labor camps

[billydan]

would we have labor camps in a socialist state?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Probably, but not the evil concentration camp thing that people think of when you say 'labour camp'. Why not use prisoners for labour? Also, don't prisoners already do some labour in prisons?

[d3crypt]

Probably, but not the evil concentration camp thing that people think of when you say 'labor camp'. Why not use prisoners for labor? Also, don't prisoners already do some labor in prisons?

I feel like they would turn into gulags :(

[Fourth Internationalist]

I feel like they would turn into gulags :(

Not if it's run by society as a whole. Any sort of prison could become some terrible gulag, labor camp or not.

[Skyhilist]

Prisons nor labor camps should be neccesary under socialism. Take away the incentive for crime an punish the rare crimes that still occur either with social isolation or as mental issues depending on their nature. I've yet to hear any valid justification for labor camps.

[Petrol Bomb]

Prisons nor labor camps should be neccesary under socialism. Take away the incentive for crime an punish the rare crimes that still occur either with social isolation or as mental issues depending on their nature. I've yet to hear any valid justification for labor camps.

Social isolation? That seems pretty harsh. Unless you mean rehabilitation centers, which would be fine. I'm not too sure on what Socialist society would look like or shape into. It would be up to the people if it is a real Socialist society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Prisons nor labor camps should be neccesary under socialism. Take away the incentive for crime an punish the rare crimes that still occur either with social isolation or as mental issues depending on their nature. I've yet to hear any valid justification for labor camps.

That social isolation will be what we call prison. Labor camps are just prisons where prisoners are made productive to society, but I could see how they could become gulags with an authoritarian, non-socialist government ie the USSR.

[Igor]

Probably, but not the evil concentration camp thing that people think of when you say 'labor camp'. Why not use prisoners for labor? Also, don't prisoners already do some labor in prisons?


i think you're a bit off the tracks if you want to take any kind of example from the current prison system, mate

"labour camp" has pretty strong connotations of forced labour and that's pretty vile and dehumanising even in a post-revolutionary society. the point of imprisonment should be rehabilitation and ensuring the safety of everyone and as we overall shouldn't be forcing people to work, we shouldn't force prisoners to work because that honestly bears no relevance whatsoever to the process.

it's not a labour camp if it just a place where willing people work, it's a workplace.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Point taken. I retract my support for labour camps.

EDIT: My support for labour camps did not refer to USSR labour camps and gulags.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What? Support for fucking labour-camps?

I thought we were for socialism, not right-opposition forced-collectivisation USSR.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"labour camp" has pretty strong connotations of forced labour and that's pretty vile and dehumanising even in a post-revolutionary society. the point of imprisonment should be rehabilitation and ensuring the safety of everyone and as we overall shouldn't be forcing people to work, we shouldn't force prisoners to work because that honestly bears no relevance whatsoever to the process.


What if laboring for society is a part of rehabilitation? Many indigenous communities and small towns with a minimal state require labor from people to rehabilitate them into society. As much as anything else such practices allow for forgiveness.

The bad thing about both a prison and what most people think of when they read "labor camp" is the relative institutionalization and isolation from outside society, which means that (1) the public at large is oblivious to the kind of treatment of the people imprisoned (2) the people imprisoned are equally alienated from the victims of their anti-social behavior as well as everyone else, and (3) there is an institutional power which has a political and economic interest in pushing for harsher conditions and greater levels of incarceration.

[MarxArchist]

Probably, but not the evil concentration camp thing that people think of when you say 'labor camp'. Why not use prisoners for labor? Also, don't prisoners already do some labor in prisons?

Jesus Christ. How about no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

[Skyhilist]

Social isolation was a bad word choice. I don't mean like solitary confinement and they can't talk to humanity. I mean like suppose if you commit a certain crime your access to certain resources like say the Internet might be cut or something like that or if you did something worse you'd be temporary exiled from certain aspects of the community or something like that. I don't know why I chose to use the word social isolation honestly, it was a poor decision.

But anyways without the incentive for the vast majority of crimes I don't see this as a huge issue.

[billydan]

What? Support for fucking labour-camps?

I thought we were for socialism, not right-opposition forced-collectivisation USSR.

who said i supported labor camps?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't think he was talking to you...

[billydan]

i fell like such a dick

[Fourth Internationalist]

Just delete your posts no one will see :)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

who said i supported labor camps?

