the man, the bear, or the landslide; the point is saving the boy. If violence is necessary to do that - if I have to punch the guy or even whack him with a shovel to make him let the boy go, that isn't punishment and it is justified.

I said "most likely" to account for (rare) cases of psychosis/"demonic possession"/etc.

The situation is the same: saving the boy, "punishing" the man. It just depends on how you want to spin it. But regardless of which you choose, the other action happens too.


If I continue to whack him with the shovel after the boy is safe, that is punishment and it's not justified. What that is, can be one of two things - the feeling that some 'payment' should be extracted from the man, physically; in other words, vengeance; or, it could be that you think that by committing violence on him now you may prevent violence in the future; this is 'attack is the best form of defence' and it's a justification for any amount of violence by the state and other anti-social forces.
But how is the initial act of violence any different from further actions of violence in regards to b) (preventing violence in the future)? I mean, unless you outright kill the guy then I think even the initial attack would be some sort of warning to fuck off.

We're just talking about the initial act of e.g. punching the man in the head a couple of times, maybe kicking him/shoving him, and getting him to stop hurting the boy. I made no mention of "setting an example" and executing him or anything, which you seem to be suggesting.


What you are doing is seeking to justify your own real anti-social action by conjouring the possibility of a future anti-social action - see also 'Invading Iraq in case there are terrorist attacks on the West', 'lynching black men in case they rape a white woman', 'giving the Asians a kicking in case they are suicide bombers' etc.

Those are completely different, since you are talking about whole groups of people.

We're talking about a crime that is happening at this moment. You see Man 1 attacking Man 2; defending Man 2 involves hurting Man 1; by hurting Man 1 you are inherently "punishing" him for attacking Man 2 whether it is your intent or not. If your intent is to save Man 2, you have to "punish" Man 1 for being the aggressor by punching him.





I'm glad I live up to your exacting expectations.
I'm just trying to re-iterate the point that I think we both agree on. No need to be snarky here.





Oh, I'm pretty specific. 'Punishment' means vengeance; not restraint, not avoidance of harm to others. 'Punishment' is an anti-social, anti-human, religious concept, not a socialist concept. Restitution, that can be seen as a socialist concept - trying to put right what you broke, for the good of society. Re-habilitation, that is a socialist concept - trying to make yourself (with help from society) a better (more social) person. Even, just about 'exile' up to and including imprisonment, can be seen as a socialist concept if it can nbe reasonably demonstrated that the 'offender' represents a danger to others, and therfore removal of the offender from society can be seen as promoting the general (social) good.

But punishment comes from a backward medievalist mindset and, yes, I am absolutely opposed to it. I don't think that anyone in favour of 'punishment' has any right to claim that they're a socialist of any description.

How are exile/imprisonment not forms of "punishment?" How is the concept of "punishment" inherently anti-human and religious, as you claim?



i wish to thank blake baby a 1000 times! this idea of punishment is exactly what i was trying to get at. punishment is barbaric. vengence is not something we should promote. retribution revenge are both wrong.

"Punishment" is not necessarily synonymous with "vengeance" or "revenge."

Furthermore, assuming that vengeance, revenge, even punishment are inherently "bad" presupposes a coherent, universal, objective morality. Class war and revolution are basically acts of retribution against the capitalist system.

[meow]

How are exile/imprisonment not forms of "punishment?" How is the concept of "punishment" inherently anti-human and religious, as you claim?
where such things are needed they should not be used as punishment. the intent should not be to punish. instead the intent should be to protect the community.


"Punishment" is not necessarily synonymous with "vengeance" or "revenge."

Furthermore, assuming that vengeance, revenge, even punishment are inherently "bad" presupposes a coherent, universal, objective morality.
yes. i have a universal ethical system. surely sayin that exploitation of the workers is inherently bad says there is a coherent etc morality? boo!

punishment vengence revenge. whatever. they none of them have a place in socialism.

