The death penalty?

[Comrade Jacob]

What's your take?

I know I'll get a bunch of wankers saying "waaah, waaah you're a blood-thirsty-Stalinoid". etc

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The death penalty is bullshit except under certain revolutionary circumstances, I kind of take the like Robespierre position on this one.

[Stalinist Speaker]

might come to you as a surprise but i only support it on rare occasions. (unless its a civil war or other shit)

[Dr Doom]

What's your take?

I know I'll get a bunch of wankers saying "waaah, waaah you're a blood-thirsty-Stalinoid". etc

uh so do you support the death penalty as it exists now, under capitalism?

personally I think it's fucking barbaric. but thats just me.

[Comrade Jacob]

uh so do you support the death penalty as it exists now, under capitalism?

No

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, for high offences. High offences would be indisputable serial or mass murder, e.g. Anders Behring Breivik, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Pinochet, the members of the Kim Dynasty, etc. Unredeemable crimes.

[Creative Destruction]

No, I do not. It's inherently retributive, unnecessary and ineffective.

[helot]

I can understand killing people in defense, it can be necessary, but the death penalty? Fuck that, it solves nothing and has nothing to do with "justice", only vengeance.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

so you've made this thread purely to start a flame war? Fantastic, i'll start: you're a blood-thirsty, attention-seeking stalin wannabe.

[Comrade Jacob]

so you've made this thread purely to start a flame war? Fantastic, i'll start: you're a blood-thirsty, attention-seeking stalin wannabe.

:grin: yep you caught me. But I am interested in the results.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

what will it take to cure your thirst for haemoglobin, you murderous bastard!

I don't and have never believed that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for a number of reasons. It's a pretty unproductive practise (what does it solve? nothing! what does it teach us? nothing!) and I personally believe that sanctioning the murder of another human being has serious implications in terms of a person's mental health (not that I have any proof whatsoever to back up what I'm saying.)

perhaps my opposition to it is largely down to my upbringing being largely in the left-liberal/social-democratic vein, but I do not believe that people should be killed - especially in the context of execution. That said, I'm not a pacifist (at least when it comes to class war, other conflicts can fuck right off) so there are probably a good few interesting contradictions in my reasoning here

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

:grin: yep you caught me. But I am interested in the results.

yeah but why?

the stalinists will say they support it, the rest of us will say we won't. The purges of the late 1930s will be referenced and then it'll just descend into a shitstorm. What's the point?

[Orange Juche]

the stalinists will say they support it, the rest of us will say we won't. The purges of the late 1930s will be referenced and then it'll just descend into a shitstorm. What's the point?

To make people like me (who've been on here forever) long for the days when Stalinists were restricted to OI?

[#FF0000]

No.

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you've read the research you'll find the death penalty does nothing to reduce crime.

[Zukunftsmusik]

yeah but why?

the stalinists will say they support it, the rest of us will say we won't. The purges of the late 1930s will be referenced and then it'll just descend into a shitstorm. What's the point?

Not to mention that there are billions of these threads, probably all of them started because it would be "fun to see the results"

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The death penalty might be understandable in the context of a civil war or something.

But in general society, it is nothing short of retribution-hazed murder. That and the death penalty has been commonly exploited as a way of getting rid of political deviants and people of a certain ethnicity. Need I even mention the thouands of African-Americans from the ages of 14 to 60 who were falsely accused of rape and subsequently hung by bloodthirsty white mobs? As Bob Dylan notes in one of his songs, "They're selling postcards of the hanging". No, I do not support the death penalty.

[#FF0000]

Fuck off if you aren't for prison abolition as well

[Fourth Internationalist]

I voted no, but I guess I could agree with rarely if it is done by communists/proletarians in a revolutionary situation due to a lack of resources to house the prisoners.

[Remus Bleys]

This all depends on the circumstances.
Such blatant deontology is worthless.

edit: Normally Im against the death penalty, but a Revolution is a very bloody process.

[#FF0000]

I voted no, but I guess I could agree with rarely if it is done by communists/proletarians in a revolutionary situation due to a lack of resources to house the prisoners.