I wasn't responding to you, Billy. Someone else in the thread had expressed support for them. What you asked is a perfectly reasonable question.

[CatsAttack]

Non-working class social layers should be sent to labour camps to learn, understand, and appreciate the value of labour. Only then will they be able to re-enter the society of the working-man, a society of, by and for the workng-man.

[Brutus]

What will we do with counter revolutionaries, then? Execute them? Why can't they be of use to society? A corpse is good to no one.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I retract my retraction partially. Use labour camps during the revolution. I don't support the death penalty, so there will be tons of prisoners and they should be useful. Good conditions as well.

[Bostana]

I'm personally against labor camps. Using prisoners for labor can easily turn tyrannical

[B5C]

Labour camps and prison labour is just another form of legalized slavery.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Labour camps and prison labour is just another form of legalized slavery.

I have no problem imprisoning those who fight against the working people. It's better than the death penalty, which I fully abhor. Prisons will keep them under control ie from further supporting counter-revolutionaries. It doesn't mean there should be horrible conditions, and we can let them out after their sentence.

[Brutus]

What about Kolchak? Would you sent him to a labour camp, or would you place him in front of a firing squad?

Living people need food, water, space, etcetera. Or we could follow the actions of the jacobins and save ourselves the trouble, only needing to occasionally sharpen the blade.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Is that question to me?

And that's why the Jacobins aren't a good example for leftists. Too many innocent people died.

[Skyhilist]

What about Kolchak? Would you sent him to a labour camp, or would you place him in front of a firing squad?

Living people need food, water, space, etcetera. Or we could follow the actions of the jacobins and save ourselves the trouble, only needing to occasionally sharpen the blade.

If they're a counter-revolutionary don't force socialism on them but don't allow them to reap the benefits of socialism either. Suppose they don't want to work in a worker-owned factory. Fine, whatever, then they don't get access to the goods that those factories produce.

Granted, they should still have basic resources like clean water, housing and clothing. Those things are basic human rights, not privileges.

During the Spanish revolution, 30% chose not to collectivize, and they allowed to. It did no harm to the revolution really, in fact it helped in that those who didn't collectivize were generally worse off, which made the superiority of socialism even more obvious. Imagine if they'd forced them to collectivize and placed people who didn't listen into labor camps. They'd have been defeated even more quickly because then they'd have to worry about fighting both fascists and homegrown counterrevolutionaries.

if counterrevolutionaries are actively fighting revolutionaries and are captured then they should be exiled, banished, or whatever is fit -- "using" them for forced labor, however, is dehumanizing and counterproductive.

Communists are supposed to be against the commodification of labor. That includes everyone's labor. The mentality that "we need things done, lets use these people do get things done" is therefore counterproductive towards this goal because it reduces people, as capitalism does, to mere objects by which labor can be completed. Labor camps thereby only perpetuate the commodification of labor.

[Fourth Internationalist]

if counterrevolutionaries are actively fighting revolutionaries and are captured then they should be exiled, banished, or whatever is fit -- "using" them for forced labor, however, is dehumanizing and counterproductive.

But then, if it's a civil war, they can just enter into counter revolutionary zones and continue the fight against us. Labour prisons, with good conditions, will keep them from attacks against us.

[Skyhilist]

You can topple a leader or imprison them but you've done nothing if you haven't toppled their ideology to begin with. Did the murder of trotsky make it so that there are no Troskyists? Did the death of Hitler make it so that there are no neo-nazis? Did the death of Thatcher eliminate neo-liberalism?

We must win over the majority of the proletariat before revolution is possible. If we can do that, then a counterrevolutionary leader alone is going to defeat us if we have enough international support. We shall fight his/her armies and exile him/her from our revolution. But imprisonment and forced labor do nothing to topple ideology and will be largely unsuccessful in actually furthering revolution. Forced labor and imprisonment should be seen as unacceptable for revolutionaries. Capitalism necessitates prisons; we shouldn't do the same.

[Skyhilist]

But then, if it's a civil war, they can just enter into counter revolutionary zones and continue the fight against us. Labour prisons, with good conditions, will keep them from attacks against us.