Class war and revolution are basically acts of retribution against the capitalist system.
no. they are acts of self defence.

[Invincible Summer]

where such things are needed they should not be used as punishment. the intent should not be to punish. instead the intent should be to protect the community.

But, like I said, by using the spin "protecting the community," you are also punishing the offender at the same time. The object of the action is just different.



yes. i have a universal ethical system. surely sayin that exploitation of the workers is inherently bad says there is a coherent etc morality? boo!Exploitation isn't inherently "bad," we as leftists just say it is. "Punishment" is not inherently "bad" or "anti whateverthefuck" unless you arbitrarily place your subjective morality onto it.



punishment vengence revenge. whatever. they none of them have a place in socialism. And this is because...?


no. they are acts of self defence.Why do revolutionaries have to be the victims acting in defense? What is so goddamn wrong about just wanting to kick cappie ass? What is this horrid fetish with being a victim and on the defense in every circumstance?

[Blake's Baby]

We're not fetishising victimhood. We are victims of capitalism. In the same way, we don't fetishise legs, we just have them. That's the way it is.

Capitalism is an exploitative system.

Revolution against capitalism is freedom not revenge.

If every capitalist said 'ok, you're right, capitalism was an exploitative system, socialism is better', I'd be happy. You, however, it seems would be quite happy to keep hitting them with shovels regardless.

This is a religious attitude. Punishment is retribution for sin; it is has no place in a socialist understanding. Your insistence that stopping someone harming someone else is 'punishment' is your own personal definition of the word 'punishment' that takes it outside of my understanding. I can't stop you using words however you like, but I don't have to agree to the way you use them.

Prevention of harm is not punishment. Saving someone (a boy in the original example) even through the use of force is not 'punishing' an aggressor, any more than a bear or a landslide, though you think it is. 'Punishment' is using force to 'teach the man/bear/landslide a lesson' or 'to express disapproval of the man/bear/landlide's actions'. We already said that punishment is the needless violence that occurrs after the boy has been saved.

Consider; if a man is not attacking a boy, but the man's actions are putting the boy in jeopardy, and the only way to save the boy is to hit the man with a shovel, is that 'punishment'? Of course, under your definition, because for you 'punishment' seems to mean 'any use of force'.

How is 'exile' punishment, on the other hand, when I specifically said that the only reason for exile of any kind would be to remove a danger? There's no moral dimension to that, any more than there's a moral dimension to making sure tigers don't frequent schoolyards and hospitals aren't built on volcanos; if something is dangerous keep away from it, or it away from you.

Ohh, punish that fire by throwing water on it! Punish that large shark by keeping it in the sea! Punish the Antarctic Winter by keeping it all the way down there!

[Old Man Diogenes]

Murder, rape and assault, I think all would be lessened under socialism, but not completely eradicated. And I don't know the answer to the question 'how do we deal with that?'. But as a general principle, I'd say that restorative justice and rehabilitation are better principles for how to treat the anti-social than vengeance.

:thumbup1:

[EvilRedGuy]

Im against death penalty, its better off to just isolate peoples in a educational centre, atleast then we know we are allways trying to help them and they can't do any harm to others, innocents, etc.

[DaComm]

Im against death penalty, its better off to just isolate peoples in a educational centre, atleast then we know we are allways trying to help them and they can't do any harm to others, innocents, etc.

This. This. This. This.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

For the most part, I am against the death penalty but... if a person murders or rapes and shows no remorse whatsoever, then I think they deserve death. However, before death is given to them, I think they should be administered into counseling and education classes to give them a chance to change. If they change and there is reasonable evidence that the change is real, then I'd like to see the punishment be made into a sentence of time rather than a sentence of death.

[Apoi_Viitor]

For the most part, I am against the death penalty but... if a person murders or rapes and shows no remorse whatsoever, then I think they deserve death.

Meh, I prefer penal colonies. Just dump 'em all in Australia or something.