Kind of tired of the navel gazing re: "A REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION" as if that's a reality y'all are even capable of handling.

this response tho I think is particularly out of touch. "Ah well no room to keep this one better just dig a shallow ditch"

[Zukunftsmusik]

this response tho I think is particularly out of touch. "Ah well no room to keep this one better just dig a shallow ditch"

"Shoot out of hand."

[Sabot Cat]

I believe that death should not be a penalty for any crime, as murder is probably one of the most abhorrent acts known to humankind on an interpersonal level. However, if it is necessary to fatally incapacitate someone for the safety of others, or if a community arrests a malicious and well-connected person with a high probability of bringing those arresting them to harm simply by being in prison, then I can understand its implementation. But considering the scarcity of such a scenario, I remain staunchly opposed.

[dodger]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10449815/Al-Qaeda-linked-rebels-apologise-after-cutting-off-head-of-wrong-person.html

Al-Qaeda-linked rebels apologise after cutting off head of wrong person



Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham militants say sorry for decapitating a fellow extremist rather than enemy
.............................................

Pure Comedy Gold !!!!! Pantomime.A War Crime with no victim....
...............................................
I voted a firm no...life is way too cheap. Though the above news item had me crying with laughter.

[Remus Bleys]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10449815/Al-Qaeda-linked-rebels-apologise-after-cutting-off-head-of-wrong-person.html

Al-Qaeda-linked rebels apologise after cutting off head of wrong person



Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham militants say sorry for decapitating a fellow extremist rather than enemy
.............................................

Pure Comedy Gold !!!!! Pantomime.A War Crime with no victim....
...............................................
I voted a firm no...life is way too cheap. Though the above news item had me crying with laughter.Everything you write is insane and irrelevant. Why the fuck do people like you?

[#FF0000]

Everything you write is insane and irrelevant. Why the fuck do people like you?

Act 1 of Remus Bleys' struggle with the concept of "being likeable"

[Remus Bleys]

Act 1 of Remus Bleys' struggle with the concept of "being likeable"
lmao that was funny. ill give you that.
But seriously, Dodger is an insane, anti-immigrant nationalist. Why do people like him?

[NGNM85]

Even beyond the mountains of evidence demonstrating that capital punishment has no deterrent effect, whatsoever, every consistent Libertarian Socialist should oppose it, simply as a matter of principle.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

lmao that was funny. ill give you that.
But seriously, Dodger is an insane, anti-immigrant nationalist. Why do people like him?

Cause he's a cool cat
http://cdn.attackofthecute.com/May-15-2012-01-49-17-sfgvdf.jpeg

[dodger]

Just a variation on a theme....an 'innocent' person executed. Beats the fuck out of me why people might like me...I have always hated myself, dear Remus.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Just a variation on a theme....an 'innocent' person executed. Beats the fuck out of me why people might like me...I have always hated myself, dear Remus.

Awww dodger, I like you :)

[Remus Bleys]

Goddamnit. Dodger, is this why people like you:
"Hey, man, you don't like me so heres some rep so we can be friends" be all cool calm and calculated?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Dodger is an anti-immigrant nationalist?

Some of the brief conversations we had on East Asia didn't imply that in the least :confused:

[Remus Bleys]

Dodger is an anti-immigrant nationalist?

Some of the brief conversations we had on East Asia didn't imply that in the least :confused:
That's why hes restricted. Immigrants will hurt the British jobs. See the thread on fascism "the british worker does not want immigrants" and other "left" nationalist rhetoric.

[dodger]

Goddamnit. Dodger, is this why people like you:
"Hey, man, you don't like me so heres some rep so we can be friends" be all cool calm and calculated?

message:

daft punk;
Dodger!why do you positive rep the most moronic posts?

Regretfully I cannot pos rep my own moronic posts(not from want of trying).


The un-artfull Dodger--reps again!!!