Disarm them, use their weapons as our own. Banish them far away from any counterrevolutionary forces. If they are physically attacking then we must physically fight back. Commodifying their labor does nothing to topple their flawed ideologies though and is useless. You've probably noticed that people can make more people; there will therefore always be more counterrevolutionaries to replace the ones that we imprison if we choose to take this approach, which takes away from how people will view socialism's potential by contradicting its goal of eliminating commodified labor.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You can topple a leader or imprison them but you've done nothing if you haven't toppled their ideology to begin with. Did the murder of trotsky make it so that there are no Troskyists? Did the death of Hitler make it so that there are no neo-nazis? Did the death of Thatcher eliminate neo-liberalism?

No one expects imprisonment to end an ideology. But simply letting people go is a horrible battle strategy.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Disarm them, use their weapons as our own. Banish them far away from any counterrevolutionary forces.

We're in the modern world, they can get almost anywhere within a day.


If they are physically attacking then we must physically fight back. Commodifying their labor does nothing to topple their flawed ideologies though and is useless. It puts them to use. EDIT: The point of the revolution is not to convince counter revolutionaries we're right. 99/100 times, trying to convince someone who was in battle against you that you're right will not help in the slightest.


You've probably noticed that people can make more people; there will therefore always be more counterrevolutionaries to replace the ones that we imprison if we choose to take this approach,Taking away counter revolutionaries does add up, they don't just pop up every time one is gone.

[Brutus]

We could disarm them and let them be, but they would just rejoin the fight. Or we could capture them and put them to work, or just put a few rounds in them.

[Skyhilist]

No one expects imprisonment to end an ideology. But simply letting people go is a horrible battle strategy.

Imprisonment only strengthens these ideologies actually because it makes it even easier for bourgeois historians and politicians as well as anyone in the public who is counterrevolutionary to rationize their viewpoints more easily (e.g. "Just look what they're probably doing to my brother now, they need to be fought head on!")

The amount of counterrevolutionaries killed in battle will likely far exceed the number that would be taken as prisoners in other situations under your proposal. If you've got an uprising led by some domineering M-L party then imprisoning people for their counterrevolutipnary ideas/actions might well be the only way to prevent losing. If the class conscious majority that is needed for a successful revolution is actually present, however, then it should make no major difference in terms of "military strategies" or whatever.

[Skyhilist]

We're in the modern world, they can get almost anywhere within a day.

Maybe if every counterrevolutionary was a millionaire sure. I don't see any problem though with say, giving them a large island and saying "practice the government you want here but if you attempt to engage us in battle again, we may kill you". If they just hold reactionary beliefs and don't act on them then there is even less justification for prisons.


It puts them to use. EDIT: The point of the revolution is not to convince counter revolutionaries we're right. 99/100 times, trying to convince someone who was in battle against you that you're right will not help in the slightest.

Taking away counter revolutionaries does add up, they don't just pop up every time one is gone.

They will continue to persist if their ideology is not wiped out by example of socialism's superiority. I'm not suggesting we convince people fighting us of our viewpoints. I'm saying we shouldn't make it easy for future generations to rationalize taking up the reactionary viewpoints that their parents have.

[Skyhilist]

Also "it puts them to us" = "their labor is a commodity" essentially. Counterproductive to our goals.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Imprisonment only strengthens these ideologies actually because it makes it even easier for bourgeois historians and politicians as well as anyone in the public who is counterrevolutionary to rationize their viewpoints more easily (e.g. "Just look what they're probably doing to my brother now, they need to be fought head on!")

Imprisonment is to be expected. Really, no one will find that a surprise.


Maybe if every counterrevolutionary was a millionaire sure. I don't see any problem though with say, giving them a large island and saying "practice the government you want here but if you attempt to engage us in battle again, we may kill you". If they just hold reactionary beliefs and don't act on them then there is even less justification for prisons.

The idea of putting people on a deserted island is childish. And I don't want to put those who merely speak in jail but those who are taken as prisoners in battle.


They will continue to persist if their ideology is not wiped out by example of socialism's superiority. I'm not suggesting we convince people fighting us of our viewpoints. I'm saying we shouldn't make it easy for future generations to rationalize taking up the reactionary viewpoints that their parents have.

"Look! They had prisons!" I don't imagine that as a very long lasting argument against socialism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

or just put a few rounds in them.

NO!

[Brutus]

Ideologies can be wiped out in one or two generations. The education system is essentially an indoctrination machine.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Ideologies can be wiped out in one or two generations. The education system is essentially an indoctrination machine.

Are you suggesting we indoctrinate people? (I hope not)

[Brutus]

NO!