As for most non-violent crime, I think a combination of restitution (community service), rehabilitation, and retaliation (an eye for an eye) can solve most problems. The strategy which should be implemented would vary by case to case. As for more serious offenses, I think rehabilitating the criminal should be primary - but if it is shown that the individual guilty of the crime is unlikely to be rehabilitated, then I support the sending him/her to a penal colony.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Meh, I prefer penal colonies. Just dump 'em all in Australia or something.

Even penal colonies need guards of some description. Besides, Australia is currently occupied, so where else are we gonna send 'em? Antarctica? The Moon? All I can say to that is, you can foot the bill for that. I'd rather my labour be spent sending scientists and pioneers to such places.

It seems to me that for some cases, the judicial choice is between execution and long-term incarceration. As far as I'm concerned, prisons like anything we have today are simply not an option for any society that claims to be civilised.

When rehabilitation isn't possible, there are no prisons and the guilty party is a known danger to people, what else is left?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Even penal colonies need guards of some description. Besides, Australia is currently occupied, so where else are we gonna send 'em? Antarctica? The Moon? All I can say to that is, you can foot the bill for that. I'd rather my labour be spent sending scientists and pioneers to such places.

It seems to me that for some cases, the judicial choice is between execution and long-term incarceration. As far as I'm concerned, prisons like anything we have today are simply not an option for any society that claims to be civilised.

When rehabilitation isn't possible, there are no prisons and the guilty party is a known danger to people, what else is left?

I was being sarcastic, I know Australia isn't an option. But I still believe (or hope) that isolated communes can be created for those who are deemed incapable of existing in society, which can be subject to the rule of the general will of both its own population and the will of all other peacefully co-existing societies. Basically, their commune can be run by those who are sent there - but when an issue arises which directly relates to the safety of the other communes, the decision is left to the opinion of all of society. So, most "guard" duties will probably be subject to the 'prisoners' themselves, however integration with the general populace would be disallowed (for obvious safety reasons). For apparent reasons, where a 'penal colony' is created will have to be influenced by geography (an isolated island would be the exemplar location), but I see no reason why this stipulation can't be found (there must be some uninhabited islands left...) or created (coercively...), but due to the rarity of 'socio-pathic' humans, I don't see why that much land would be necessitated.

[AK]

Meh, I prefer penal colonies. Just dump 'em all in Australia or something.
:crying:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was being sarcastic, I know Australia isn't an option. But I still believe (or hope) that isolated communes can be created for those who are deemed incapable of existing in society, which can be subject to the rule of the general will of both its own population and the will of all other peacefully co-existing societies. Basically, their commune can be run by those who are sent there - but when an issue arises which directly relates to the safety of the other communes, the decision is left to the opinion of all of society. So, most "guard" duties will probably be subject to the 'prisoners' themselves, however integration with the general populace would be disallowed (for obvious safety reasons). For apparent reasons, where a 'penal colony' is created will have to be influenced by geography (an isolated island would be the exemplar location), but I see no reason why this stipulation can't be found (there must be some uninhabited islands left...) or created (coercively...), but due to the rarity of 'socio-pathic' humans, I don't see why that much land would be necessitated.

I think you'd simply be replacing the artificial brutality of the current prison complex with the natural brutality of small harsh wind-swept islands where nobody willingly lives.

I'm not seeing the improvement from any perspective other than "out of sight, out of mind".

[DWI]

I understand why as anarchists we oppose prisons. I also understand that in an anarchist world there would be less crime because the inequality of wealth and isolated social relations inherent to capitalism which cause a lot of crime would be abolished. My question is, after the revolution, how do we deal with individuals who transgress against each other's rights (through assault, murder, rape, the theft of legitimate possessions etc.)?
1. An armed citizenry. People would defend themselves and their fellows in the immediacy.

2. Enforced restitution to victims (eg. if someone breaks in to your house, they must do work for you to the value of what they damaged).