Of course the world is not Boston or Copenhagen..having stepped over 9 corpses in 11 months I have a jaundiced take on how any of our views matter. All drug dealers, all small time. Not even worthy of a second glance. The 6 children found dead on the apex of the council refuse dump were all glue sniffers. Execution certainly carried out by criminals, directed by police under watchful eye of mayor. So a very public execution is favoured here. 3 men balaclavas, motorbike, no number plates. Army Intelligence assassins ply their trade. Salvaging in the local lingo. We had one staying at Wifey;s lodging house...played with the grand children. Left in a hurry--3 went on a job killed a leftist, an off duty Police Major came on scene killed one of the assassins thinking they were robbers--and was himself shot dead. Wont surprise any that there is gold in them there hills. Riches beyond avarice. Nothing must stop or will stop naked globalization from functioning. A land fit for investors.

Say again, life is too cheap. Cheap as chips.

[Bala Perdida]

I believe most, if not all, real crimes, as opposed to today's false unjust economic and drug related crimes, can be simply psychologically treated. Real crimes would consist of murder or battery or extortion (I don't see why anyone would do it with all the necessary resources, but with this question you can't rule it out). The only ones I can't see being treated are crimes of an exploitative and dehumanizing nature. Examples would be slave owners (today it is usually done in a sex slave form, but can also apply to labor), serial killers and serial rapists, dictators like Hitler, and any one that constantly harms or dehumanizes children. I just can't see how a human that has committed these crimes and destroyed lives to such an extent could be fit in any society.
If there is an argument that can completely shift me away from a post-revolution death penalty, please feel free to post it.

[Creative Destruction]

Kind of related to the thread, Werner Herzog has a couple of documentaries about death row inmates that are very good. The first one was a mini-series produced for ID called On Death Row and the other is called Into The Abyss. They're both on Netflix if you have access to that.

[brigadista]

never - give any state permission for state murder you give permission for anything else

[helot]

If there is an argument that can completely shift me away from a post-revolution death penalty, please feel free to post it.


Do you wanna work more hours and collectively have less resources? :p

You've got it backwards though, the burden of proof is on you to argue why people should be put to death when there are alternatives such as constant supervision as a member of society.

Putting people to death is the easy way out, it's the way to absolve yourselves collectively of responsibility for those who, either due to some severe psychological problem or structural forces in society, cause huge amounts of harm. It doesn't solve the problem it just brushes it under the rug.

[Chris Hansen]

Ya. For murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers, and pimps, mostly.

[MidnightRain]

Yes, for high offences. High offences would be indisputable serial or mass murder, e.g. Anders Behring Breivik, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Pinochet, the members of the Kim Dynasty, etc. Unredeemable crimes.

Public humiliation and lifelong labour are more suitable punishments for those people. People like the Kims are responsible for countless sufferings and crimes against humanity, why should they get off so easy when their countless victims didn't? On the other hand, not putting them down might risk them escaping, especially if they have powerful, elite connections...

[sixdollarchampagne]

No, not at all. Giving the exploiting class the power to inflict capital punishment on plebeians in a society based on scarcity is a really bad idea. Obviously, when the repressive organs, under capitalism, make a mistake, there is no way to correct it, and it must be tempting for the bourgeoisie, in order to stay in power, to wipe out the left, by using capital punishment, at those times when there is a real challenge to bourgeois rule. So no, abolish capital punishment!

[RedSunrise]

First instinct? Yes, we should use it. After I think about it though, I have to side with not using it. (Rare circumstances as previously stated by others)

I think there is some evidence to death penalty being effective though. Just not in the States, because it is rarely enforced. If we started actually following through with sentences and made them a LOT more strict, there would be less crime.

I would say remove death pen and make other non-death penalties a lot worse.

[#FF0000]

I think there is some evidence to death penalty being effective though. Just not in the States, because it is rarely enforced. If we started actually following through with sentences and made them a LOT more strict, there would be less crime.

What evidence is that? Because there's been multiple studies over the years that show there's no evidence whatsoever for the Death Penalty being a good deterrent. And further, in the US murder rates are consistently lower in states without the death penalty than in states with the death penalty.

And of course, how consistent can a communist be if they support the state claiming the right to kill?


I would say remove death pen and make other non-death penalties a lot worse. The United States has one of the largest and most draconian prison systems in the world and you think it needs to be made worse? Meanwhile, what do the criminal justice and prison systems look like in the countries with the lowest crime and recidivism rates?