We're fighting capitalism, a system under which 10 million people for a year, but when someone who upholds such a system and has killed your comrades is about to be executed you still hold on the the ecclesiastical view that human life is sacred?

[Brutus]

Are you suggesting we indoctrinate people? (I hope not)

No, I'm just responding to skybutton's statement that we can't destroy an ideology.

[Fourth Internationalist]

We're fighting capitalism, a system under which 10 million people for a year, but when someone who upholds such a system and has killed your comrades is about to be executed you still hold on the the ecclesiastical view that human life is sacred?

They are more useful alive then dead. The death penalty is a barbaric tradition, one that socialists should not uphold.

[Skyhilist]

Imprisonment is to be expected. Really, no one will find that a surprise.

The existence of prisons alone (no matter how "ethical" they are) gives reactionaries the opportunity to exaggerate them and their effects (similarly to how they do now with claims like "communism killed 100 million").


The idea of putting people on a deserted island is childish. And I don't want to put those who merely speak in jail but those who are taken as prisoners in battle.

Lol I never said deserted island was the be all end all of solutions. It was just an example I thought of, I'm sure with the brainpower of all revolutionaries combined we can think of a better alrenative to prisons (which usually become dehumanizing regardless of their intentions)


"Look! They had prisons!" I don't imagine that as a very long lasting argument against socialism.

That's not what they will do. They will exaggerate what the prisons are like and preach it in any social studies class that isn't in an area that hasn't undergone revolution. They're going to try to pull shit like this anyways, this just makes it easier for them.

[Skyhilist]

No, I'm just responding to skybutton's statement that we can't destroy an ideology.

I didn't say we can't, I said that the existence of prisons and labor camps make it harder.

[Brutus]

They are more useful alive then dead. The death penalty is a barbaric tradition, one that socialists should not uphold.

Your first point is true. Your second is so true, under normal circumstances. In a revolution/civil war we can not be magnanimous toward our enemies.

[Skyhilist]

Also no one has addressed the fact that "using" prisoners to do stuff for us is commodifying their labor, which is exactly what we're supposed to be against.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

As long as they're not too brutal and the prisoners have decent living conditions, I don't have a problem with labour camps.

If we're going to have prisoners, why have them just sit around and do nothing all day when they could be doing something productive?

[Fourth Internationalist]

The existence of prisons alone (no matter how "ethical" they are) gives reactionaries the opportunity to exaggerate them and their effects (similarly to how they do now with claims like "communism killed 100 million").

Except Stalin's Russia didn't have ethical prisons like I advocate and the bad we hear is not inaccurate, except for occasional exaggerations. They can't pull off the same stuff with an ethical prison system as with a gulag system.


Lol I never said deserted island was the be all end all of solutions. It was just an example I thought of, I'm sure with the brainpower of all revolutionaries combined we can think of a better alrenative to prisons (which usually become dehumanizing regardless of their intentions)

How are deserted islands not prisons?


That's not what they will do. They will exaggerate what the prisons are like and preach it in any social studies class that isn't in an area that hasn't undergone revolution. They're going to try to pull shit like this anyways, this just makes it easier for them.

They will lie about everything. We can't counter-act these lies. Lies are lies. If we don't lock up prisoners, we either have to kill them or let them go. Both of those options are worse than locking them in an ethical prison.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Your first point is true. Your second is so true, under normal circumstances. In a revolution/civil war we can not be magnanimous toward our enemies.

In the middle of battle, I have no problem. But after, there is no reason to, unless there is like no food or something. In that case, eat them for all I care, though that's a bit weird...

[Brutus]

Their labour wouldn't have an exchange value, would it? I'm very sorry, I've read little of Capital. I've got the beginners guide recently, so I'll reply to your point soon.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wow, a shitloads of humanity in this thread.

Are you guys planning to keep these gulag plans secret from 'the people', until your party comes to power so you can impose them 'on behalf of the people'?

This is bullshit. The developed world has a justice system that - although ridiculously illegitimate from the working person's perspective - is light years ahead of the gulag/prison camps of some countries of the past. To even ask whether we should go back to that system betrays a political philosophy stuck in the past - in the cold war past.

[Brutus]

So...you're vehemently opposed to the death sentence, but ok with cannibalism?

[Brutus]

The boss makes a good point. The people should decide what will happen to counter revolutionaries.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So...you're vehemently opposed to the death sentence, but ok with cannibalism?

