Privatizing prisons, will it lead to labor camps?

[Le Libérer]

Split from this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/maine-governor-has-t152080/index.html)

Whats next? Book bans and burnings?

.

Labor camps.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually we already have something similar to Labor camps. Prisons.

[masty]

This is better than letting it stand and giving some sort of indication that the US government in any way supports or condones labor organizing.

[Le Libérer]

Actually we already have something similar to Labor camps. Prisons.
Of course but they arent forced labor camps yet. They are filled with the poor, people of color, and homeless people. Its a huge business in the US. Soon though the climate will be where those imprisoned will be forced to work, now, its voluntary and only if the prisoner is approved.

What I am talking about is the next step in regard to labor. I also could see debtors prisons returning as well.

[Viet Minh]

Of course but they arent forced labor camps yet. They are filled with the poor, people of color, and homeless people. Its a huge business in the US. Soon though the climate will be where those imprisoned will be forced to work, now, its voluntary and only if the prisoner is approved.

What I am talking about is the next step in regard to labor. I also could see debtors prisons returning as well.

No need, the current system keeps people as virtual slave labourers as it is, labour camps wouldn't be cost effective, because it would drain the public budget.

[Tim Finnegan]

No need, the current system keeps people as virtual slave labourers as it is, labour camps wouldn't be cost effective, because it would drain the public budget.
In what sense would be labour camps be less cost-effective than prisons? Certainly, if the populace was in need of only very low security, as a debtors prison would, then it could be a very lucrative business indeed.

Worth noting, Hong Kong has long retained the old British system of debtor's prisons, and it's recently spread to the mainland. If the new face of capitalism is to be seen, as some have suggested, in the authoritarian state-capitalism flourishing in China and Singapore, then these institutions could very easily come with it.

[PhoenixAsh]

No need, the current system keeps people as virtual slave labourers as it is, labour camps wouldn't be cost effective, because it would drain the public budget.

Well..think about that...the public....not the corporations....especially if they can find a way to charge the public for them. Privatized camps would be pretty cost effective. Ask the WWII German corporations like Krupp and IG-Farben.

And debtors prisons is a pretty gloomy outlook.

[Viet Minh]

In what sense would be labour camps be less cost-effective than prisons? Certainly, if the populace was in need of only very low security, as a debtors prison would, then it could be a very lucrative business indeed.

Worth noting, Hong Kong has long retained the old British system of debtor's prisons, and it's recently spread to the mainland. If the new face of capitalism is to be seen, as some have suggested, in the authoritarian state-capitalism flourishing in China and Singapore, then these institutions could very easily come with it.

In current conditions the US prison system, if it was privatised, would not be a profitable company. By forcing labour and reducing the conditions further then its feasible for them to make a profit, but why risk revolution when you can do exactly the same thing by outsourcing to third world countries, where there are a plethora of kids who will stitch your nike trainers till their fingers bleed? Sorry for emotive language there but you take my point. In this way its out of sight, out of mind, and even the working class servants of the state can carry on regardless, in blissful ignorance of the reality of the slavery of global capitalism.


Well..think about that...the public....not the corporations....especially if they can find a way to charge the public for them. Privatized camps would be pretty cost effective. Ask the WWII German corporations like Krupp and IG-Farben.

And debtors prisons is a pretty gloomy outlook.

Agreed but the Government is already charging the public to maximum capacity (excluding the rich, who are exempt of course) they just do some creative book-keeping via the 'war on terror' so nobody cares, except of course the oil companies who invested heavily in it. They are more interested in keeping the status quo, the last thing they need is an unruly populous, like if you're herding cows you don't wanna spook them too much or they stampede and cause too much damage. Sorry i probably sound like David Icke here, all I'm saying is the forced labour camps are a reality, to a very small extent in the west, but far more so in the third world.

[Tim Finnegan]

In current conditions the US prison system, if it was privatised, would not be a profitable company.
But... It already is. :confused:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

[Viet Minh]

But... It already is. :confused:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

Thanks for the link, some alarming information there! Sorry i didn't mean privatised, I meant if they were totally self-reliant. They recieve a certain amount of money from the state per prisoner, I'd imagine that accounts for the bulk of their income, but I'm not certain. I'm not justifying their slave labour in any way, just to be clear, if anything this backs up the point that they don't really need labour camps as such in the US, they're already there.