[DasFapital]

In the US some of the states that use the death penalty the most have the highest violent crime rates. Lethal force should only be used if someone is posing an immediate threat.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Ya. For murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers, and pimps, mostly.

Oh, great, another one of you psychopaths.

[Marshal of the People]

Fuck off if you aren't for prison abolition as well

What is prison abortion if you don't mind me asking?

[Marshal of the People]

Oh, great, another one of you psychopaths.

Um... That is quite offensive, psychopathy is a disease, you shouldn't discriminate against people who have a disease and I don't think he is a psychopath (perhaps maybe a troll).

[Tim Cornelis]

What is prison abortion if you don't mind me asking?

Prison abolition*.

It means that under communism we wont have any prisons, only psychiatric wards because crimes from social causes will have been eliminated. I don't know to which extend this is true. Maybe we still need one prison per continent, maybe more, maybe not.

[Bala Perdida]

You've got it backwards though, the burden of proof is on you to argue why people should be put to death when there are alternatives such as constant supervision as a member of society.

I guess that can work. I'm gonna have to research the concept more, but this is assumming that they have been psychologicaly treated and rehabilitated already.

The only problem I have is how is an exploiter or dehumanizer going to compensate for their wrong doing? Maybe have them work in rural areas where they'll farm and have freedom (like being in an open environment) and live in individual housing. Family could visit them easily this way and they will be easy to monitor. They'll live there maybe for a maximum of 7 years before they can be considered adjusted to society.

[reb]

What we have here is a problem in which this question is being framed leading to only a solution of bourgeois law; "do you support the death penalty [a code written in law]?". People who vote yes, or some other equivalent affirmation, are voting for the bourgeois state. What use do communists have of a legalized frame work, law courts, police, and other such institutions of the state? None.

[RedArmyComrade]

Honestly, comrade, I actually quite like the idea of the death penalty for the most serious of crimes. Of course we can't go dishing it out, but for serious economic crimes, paedophilia, murder, drug-dealing, etc., I think it should be an option. No fannying about with an electric chair, though; a bullet is all that's necessary.

[Sabot Cat]

Honestly, comrade, I actually quite like the idea of the death penalty for the most serious of crimes. Of course we can't go dishing it out, but for serious economic crimes, paedophilia, murder, drug-dealing, etc., I think it should be an option. No fannying about with an electric chair, though; a bullet is all that's necessary.

Why are vendors of prohibited mind-altering substances so intractable in mindset, and so dangerous to the common good, that they must be shot? Deprived from the ability to sell such goods, drug dealers should be effectively harmless barring other conditions; this if they aren't already when considering what drugs they may be selling (marijuana, for instance). The same is true of those who commit "serious economic crimes".

[Creative Destruction]

Honestly, comrade, I actually quite like the idea of the death penalty for the most serious of crimes.

Why?

[Tim Cornelis]

What we have here is a problem in which this question is being framed leading to only a solution of bourgeois law; "do you support the death penalty [a code written in law]?". People who vote yes, or some other equivalent affirmation, are voting for the bourgeois state. What use do communists have of a legalized frame work, law courts, police, and other such institutions of the state? None.

So if the poll was "do you support welfare?" You would vote no, because doing otherwise is support of the bourgeois state.

What we have here is a problem in which this question is being framed leading to only a solution of bourgeois law; "do you support welfare [part of a code written in law]?". People who vote yes, or some other equivalent affirmation, are voting for the bourgeois state. What use do communists have of a legalized frame work, social security, and unemployment benefits, and other such institutions of the state? None.

The same goes for, do you believe that neo-Nazis that murdered four gypsies should go to prison? You would vote no.

[reb]

So if the poll was "do you support welfare?" You would vote no, because doing otherwise is support of the bourgeois state.

Yes. I am for communism and not for bourgeois welfare states.


What we have here is a problem in which this question is being framed leading to only a solution of bourgeois law; "do you support welfare [part of a code written in law]?". People who vote yes, or some other equivalent affirmation, are voting for the bourgeois state. What use do communists have of a legalized frame work, social security, and unemployment benefits, and other such institutions of the state? None.

The same goes for, do you believe that neo-Nazis that murdered four gypsies should go to prison? You would vote no.