If I was starving to death, I think I would kill anyone and eat them myself despite being against the death penalty and being vegan. I would hope I wouldn't, but then again, I have never been in a famine before.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Wow, a shitloads of humanity in this thread.

Are you guys planning to keep these gulag plans secret from 'the people', until your party comes to power so you can impose them 'on behalf of the people'?

This is bullshit. The developed world has a justice system that - although ridiculously illegitimate from the working person's perspective - is light years ahead of the gulag/prison camps of some countries of the past. To even ask whether we should go back to that system betrays a political philosophy stuck in the past - in the cold war past.

Gulags are different from labor camps with ethical practices. They're essentially just prisons with labour, and prisons with labour don't get rid of the justice system. Don't most prisons nowadays already have prisoners do some labour?

[Skyhilist]

Except Stalin's Russia didn't have ethical prisons like I advocate and the bad we hear is not inaccurate, except for occasional exaggerations. They can't pull off the same stuff with an ethical prison system as with a gulag system.

This has nothing to do with "Stalin's Russia". You obviously go to a different school than I do though because I've heard a fuckton of false shit about communism in social studies class over the years.


How are deserted islands not prisons?

First off my original statement didnt have the word "deserted" in it. Second of all, they wouldn't have to stay there. Many would choose to though because it would give them an outlet to pursue their reactionary political goals. And again it shouldn't matter if they don't choose to stay there because a class conscious majority will still be able to defeat them in battle without taking them as captives and subjective them to what will likely become dehumanizing conditions (even if that was t the intention).


They will lie about everything.
you just contradicted yourself from when you said they wont make shit up in social studies class.


We can't counter-act these lies. Lies are lies. If we don't lock up prisoners, we either have to kill them or let them go. Both of those options are worse than locking them in an ethical prison.

The first part is exactly my point. If they lie about everything why give them more firepower?
And tossing enemies out (granted they may reorganize) is not worse than subjecting them to prisons and especially labor camps, which are INHERENTLY dehumanizing. If they reorganize, so what? Any successful revolution wi have the majority of the working class on its side. The odds are strongly against them anyways.

[Fourth Internationalist]

This has nothing to do with "Stalin's Russia". You obviously go to a different school than I do though because I've heard a fuckton of false shit about communism in social studies class over the years.


That and Mao's China are where they get the 100 million number from. In a future revolution, they can't go on claiming that a second time even if it's an exaggeration.



First off my original statement didnt have the word "deserted" in it. Second of all, they wouldn't have to stay there. Many would choose to though because it would give them an outlet to pursue their reactionary political goals. And again it shouldn't matter if they don't choose to stay there because a class conscious majority will still be able to defeat them in battle without taking them as captives and subjective them to what will likely become dehumanizing conditions (even if that was t the intention).

"Lol I never said deserted island was the be all end all of solutions. It was just an example I thought of,"


you just contradicted yourself from when you said they wont make shit up in social studies class.

I didn't say they won't. They just won't make up stuff based off whether or not people keep prisoners or not. When I hear people criticise one side of a war, it's not "Oh they had prisons for their enemies. How aweful."


The first part is exactly my point. If they lie about everything why give them more firepower?

Because it's not more firepower.


And tossing enemies out (granted they may reorganize) is not worse than subjecting them to prisons and especially labor camps, which are INHERENTLY dehumanizing.

Prisons aren't meant to be humanizing or dehumanizing, they're meant to keep enemies from rejoining the fight.


If they reorganize, so what? Any successful revolution wi have the majority of the working class on its side. The odds are strongly against them anyways.

I am glad you aren't going to be a general or something in the revolution.

[Skyhilist]

Their labour wouldn't have an exchange value, would it? I'm very sorry, I've read little of Capital. I've got the beginners guide recently, so I'll reply to your point soon.

It doesn't neccesarily have to have a monetary value. If it's treated anything like. Product rather than a service than it is still being commodified. Labor camps produce the notion among those in charge of them that more will be done if more prisoners are taken, which a) treats people like machines used to "get things done" and b) encourages a prison industrial complex

[Fourth Internationalist]

It doesn't neccesarily have to have a monetary value. If it's treated anything like. Product rather than a service than it is still being commodified. Labor camps produce the notion among those in charge of them that more will be done if more prisoners are taken, which a) treats people like machines used to "get things done" and b) encourages a prison industrial complex

It's either that or kill them. You can't just let people go willy nilly.