And imo the threat is not from China or Singapore, its already very much part of western society. The 12yr old coal miners, poor houses and magdalene asylums might be gone but the capitalist system is still in place, only its shifted to a global market.

[Le Libérer]

Americans are in more debt than ever before, and the banks are going to new extremes to squeeze us for every last penny. If you can't pay up, they'll try to get you locked up.

The Wall Street Journal has been investigating the disturbing resurgence of debtors' prisons throughout America -- here's one especially infuriating example of what the banks are up to, AIG got a $122.8 billion bailout from taxpayers, that's $4,000 per American. Jeffrey Stearns happened to owe AIG $4,000 on a loan for his pickup truck. How'd the mega-corporation handle his debt? Did they forgive him because of the public's recent largess? No way, They had him arrested.
Source. (http://posterous.brianbrown.net/debtors-prisons-in-texas-will-you-urge-texass)

Before this is over, many workers will wish the prison system we have right now is in place. Its about to get ugly And most of us are one paycheck away from bankrupcy.

[Le Libérer]

Speak of the devil himself, Jindal......
Source (http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2011/03/gov_bobby_jindals_prison_plan.html)
Gov. Bobby Jindal's prison plan gives Louisiana a reason to stay the worst: Jarvis DeBerry
Published: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 8:00 AM
By Jarvis DeBerry
In January, Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Louisiana's participation in a year-long study that aims to reduce the number of Louisianians going to prison. By partnering with the Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project, Jindal said, the state could make some much-needed and long overdue progress. "Clearly we must do a better job. We must address the effectiveness of our current corrections strategies," the governor said.

BRETT DUKE / THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
Gov. Bobby Jindal speaks at the Hilton New Orleans Airport hotel in Kenner January 21 as part of his "Building a Better Louisiana for Our Children'' tour.
The Pew Center pointed out in a 2008 report that the United States incarcerates more people than any other country -- even China. But if you move past the raw numbers and look at the incarceration rate, Louisiana, is the world leader. For every 100,000 adults, we've got 881 confined behind bars.
If that statistic embarrasses Jindal -- and, really, it ought to embarrass all of us -- his plan to sell three of the state's prisons to private companies makes no sense. No company's going to buy a prison without plans to keep it well stocked with humans.
Stated another way: Nobody who buys a prison as an investment property is going to cooperate with a plan to reduce Louisiana's world-leading incarceration rate. Adam Gelb, the Pew Center director leading Louisiana's year-long study, said in January that one in every 26 Louisiana adults is already in prison, on parole or probation. A prison operator won't care if that number ticks up to one in every 20 or even one in 15.

Still, Gov. Jindal insists that selling the prisons in Avoyelles, Winn and Allen parishes is necessary to help plug Louisiana's budget hole. We might be able to get $100 million in fast money. Critics are skeptical, though, that once Louisiana starts reimbursing the buyers for their costs that the deal will make financial sense.
Even if it did make financial sense, though, it's not the most moral path. We ought to be bothered by the number of people in Louisiana prisons for reasons that have nothing to do with how much it costs taxpayers to keep them there. We ought to be concerned because we recognize that incarcerations beget incarcerations. Parents who go to prison leave behind children who eventually follow them there. Some might want to blame genetics, but it's just as likely that seeing one's parent sent away -- even a parent with problems -- further destabilizes a child's household and contributes to their worsening behavior. Eighty-five percent of the state's incarcerated children have parents who've been to prison, a former appointee to the state's Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Advisory Board told me last month.