I think you misunderstand what I am talking about. I am for communism, not for a bourgeois state.

[Sabot Cat]

Yes. I am for communism and not for bourgeois welfare states.

I think you misunderstand what I am talking about. I am for communism, not for a bourgeois state.

I believe he was saying that your response was irrelevant to the particulars of the question, which it is. You're excepting yourself from presenting your perspective on the ethics of the death penalty by stating that any nation that has it would be bourgeois or not communist. But it is possible if not likely for there to be a self-governing community where the workers own the means of production and institute death upon those they believe are harmful to them, or those they believe should be subject to fatal retribution.

[Art Vandelay]

Morality is completely class based, so I dont think framing/answering this question in a moralistic fashion is anything but counter productive. The death penalty will obviously be present in any future revolutionary situation, to suggest otherwise strikes me as unbelievably naive. To support it in its current incarnation is absurd, since it is tantamount to supporting 'legalized' murder on behalf of the bourgeois state. Obviously though I'd like to think we'd have more humaine ways of dealing with those people in socialist society.

[#FF0000]

Honestly, comrade, I actually quite like the idea of the death penalty for the most serious of crimes

It doesn't stop the crime from happening
It doesn't deter other criminals
It doesn't repair the damage done by the crime
It can't guarantee an innocent person will not be wrongly executed.


It means that under communism we wont have any prisons, only psychiatric wards because crimes from social causes will have been eliminated. I don't know to which extend this is true. Maybe we still need one prison per continent, maybe more, maybe not.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. A lot of people who say they're about prison abolition will definitely say that they're all about mental hopsitals, though, because I think there's this underlying assumption that the only people who will commit crimes are psychologically unwell and that psych wards can't also prisons in their own right, in some ways.

[Goblin]

Only very rarely. Enemies of the revolution should get the death penalty, yes.

[Bostana]

No to the death penalty.
1) It's pointless. Whether the death penalty is there or not murder will only go down if solve social conditions which is the root of the problem. Too many people ask "how can we punish this?' instead of 'how do we solve this to stop people from doing it again?'

2) It's hypocritical. Killing is wrong so we must kill to punish it.

3) A dead person can't plea their case. If the person is innocent but is executed anyways where is there justice. If they're locked in jail they can at least work on their case and if their innocent they can be set free and a wrong will be given back some right. Justice would have already been offended if an innocent person was put in jail but if you already put them to death than there is absolutely no chance of justice.

4)It's tyrannical. If we look back in history we find the only people that benefit from capital punishment is the government. The government can accuse so and so of a crime bada-boom the person was found "guilty" it is going to be executed.

5) It's racist. Should a black or non-white person be convicted of a "capital crime" he or she will get convicted it less than a heartbeat and then will be executed. I would like to point out the famous Sacco and Vanzetti trials. They were arrested because they were Anarchists, accused of murder, and when their trail started it was anything but fair. They were guilty the second they walked in because they were Italian immigrants and that didn't sit well with the Anglo-Saxon protestant jury. Despite having many witnesses (who were Italians too) who said they were no where near the murder scene when it took place and i think even a man who admitted he was the one who committed the murder, they were both still convicted and executed.


I know I'll get a bunch of wankers saying "waaah, waaah you're a blood-thirsty-Stalinoid". etc
I'm sorry if i get upset by your medieval justice system but it's stupid and barbaric to actually put faith into the death penalty

[Sabot Cat]

Morality is completely class based, so I dont think framing/answering this question in a moralistic fashion is anything but counter productive.

I fail to see how morality, understood to mean the principles for determining which actions are good, is inherently class-based.


The death penalty will obviously be present in any future revolutionary situation, to suggest otherwise strikes me as unbelievably naive.

To believe that any authoritarian imposition of a societal order will reflect the democratic ideals that might have inspired it is equally naive. Any revolution fought by a small faction against the will of the people can only produce another oligarchy in its place, as those who agitated for the conflict clearly don't trust the consciences of their fellow workers to initiate the new infrastructure voluntarily through a general strike, mass protest and/or electoral politics.


Only very rarely. Enemies of the revolution should get the death penalty, yes.

I am an opponent of any revolution which holds that death is a just retribution for disagreement with the fallible intellects of those who govern them.