[Skyhilist]

That and Mao's China are where they get the 100 million number from. In a future revolution, they can't go on claiming that a second time even if it's an exaggeration.

Except it wasn't anywhere near a hundred million and they didn't die from "communism". The people writing the curriculums just made that shit up.


"Lol I never said deserted island was the be all end all of solutions. It was just an example I thought of,"

Except this wasn't my original suggestion, it was a response to you implying that I thought "deserted islands" (your words in your response, not mine I my original post) were the best idea imagineable. That was a pretty tribal rebuttal on your part though tbh.


I didn't say they won't. They just won't make up stuff based off whether or not people keep prisoners or not.

Actually you did say they won't just make shit up. "The bad we hear [about communism in schools] is not inaccurate, except for occasional exaggerations."


When I hear people criticise one side of a war, it's not "Oh they had prisons for their enemies. How aweful."

Yeah and that's not what they'll do in the future either. They'll make shit up about the prisons and use it to easily demonize us instead. Prisons thereby give them more firepower with things like the media and schools.


Because it's not more firepower.

If they can easily lie about prisons (e.g. plant a guard there, treat prisoners like shit, record it) and use those lies to turn/keep the public against socialism, how is it not more firepower?


Prisons aren't meant to be humanizing or dehumanizing, they're meant to keep enemies from rejoining the fight.

It's not about what they are meant to be, it's about what they become. Since you propose prisons the burden of proof is on you to prove that they will not become dehumanizing.


I am glad you aren't going to be a general or something in the revolution.

Cute ad hominem there.

[Skyhilist]

It's either that or kill them. You can't just let people go willy nilly.

The part of my statement that you bolded makes no sense. There are no viable options besides convincing people to arrest as many people as possible to "get more things done"? Because that's what I was referring to. If you use prisons in order to produce things for society, people in charge of those prisons are going to associate more prisoners with more things for them in society. Prisoners will be take. By arbitrary reasons just as in any prison industrial complex.

[Skyhilist]

At this point I feel this argument has become useless. Prisons are inherently dehumanizing, exploitative, and contrary to what the goals of socialism are. Add in labor camps and they also commodify human beings and reduce them to mere products that create more products. Any possible benefits that might come from prisons and labor camps under socialism are small compared to the major problems associated with them. Alternatives (excluding killing) should therefore always be pursued instead even if they somehow present strategical obstacles.

That is my position and I am sticking to it.

I'm done posting in this thread as it has become counterproductive.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Except it wasn't anywhere near a hundred million and they didn't die from "communism". The people writing the curriculums just made that shit up.


I know that and I agree fully.


Except this wasn't my original suggestion, it was a response to you implying that I thought "deserted islands" (your words in your response, not mine I my original post) were the best idea imagineable. That was a pretty tribal rebuttal on your part though tbh.

So then what type of isolated place would you like? Why did you not object until after you seemed to accept the deserted island as a suggestion?


Actually you did say they won't just make shit up. "The bad we hear [about communism in schools] is not inaccurate, except for occasional exaggerations."

Why on earth did you add "[about communism in schools]"? You totally changed the whole meaning of my post.


Yeah and that's not what they'll do in the future either. They'll make shit up about the prisons and use it to easily demonize us instead. Prisons thereby give them more firepower with things like the media and schools.

Yes, whereas banishing people will be taken much more lightly and cheerfully.



If they can easily lie about prisons (e.g. plant a guard there, treat prisoners like shit, record it) and use those lies to turn/keep the public against socialism, how is it not more firepower?

A single event will not change the whole course of a revolution. Besides as you said, the working class will already be mostly on our side. Also, what will you do in the meantime before banishing or killing your enemies? You will hold them as prisoners. Hence, there will be prisons.




It's not about what they are meant to be, it's about what they become. Since you propose prisons the burden of proof is on you to prove that they will not become dehumanizing.

I have to prove how something will not have something? I can't prove a negative, nor can I tell you the future.


Cute ad hominem there.

Your idea that we should let people go is stupid because it will let them reorganise, thus I hope you are not a general in a revolution.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The part of my statement that you bolded makes no sense. There are no viable options besides convincing people to arrest as many people as possible to "get more things done"? Because that's what I was referring to. If you use prisons in order to produce things for society, people in charge of those prisons are going to associate more prisoners with more things for them in society. Prisoners will be take. By arbitrary reasons just as in any prison industrial complex.