Violent men and women most certainly need to be sent away -- whether they have children or not -- but we've become a country that has greatly lowered the bar for prison admissions. Between 1987 and 2007, according to data from the Pew Center, the amount of people in American prisons almost tripled. There's no way Americans could have become three times more criminally inclined during that time. We did, however, become fascinated with mandatory sentences and multiple-offender statutes and other policies that sound like they'll keep good people safe.
Prison growth "is not driven primarily by a parallel increase in crime, or a corresponding surge in population at large," that 2008 Pew Center report says. "Rather, it flows principally from a wave of policy choices that are sending more lawbreakers to prison and, through popular 'three-strikes' measures and other sentencing enhancements, keeping them there longer."
Selling off prisons to profiteers would be the kind of policy that exacerbates Louisiana's incarceration problem when what we need is a sustained and committed effort to move us in the opposite direction. The governor has often made it a point to talk about the need to reduce the number of people who return to prison after being released and boasted of initiatives that he says have reduced recidivism. And given how often he touts his faith, one might have believed that the governor's heart was pricked by the social ramifications of mass incarcerations.
But Jindal's plan to sell off the prisons suggests that his prison policies are shaped by what he thinks will save us the most money now. Even if it means maintaining our status as the world's most eager incarcerator far into the future.

```
I'm going to split this thread.

[Le Libérer]

So, I was asked this earlier and would like to hear from you guys, "What will solve the problem of prison incarceration rates and budget concerns?"

Something that I agree with, Mandatory sentence reform. Louisiana was forced to do it for drug crimes in late 90s early 2000's. More education programs that require inmates to get GEDs and job skills before they get out and here's the kicker, Stop discriminating against those who have served sentences in the form of preventing people from work if they have committed felonies. (this is a quote from someone to whom I respect)

[PhoenixAsh]

Well..the current penal system is designed to increase inmate populations.

I argue this within the context en concept of the current state system:

Incarceration is done for several reasons:
1). Punishment / Vengeance
2). Prevention / Deterent
3). Rehabilitation

If society wants to lower the incarceration rates it should punish smarter and not harder. Harder rarely works. Its should also remove the mandatory sentencing. It should remove automatic sentencing and it should increase the amount of rehabilitation, education and prevention/rehab programs to prevent further recidivism.

Its not a bad thing is prisoners work. But they should have full pay for their work. Otherwise this is unfair competition with free workers and akin to slavery.

Once your free you should be free. I think society should recognize the social stigma after punishment and there should be avenues of work created for ex inmates.

[Viet Minh]

Well..the current penal system is designed to increase inmate populations.

I argue this within the context en concept of the current state system:

Incarceration is done for several reasons:
1). Punishment / Vengeance
2). Prevention / Deterent
3). Rehabilitation

If society wants to lower the incarceration rates it should punish smarter and not harder. Harder rarely works. Its should also remove the mandatory sentencing. It should remove automatic sentencing and it should increase the amount of rehabilitation, education and prevention/rehab programs to prevent further recidivism.

Its not a bad thing is prisoners work. But they should have full pay for their work. Otherwise this is unfair competition with free workers and akin to slavery.

Once your free you should be free. I think society should recognize the social stigma after punishment and there should be avenues of work created for ex inmates.

There are a lot of reasons I don't agree with prisoners working at all, mostly because it is far too open to abuse by greedy corporations. But whilst prisoners are incarcerated its an opportunity to educate and train people, I'm not meaning to sound patronising I just believe a lot of prisoners are there because they never had a fair chance to live a normal life, and being in jail makes it 100 times harder. So its vital to give prisoners the chance to be educated, trained and prepared for work with limited voluntary placements etc, possibly on the basis of guaranteed employment on release, which strengthens their chances of parole. Its also vital to integrate inmates, the prison authorities could possibly do more to prevent racial segregation and gang violence in jails.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know if society (at least American society) is all that interested in decreasing inmate populations. For some crimes such as possessing Marijuana if incarceration time is absurdly long--for no real reason than to keep certain people out of the general population.

A good deal of the prison population also has mental problems of some sort. It maybe in society's interest to keep them away from the general population, too.

For that matter it's almost impossible for former inmates to find a job once they are released, no matter how much they are actually rehabilitated. That leads to further recidivism.

Once a person is put in jail--he really never can get out.

[Tim Finnegan]

Thanks for the link, some alarming information there! Sorry i didn't mean privatised, I meant if they were totally self-reliant. They recieve a certain amount of money from the state per prisoner, I'd imagine that accounts for the bulk of their income, but I'm not certain. I'm not justifying their slave labour in any way, just to be clear, if anything this backs up the point that they don't really need labour camps as such in the US, they're already there.