[Remus Bleys]

I fail to see how morality, understood to mean the principles for determining which actions are good, is inherently class-based. You seriously need to read more marx then.




To believe that any authoritarian imposition of a societal order will reflect the democratic ideals that might have inspired it is equally naive. Any revolution fought by a small faction against the will of the people can only produce another oligarchy in its place, as those who agitated for the conflict clearly don't trust the consciences of their fellow workers to initiate the new infrastructure voluntarily through a general strike, mass protest and/or electoral politics.


To quote On Authority

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
I also suggest you read about the White Terror. Even wikipedia would be a good intro.


I am an opponent of any revolution which holds that death is a just retribution for disagreement with the fallible intellects of those who govern them.
Thats not the argument at all! Fuck Revenge, this is a necessity. In order to keep the gains of the revolution, the reactionary cannot be allowed to even exist.

[Sabot Cat]

You seriously need to read more marx then.

This is rather bad form for an argument, not just because of the inherent condescension, but because it assumes that I happen to or would agree with Marx in all aspects of philosophy. I do not, and I would like to see you specifically respond to the points that I raised. Why are the principles of goodness dependent upon class?


To quote On Authority

I also suggest you read about the White Terror. Even wikipedia would be a good intro.

First of all, I've read this, and I disagree with Engels completely. He too narrowly defines what a revolution is, and moreover, the stability of terror-based regimes is certainly questionable. Although I am not opposed to self-defense in a revolution, I find that one cannot seriously force liberty, equality or justice onto people by gunpoint.

And I'm quite aware of the White Terrors. They're exemplary of the kind of authoritarianism I'm arguing against here.


Thats not the argument at all! Fuck Revenge, this is a necessity. In order to keep the gains of the revolution, the reactionary cannot be allowed to even exist.

Then I would ardently oppose such a revolution. Would I be labelled a "reactionary"? Furthermore, it must be a rather sad kind of social order if the people cannot observe for themselves that their conditions are better, and that a huff of rhetoric would cause it to crash down.

[Remus Bleys]

This is rather bad form for an argument, not just because of the inherent condescension, but because it assumes that I happen to or would agree with Marx in all aspects of philosophy. I do not, and I would like to see you specifically respond to the points that I raised. Why are the principles of goodness dependent upon class? "
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. " Karl Marx




First of all, I've read this, and I disagree with Engels completely. He too narrowly defines what a revolution is,
The communist revolution is a proletarian one. Are you disagreeing with this?

and moreover, the stability of terror-based regimes is certainly questionable
Who is advocating for Terror based? Terror is a neccesity, not a principle.

Although I am not opposed to self-defense in a revolution, I find that one cannot seriously force liberty, equality or justice onto people by gunpoint.
Why use such enlightenment terms? What do these words mean according to you?


And I'm quite aware of the White Terrors. They're exemplary of the kind of authoritarianism I'm arguing against here.

What is your suggestion to stop the white terror then?


Then I would ardently oppose such a revolution. Would I be labelled a "reactionary"? Furthermore, it must be a rather sad kind of social order if the people cannot observe for themselves that their conditions are better, and that a huff of rhetoric would cause it to crash down.
So, a revolution should allow itself to be "voted away"?
The DotP is not a walk in the park - and people will still be reactionary.

To prevent domestic violence, we will forcibly change all current gender relations, are you against this?

[Sabot Cat]

"
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. " Karl Marx

There is certainly the probability of bias, but I'd prefer to know why all ethics are similarly flawed. For instance, I'm curious as to how say, utilitarianism is opposed to the ideals of egalitarianism or the proletariat owning the means of production.



The communist revolution is a proletarian one. Are you disagreeing with this?


I'm disagreeing that it's when some faction with armed force makes everyone comply with them. There is such a thing as a democratic, largely peaceful revolution.


Who is advocating for Terror based? Terror is a neccesity, not a principle.


Terror isn't a necessity, and you aren't advocating for it based on any real situation. Thus, you're arguing it on the basis of principle more than anything.


Why use such enlightenment terms? What do these words mean according to you?


I'm not sure what the goals of your revolution truly are, but I'm stating that the means are quite antithetical to most of the common ones.