I don't think prisons will be a major place of production. I would imagine it's just like how prisons have labour now and for military supplies.

[Fourth Internationalist]

At this point I feel this argument has become useless. Prisons are inherently dehumanizing, exploitative, and contrary to what the goals of socialism are. Add in labor camps and they also commodify human beings and reduce them to mere products that create more products. Any possible benefits that might come from prisons and labor camps under socialism are small compared to the major problems associated with them. Alternatives (excluding killing) should therefore always be pursued instead even if they somehow present strategical obstacles.

That is my position and I am sticking to it.

I'm done posting in this thread as it has become counterproductive.

I do not advocate for prisons with labour under socialism but instead during a revolutionary period and civil war.

[subcp]

A 'world where workers control everything' sounds like a technocratic dystopia where everyone is immiserated and poor (in all senses of the word). Particularly if massive labor camps for everyone not up to some standard of pure prole dot the global landscape. How many generations have to suffer in slavery because their great-great granddaddy owned a hardware store or was a member of a counter-revolutionary group before or during the revolution? The North Korean regime seems to think you can't get rid of these petit-bourgeois or anti-regime genes; so the entire line must be, generation after generation, kept locked up and toiling for the majority of a 24 hour day to atone for this massive crime against 'the workers' (if not liquidated).

Self-defense against counter-revolution is often violent. But the point has to be liberating humanity, not just brutalizing anyone and everyone who wasn't a blue collar worker under capitalism. Mixing up means (working-class agency), with ends (a supposed world of workers who like being workers instead of the 'human community' of Marx) is a mistake.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Gulags are different from labor camps with ethical practices. They're essentially just prisons with labour, and prisons with labour don't get rid of the justice system. Don't most prisons nowadays already have prisoners do some labour?

Most prisons do have prisoners do some labour, but generally of the rehabilitative kind - education, gaining skills in the kitchens etc., short courses etc.

By definition, talking of 'labour camps' is different to the sort of rehabilitative labour that is done in some developed world prisons now. If you meant a prison, you'd have said 'prison'. By talking of 'labour camps', you are quite clearly announcing your intentions to institute a penal/justice system that is there to force labour, not rehabilitate.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Most prisons do have prisoners do some labour, but generally of the rehabilitative kind - education, gaining skills in the kitchens etc., short courses etc.

By definition, talking of 'labour camps' is different to the sort of rehabilitative labour that is done in some developed world prisons now. If you meant a prison, you'd have said 'prison'. By talking of 'labour camps', you are quite clearly announcing your intentions to institute a penal/justice system that is there to force labour, not rehabilitate.

How do you rehabilitate POWs?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How do you rehabilitate POWs?

How do you create a prisoner of war?

[Fourth Internationalist]

How do you create a prisoner of war?


I don't understand.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't understand.

Prisoner of war - to have POWs you need a war in the first place. A war, in my book, is something quite apart from a political revolution. Normally civil wars come from a division of the populace, something which is quite difficult if the revolution is one with a genuinely working-class character, since workers make up so much of the population, if a revolution is truly by the working class, there's little the bourgeoisie would be able to do to stop it, in terms of physical force.

[d3crypt]

I do not advocate for prisons with labour under socialism but instead during a revolutionary period and civil war.
I think that if we are to have prisons with labor in a revolutionary period, they would have to have the conditions documented, that way they can't exaggerate it as easily. However after the fighting is done they have to be released and given a second chance. i agree that the death penalty is wrong unless the person is of an immediate threat.

[ComradeOm]

I do not advocate for prisons with labour under socialism but instead during a revolutionary period and civil war.We really have to move away from this concept where 'ATROCITY/CRIME X is permissible in "a revolutionary period and civil war" but then we'll stop doing it. Promise'

[Fourth Internationalist]

I really wouldn't consider them atrocities. That's more of a concentration camp thing which I am against.

[Brutus]

I don't think prisons will be a major place of production. I would imagine it's just like how prisons have labour now and for military supplies.

Giving prisoners access to firearms? No!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Giving prisoners access to firearms? No!

That's not what I mean :lol:

[Brutus]

What do you mean by 'military supplies'?

[Fourth Internationalist]

What do you mean by 'military supplies'?

Like parts and stuff. Obviously don't have them put together with ammo by prisoners!

[Brutus]

Just don't give them primers, or anything that is slightly explosive.