That really depends on organisation. Minimum security prison camps engaged in semi-skilled production work... Can see that working.


And imo the threat is not from China or Singapore, its already very much part of western society. The 12yr old coal miners, poor houses and magdalene asylums might be gone but the capitalist system is still in place, only its shifted to a global market.
I don't mean to suggest that China or Singapore where in themselves threatening, but that they represent a very stable alternative to Western liberal capitalism, which is in on very shaky ground ideologically after the one-two punch of 9/11 and the financial crash.

[Dimentio]

The next step I imagine is a return to debt slavery.

[Dimentio]

I don't know if society (at least American society) is all that interested in decreasing inmate populations. For some crimes such as possessing Marijuana if incarceration time is absurdly long--for no real reason than to keep certain people out of the general population.

A good deal of the prison population also has mental problems of some sort. It maybe in society's interest to keep them away from the general population, too.

For that matter it's almost impossible for former inmates to find a job once they are released, no matter how much they are actually rehabilitated. That leads to further recidivism.

Once a person is put in jail--he really never can get out.

In Sweden, inmates in prison could study at universities through distance courses. The state also tend to close their files from the scrutiny of employers (except in the case of child molesters, schools always get the files on them). A lot of rehabilitated criminals could get jobs directly after they quit jail, as psychologists or doctors even.

From an "eye for an eye" perspective, that is seen as immoral, and I think most Swedes disapprove of that, but at the same time, it could serve to decrease the crime rate.

In Greenland, they don't even have prison sentences. People who've committed crimes are shunned by society and made to live as hermits for a few years. Then they come back and are accepted again.

[Amphictyonis]

Of course but they arent forced labor camps yet. They are filled with the poor, people of color, and homeless people. Its a huge business in the US. Soon though the climate will be where those imprisoned will be forced to work, now, its voluntary and only if the prisoner is approved.



It's a "privilege". Some are given early release only if they work as well. All in all the situation with American prisons has to do with capitalism's inability to provide full employment, lack of social programs for the unemployed and racism.

The old Malthus Vs. Marx debate.

[Viet Minh]

I don't know if society (at least American society) is all that interested in decreasing inmate populations. For some crimes such as possessing Marijuana if incarceration time is absurdly long--for no real reason than to keep certain people out of the general population.

A good deal of the prison population also has mental problems of some sort. It maybe in society's interest to keep them away from the general population, too.

For that matter it's almost impossible for former inmates to find a job once they are released, no matter how much they are actually rehabilitated. That leads to further recidivism.

Once a person is put in jail--he really never can get out.

A guy i knew warned me about one of his friends who was just coming out of jail, he said basically avoid him. The reason was he was institutionalised, he couldn't handle life on the outside so he committed ever more serious crimes to go straight back in. An interesting aspect is in (I'm really sorry I don't know the correct term) 'lunatic asylums' where even a relatively sane person, in the company of psychopaths, will develop strange erratic behaviour. Its a vicious circle is basically what I'm saying..


That really depends on organisation. Minimum security prison camps engaged in semi-skilled production work... Can see that working.

If its voluntary work, I see no problem with that, it can even be productive. But if its done for profit, or for the Government (especially making equipment for the army to go out and kill people) yeah thats wrong no question.


I don't mean to suggest that China or Singapore where in themselves threatening, but that they represent a very stable alternative to Western liberal capitalism, which is in on very shaky ground ideologically after the one-two punch of 9/11 and the financial crash.

I'm still convinced 9/11 was a coverup of the financial crash, they just did some creative book-keeping and delayed it for a while until they could acquire some oil. But unless there is another major crash, I think it is in their best interests to keep the status quo. Although I would love them to start their shit, so we can kick off the revolution, I just don't think its gonna happen anytime soon.


In Sweden, inmates in prison could study at universities through distance courses. The state also tend to close their files from the scrutiny of employers (except in the case of child molesters, schools always get the files on them). A lot of rehabilitated criminals could get jobs directly after they quit jail, as psychologists or doctors even.

From an "eye for an eye" perspective, that is seen as immoral, and I think most Swedes disapprove of that, but at the same time, it could serve to decrease the crime rate.

In Greenland, they don't even have prison sentences. People who've committed crimes are shunned by society and made to live as hermits for a few years. Then they come back and are accepted again.

Thats the system I favour, no incarceration, just exile. They use that same system in Judge Dredd, seems to work! :lol:

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm still convinced 9/11 was a coverup of the financial crash, they just did some creative book-keeping and delayed it for a while until they could acquire some oil. But unless there is another major crash, I think it is in their best interests to keep the status quo. Although I would love them to start their shit, so we can kick off the revolution, I just don't think its gonna happen anytime soon.
The bourgeois are by nature conservative, but that does not mean they are traditionalist; from the disciples of Burke to the tycoons bank-rolling Hitler, the focus has always been on maintaining fundamental systems of domination, not any particular incarnation of those systems. If it's more effective to impose state-capitalist authoritarianism than our current, relatively liberal set-up, then that's what they'll do. Our job, as radicals, is to render such ends ineffective.

[Bud Struggle]

What's really happening in the US is that a number of private prisoncorporations have been making the rounds of county and local governments selling them on the idea of building jails (with the counties holding the notes) and then bidding for contracts from the state and the federal government to house inmates. The inmates sould be a source of income for both the county governments and the private corporations.

The problem is that there are now too many jails and not enough inmates. The counties over built AND the number of people sentences to prison is declining for the first time in three decades. Leaving the county governments with unused jail facilities.

The corporations make out because all of their fees are front loaded--but there are lots of counties with empty prison facilities they are paying huge amounts of money on mortages.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Labour camps should be an option for criminals. So long as no profit is accumulated by their labour.

[Bud Struggle]

So long as no profit is accumulated by their labour.

Why would that matter?

[Viet Minh]

Labour camps should be an option for criminals. So long as no profit is accumulated by their labour.

If prisoners are given the same rights as other workers, including minimum wage, proper working conditions etc then I see no problem there. The only objection would be from conservatives saying criminals have forfeited their rights as citizens, which of course is bullshit because working is not a right its pretty much compulsory in a capitalist state.


Why would that matter?

Because prisoners are not free to choose from the same variety of jobs available to non-prisoners. They may also be under additional pressure to work, to support family outside for example, or even just to alleviate boredom. Thus they are even more vulnerable than the normal workforce, which is why they are at the moment basically just cheap labor.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Why would that matter?

Because making prisoners slaves, as opposed to making them work as a punishment is not okay.

[Bud Struggle]

Because making prisoners slaves, as opposed to making them work as a punishment is not okay.

True.

But all workers in our Bourgeoiseie society are slaves.

[Bud Struggle]

Because prisoners are not free to choose from the same variety of jobs available to non-prisoners. They may also be under additional pressure to work, to support family outside for example, or even just to alleviate boredom. Thus they are even more vulnerable than the normal workforce, which is why they are at the moment basically just cheap labor.

But they are criminals. You give up certain rights when you commit a crime and are judged guilty by a jury of your equals.

[Tim Finnegan]

You give up certain rights when you commit a crime...
No, the bourgeoisie strips of you what liberties they had thus far condescended to grant you. Fundamental difference.

[Bud Struggle]

No, the bourgeoisie strips of you what liberties they had thus far condescended to grant you. Fundamental difference.

No. The voters have the ability to grant or restrict any liberty to inmates as they wish. It is no matter of the Bourgeosie if they choose not to use those rights.

If the Capitalists take advantage of the Proletariat--it is no ones fault but the Proletariats.

[Tim Finnegan]

No. The voters have the ability to grant or restrict any liberty to inmates as they wish. It is no matter of the Bourgeosie if they choose not to use those rights.
Since when did "the voters" decide on how the prisons are run? :confused:


If the Capitalists take advantage of the Proletariat--it is no ones fault but the Proletariats.And thus, I can only presumably, it is nobody's fault but the capitalists when the noose is finally dropped around their neck?

[Revolution starts with U]

When some jergoff feeds your daughter date rape... Ill just have to say "its no one's fault but your daughters."

That's a disgusting philosophy you got there Bud..... but I guess when it's not you it's much easier to just blame the victim and be done with it.

[Bud Struggle]

When some jergoff feeds your daughter date rape... Ill just have to say "its no one's fault but your daughters."

That's a disgusting philosophy you got there Bud..... but I guess when it's not you it's much easier to just blame the victim and be done with it.

No one's drugging the Proletariat. You are on one being condesending to them. I'm treating them as if they are grown adults that have the right to choose their own destiny. You think they are pawns.

I don't agree but I respect their choices.

[Bud Struggle]

Since when did "the voters" decide on how the prisons are run? :confused: They can when ever they want to.


And thus, I can only presumably, it is nobody's fault but the capitalists when the noose is finally dropped around their neck? And if that day ever comes---yes.

People have to take responsibility for their own lives.

[Tim Finnegan]

They can when ever they want to.