What is your suggestion to stop the white terror then?


If the proletariat peacefully gains the means of production and the tools of the state, they should be able to prevent the flow of violence as any nation would. So, I'm not sure why we can't imprison those who violently seek to oppose the new societal infrastructure.


So, a revolution should allow itself to be "voted away"?


If an overwhelming majority is in favor of it, yes.


The DotP is not a walk in the park - and people will still be reactionary.

So they must be murdered? I'm not really making this conceptual leap with you here.


To prevent domestic violence, we will forcibly change all current gender relations, are you against this?

If you're shooting every domestic abuser when there are other ways of dealing with them, yes.

[Remus Bleys]

There is certainly the probability of bias, but I'd prefer to know why all ethics are similarly flawed. For instance, I'm curious as to how say, utilitarianism is somehow opposed to the ideals of egalitarianism or the proletariat owning the means of production.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the argument that ethics is class based.




I'm disagreeing that it's when some faction with armed force makes everyone comply with them. There is such a thing as a democratic, largely peaceful revolution.
1. You obviously don't understand Engels, or you do and you don't understand what a Revolution is.
2. lol democracy
3. explain this peaceful revolution and give me examples of it.




Terror isn't a necessity, and you aren't advocating for it based on any real situation. Thus, you're arguing it on the basis of principle more than anything. Okay, lets talk about the Russian Revolution. Do you really think terror wasn't necessary - the amount is debatable, but it quite obviously required one.
And no, Im arguing against pacifists like you who think that terror should be opposed on principle.




I'm not sure what the goals of your revolution truly are, but I'm stating that the means are quite antithetical to most of the common ones. lol thats cute. a communist revolution is about instilling liberal values?




If the proletariat peacefully gains the means of production and the tools of the state, they should be able to prevent the flow of violence as any nation would. So, I'm not sure why we can't imprison those who violently seek to oppose the new societal infrastructure. Sure, great, this is beautiful. How is it possible though?




If an overwhelming majority is in favor of it, yes.
If it is only a minority of the class that is acting as a class for itself, then it is this minority that the communists should support.



So they must be murdered? I'm not really making this conceptual leap with you here. See below.
And again, how do you deal with the violent reactionary.




If you're shooting every domestic abuser when there are other ways of dealing with them, yes.No, i was simply pointing out that dealing with them would be an attack on the soveriegnty and liberty, correct?

[Sabot Cat]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the argument that ethics is class based.

I'm saying that you didn't demonstrate that all ethics are class based, unless you understand the word "morality" in a way divergent from its common meaning?



1. You obviously don't understand Engels, or you do and you don't understand what a Revolution is.

No, I disagree with Engels, and understand him quite fine.


3. explain this peaceful revolution and give me examples of it.


The most prominent that come to mind are the People's Power Revolution, the Peaceful Revolution, the Velvet Revolution, the Hawaii Democratic Revolution of 1954, and the Singing Revolution.


Okay, lets talk about the Russian Revolution. Do you really think terror wasn't necessary - the amount is debatable, but it quite obviously required one.

I'm opposed to the tactics, philosophy and actions of the Bolsheviks during and after the October Revolution.


And no, Im arguing against pacifists like you who think that terror should be opposed on principle.

I'm not a pacifist that opposes it on principle, I'm a person who doesn't think it's practical or necessary to kill political dissidents.


lol thats cute. a communist revolution is about instilling liberal values?
Sure, great, this is beautiful. How is it possible though?

Firstly, please don't patronize me.

Secondly, what is the reason that you believe liberty, equality and justice are exclusively liberal values? I support them as extensions of the underlying concept of the greatest good for the most people.

Thirdly, a general strike and the use of mass protests are proven to be successful tactics as the examples I cited demonstrated.


If it is only a minority of the class that is acting as a class for itself, then it is this minority that the communists should support.


How can we hope to equitably distribute the means of production among the proletariat if a minority of people has all of the power? Therein is the road to state capitalism and a new hierarchy.


See below.
And again, how do you deal with the violent reactionary.


Barring any immediate danger to those involved, you would just need enough people with superior force, handcuffs and a holding facility.