3. Outlawry.

[Rainsborough]

I flirted with Anarchism a few years ago, then I changed to a Marxist-Leninist. Why? Debates such as this provides the answer. Crimes must be punished, people must feel safe and protected, revolutions kill people, not just necessary people, but any people.

[DWI]

I flirted with Anarchism a few years ago, then I changed to a Marxist-Leninist. Why? Debates such as this provides the answer. Crimes must be punished, people must feel safe and protected, revolutions kill people, not just necessary people, but any people.
People are a lot less safe under M-L (ie. arbitrary totalitarian dictatorship). Your chances of being mugged in an anarchy are a lot lower than chances of being purged under M-L, or sent to a gulag, and chances of being murdered in an anarchy are a lot lower still. That still goes if you're Inner Party, btw.

[AK]

I flirted with Anarchism a few years ago, then I changed to a Marxist-Leninist. Why? Debates such as this provides the answer.
I haven't found anything in this thread that would make me even considering the idea of switching tendencies.


Crimes must be punished, people must feel safe and protected,
So, do you even think it's worthwhile to treat offenders and rehabilitate them, or do you just want to shut them in a prison and see what happens?


revolutions kill people, not just necessary people, but any people.
Perhaps, but:


In a genuine proletarian revolution, the violence will come from the reaction
So say there was a revolution that killed lots of people. How does your formula go? "Death, therefore prisons and the state." Am I the only one who sees no connection between death in a revolution and the necessity of prisons?

[Hen]

lock a person up and you need people to make sure they stayed locked up. you just made a hierarchy. you just lost your anarchy. well done. exile is seperating a person from the rest of society. at least the society that they are exiled from in which they committed the 'offence'.

if someone is known to be a danger to others then people will just generally stop associating with them. ostricism is certainly an option.

and of course rehabilitation is the key word. punishment is not compatible with anarchism.

If locking people up creates hierarchy...then so does rehabilitation. People of higher a moral code instructing those without.

[Magón]

Im against death penalty, its better off to just isolate peoples in a educational centre, atleast then we know we are allways trying to help them and they can't do any harm to others, innocents, etc.

But what happens if a educational center or in other words, a rehabilitation center doesn't work on them? That they may seem like they have been helped, are let go, but act again? What would you say should be done with them again, more rehabilitation?

[EvilRedGuy]

But what happens if a educational center or in other words, a rehabilitation center doesn't work on them? That they may seem like they have been helped, are let go, but act again? What would you say should be done with them again, more rehabilitation?

I think yes, keep isolating them in a educational centre(not prison they dont change by that only for the worse) till they are safe, if nothing happens then let them be there forever, nobody knows how long it would take to change different peoples but im sure avery form of mental problem/disability can be fixed, and if not, then they can still be isolated in a educational centre till they die and wont do harm to others.

Can't see whats hard to get.

[Magón]

I think yes, keep isolating them in a educational centre(not prison they dont change by that only for the worse) till they are safe, if nothing happens then let them be there forever, nobody knows how long it would take to change different peoples but im sure avery form of mental problem/disability can be fixed, and if not, then they can still be isolated in a educational centre till they die and wont do harm to others.

Can't see whats hard to get.

It's not that there's anything hard to understand, I'm just trying to see why someone who's say committed several Murders, should still continue to live life? Sure it's away from the norm of Society, but I still don't see why resources should go to someone who doesn't deserve life anymore. Look at it like this: If say a society decides that the best thing to do for a Serial Killer or Rapist at the time, is that they get rehabilitated for say five years, but then nothing comes of it, why should they continue to help feed, clothe, etc. this person? Why not just end the person's life seeing how they're nothing more now, than a leech on society. They do nothing but get rehabilitation that obviously hasn't helped them, but still they continue to live a semi-normal life?

By your logic, it's like if I keep on trying to put in a bill for a candy bar, in some vending machine, but the vending machine won't accept my bill. So I pause for a moment, straighten it out, and try again, but still nothing and I never get my candy bar. It's a waste of energy, and that wasted energy can be put to better use by having someone else helped and looked at while the person you tried helping, is taken from society and the world as a whole.