Do you really think that selecting from a limited range of professional politicians offered up by a political clique as candidates for participation in the organising of political power entirely separately form the masses counts as a form of meaningfully direct democracy? :confused:

[Bud Struggle]

Do you really think that selecting from a limited range of professional politicians offered up by a political clique as candidates for participation in the organising of political power entirely separately form the masses counts as a form of meaningfully direct democracy? :confused:

That's the way things are because voters, Proletarian voters, are apothetic. The system--the SYSTEM is by far set up in their favor. They just fail to use the system to their full advantage. They are adults. They are reasonably educated--the fault is theirs if they don't take full advantage of the system in place. And you certainly can blame others if they fill the vacuum created by a non interested Proletariat.

The Proletariat doesn't need a Revolution. All they need to do is vote.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's the way things are because voters, Proletarian voters, are apothetic. The system--the SYSTEM is by far set up in their favor. They just fail to use the system to their full advantage. They are adults. They are reasonably educated--the fault is theirs if they don't take full advantage of the system in place.
In what sense was our current system of private property "set up" in favour of a class defined by their lack of private property? This strikes me as something similar to argue that the peasantry were the real beneficiaries of feudalism...


And you certainly can blame others if they fill the vacuum created by a non interested Proletariat.
If they consciously cultivate proletarian apathy, then, yes, even under your far-fetched model I certainly can.


The Proletariat doesn't need a Revolution. All they need to do is vote.Because that worked so well in Chile, eh? :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

In what sense was our current system of private property "set up" in favour of a class defined by their lack of private property? This strikes me as something similar to argue that the peasantry were the real beneficiaries of feudalism... Anyone can vote. Property can't vote. Odd metaphores not withstanding.


If they consciously cultivate proletarian apathy, then, yes, even under your far-fetched model I certainly can. yes it would be wonderful if everyone played fair. But they don't. I guess as adults we just will have to make do.


Because that worked so well in Chile, eh? :rolleyes: That's reaching back aways.

[Revolution starts with U]

The question of whether the powers that be are actively drugging the general population isn't so cut and dry Bud. Not even mentioning the illegal drugs, you have all the stuff out there touted by supposed experts that is nothing more than apathy in pill form....



Anyone can vote. Property can't vote. Odd metaphores not withstanding.


Felons can't vote.
And being able to influence the representatives (is there any greater influence than money?) that are voted for has far more consequences than actual voting...


yes it would be wonderful if everyone played fair. But they don't. I guess as adults we just will have to make do.

Or you take an unruly child by the scruff, smack him on the hands, and send him to his room as punishment... or whatever it is that you do. You certainly don't let it go and then tell the other children "oh well, you will just have to make do."

That's reaching back aways.
Oh how the non-left tries to annex OUR achievements, always claiming the way things are now for how they always were or always will be.
Is-ought problem, look it up.

[Tim Finnegan]

Anyone can vote. Property can't vote. Odd metaphores not withstanding.
Who do you think controls the media? Who do you think funds the political campaigns? Who do you think pays the corporate lobbyists? It certainly isn't the average voter, that's for damn sure.


yes it would be wonderful if everyone played fair. But they don't. I guess as adults we just will have to make do.
"Making do" is for over-grown children. Adults? Real adults? They fix things.


That's reaching back aways.
And in what manner has the world been fundamentally altered since?

[Le Libérer]

Anyone can vote. Property can't vote. Odd metaphores not withstanding.
No not everyone CAN vote. Our present judicial system disenfranchises a large population, men of color. The right to vote, to freely travel, to obtain an education, to gain meaningful employment, are more harshly punished than whites who committed the same crimes. Not to include gerrymandering of districts to give one political party an electoral majority or off balancing the districts to give white people the voting advantage.

In Louisiana, its a given and no one even bothers to hide it. Right now my state congressman who happens to be a man of color, has brought forth a bill to re-district and divide certain parts of the state to add additional districts so there will be a black majority as well as a need to elect another representative.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, the bourgeoisie strips of you what liberties they had thus far condescended to grant you. Fundamental difference.


No. The voters have the ability to grant or restrict any liberty to inmates as they wish. It is no matter of the Bourgeosie if they choose not to use those rights.

If the Capitalists take advantage of the Proletariat--it is no ones fault but the Proletariats.


No one's drugging the Proletariat. You are on one being condesending to them. I'm treating them as if they are grown adults that have the right to choose their own destiny. You think they are pawns.

I don't agree but I respect their choices.

I don't think it's a matter of adults vs. young children. Political literacy is generally around the level of a horny teenager on his way to maturity.