Maybe it's my intolerance of these sort of people, but I think that if Rehabilitation doesn't work, and they can't be helped, then death is the next means of fixing the problem. Anything else, like putting them to work in some mill or something making shoes or something, is just slave labor seeing how they're no better for anything else and at the end of the day would just return to some cell to sleep, eat, whatever. I say that if rehabilitation no longer works for the person, death is the next necessary step to take with people like that. I don't like leeches in my society.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

If locking people up creates hierarchy...then so does rehabilitation. People of higher a moral code instructing those without.

Here is someone who hit the spot! Some people here dont seem too understand that during rehabilitation the patiente/inmate will be locked up and hes rights will be taken frome him, so whats the difference?

In Sweden most prisions today have a rehab/re-adapting programs to help inmates to quite drugs and to give them certificates for welding, driving a forklift so that they will have a better chance to get a job in the future.
Those who are classified with dispotions will, ofcourse, be sent to menthal institutions where, also there, theire freedoms will be limited and thats just good, menthaly illed/weak people cant handle things they need someone who can help them and in that roll authority will be necessary.
The whole idea of not locking up anyone ore dotn create any form of hierchy is just idealistic rethoric, wich isnt based in reality.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I think you'd simply be replacing the artificial brutality of the current prison complex with the natural brutality of small harsh wind-swept islands where nobody willingly lives.

I'm not seeing the improvement from any perspective other than "out of sight, out of mind".

Well I'd prefer that it wasn't a "harsh wind-swept island", but even that is an improvement over a prison complex (and the death penalty)...


Here is someone who hit the spot! Some people here dont seem too understand that during rehabilitation the patiente/inmate will be locked up and hes rights will be taken frome him, so whats the difference?

Rehabilitation is based on normalization. People should only be locked up (while under going rehabilitation) until they are shown to be unlikely to commit the same crime again. Punishment/prison is based more on deterrence - the notion that if we make committing a crime so unprofitable, people would be unlikely to commit it in the first place.

The difference is in the 'humaneness' and effectiveness, which shows rehabilitation to be the clear winner.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well I'd prefer that it wasn't a "harsh wind-swept island", but even that is an improvement over a prison complex (and the death penalty)...

The problem is, I'm pretty sure that all the islands in the world with at least tolerable living conditions already have people living there.

[ZeroNowhere]

[on a guy proposing 'collective ownership of the means of exchange'] Yeah, it looked to me like he'd just pulled that definition out of the Labour party's old clause four.
It's old, but worth addressing.

What gives our work quite special significance is the fact that it was the first to express the formula in which, by common agreement, the workers’ parties of all countries in the world briefly summarise their demand for economic transformation: the appropriation of the means of production by society. In the second chapter, in connection with the “right to work”, which is described as “the first clumsy formula wherein the revolutionary demands of the proletariat are summarised”, it is said: “but behind the right to work stands the power over capital; behind the power over capital, the appropriation of the means of production, their subjection to the associated working class and, therefore, the abolition of wage labour, of capital and of their mutual relations”. Thus, here, for the first time, the proposition is formulated by which modern workers’ socialism is sharply differentiated both from all the different shades of feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., socialism and from the confused community of goods of utopian and of spontaneous [naturwüchsigen] communism. If, later, Marx extended the formula to include appropriation of the means of exchange, this extension, which in any case was self-evident after the Communist Manifesto, only expressed a corollary to the main proposition. A few wiseacres in England have of late added that the “means of distribution” should also be handed over to society. These gentlemen would be hard put to say what these economic means of distribution, distinct from the means of production and exchange, actually are; unless political means of distribution are meant, taxes, poor relief, including the Sachsenwald and other endowments. But, first, these are even now means of distribution in the possession of society as a whole, either of the state or of the community, and second, it is precisely these we want to abolish.-Friedrich Engels.