No, i was simply pointing out that dealing with them would be an attack on the soveriegnty and liberty, correct?

No, dealing with them in a non-lethal manner if a lethal manner is not warranted by the situation would be the most beneficial to everyone.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm saying that you didn't demonstrate that all ethics are class based, unless you understand the word "morality" in a way divergent from its common meaning? Morality and ethics are ideas, and thus covered in that quote.




No, I disagree with Engels, and understand him quite fine. What do you think a revolution is then?




The most prominent that come to mind are the People's Power Revolution, the Peaceful Revolution, the Velvet Revolution, the Hawaii Democratic Revolution of 1954, and the Singing Revolution.
1. People's Power - still a bourgeois state at the end
2. Velvet Revolution - still a bourgeois state at the end
3. Hawaii Democratic Revolution of 1954 - still a bourgeois state at the end, in fact not really much of a political revolution really.
4. Singing Revolution - still a bourgeois state at the end
None of these events were Revolutions - unless you think a revolution takes us from a bourgeois state to a bourgeois state.




I'm opposed to the tactics, philosophy and actions of the Bolsheviks during and after the October Revolution.
The anarchists too had a version of the cheka.



I'm not a pacifist that opposes it on principle, I'm a person who doesn't think it's practical or necessary to kill political dissidents.
Okay, well then you seem to be making a generalization - would this mean you would be hindered if this choice was necessary.



Secondly, what is the reason that you believe liberty, equality and justice are exclusively liberal values? I support them as extensions of the underlying concept of the greatest good for the most people.
I mean seriously. What is liberty? What is equality? What is justice?


Thirdly, a general strike and the use of mass protests are proven to be successful tactics as the examples I cited demonstrated. These are typically very bloody and violent as well.




How can we hope to equitably distribute the means of production among the proletariat if a minority of people has all of the power? Therein is the road to state capitalism and a new hierarchy. No, we want to change the mode of production. The class will lead the class to its interests. The revolution will awaken the class consciousness of the proletariat.




Barring any immediate danger to those involved, you would just need enough people with superior force, handcuffs and a holding facility.
Then what? I mean certainly this is not the ideal - but sometimes you have to deal with the fact that reality isn't as we plan it.

[Sabot Cat]

Morality and ethics are ideas, and thus covered in that quote.

Not all morality and ethics are the ruling ideas, which is the operative term in the selection you're quoting.


What do you think a revolution is then?


It's when a group of people change the order of their society in a major political way primarily outside of the existing legal institutions to do so.


1. People's Power - still a bourgeois state at the end
2. Velvet Revolution - still a bourgeois state at the end
3. Hawaii Democratic Revolution of 1954 - still a bourgeois state at the end, in fact not really much of a political revolution really.
4. Singing Revolution - still a bourgeois state at the end
None of these events were Revolutions - unless you think a revolution takes us from a bourgeois state to a bourgeois state.

Not all revolutions are communist revolutions, and you never specified that these non-violent revolutions had to be communist. I'm not sure if there exists a revolution of a truly communist character.


The anarchists too had a version of the cheka.


Perhaps, but I maintain that the Bolshevik regime's tactics were antithetical to their stated goals, and corrosive to the entire cause of revolutionary leftism.


Okay, well then you seem to be making a generalization - would this mean you would be hindered if this choice was necessary.


I stated that I would be willing to do so under certain specific conditions when it would be warranted, in my first post in this thread.


I mean seriously. What is liberty? What is equality? What is justice?


Defining such broad concepts will lead to less than precise or inclusive explanations. But to be simple: Liberty is when an individual has the realized power to chose the conditions they live in; equality is when the most individuals have the most liberty in their material conditions; justice is the quality of an action, situation or institution that is the least observant of hierarchies in the administration of what would be the best for the most in that situation.


These are typically very bloody and violent as well.


Often when the opposition makes it that way. Again, I am in favor of an armed struggle if it is in self-defense. It makes an ethical difference, and it makes a difference to bystanders who could go either way.


No, we want to change the mode of production. The class will lead the class to its interests. The revolution will awaken the class consciousness of the proletariat.


Or the revolutionaries will rally people to the reactionary cause in fear of the kind of tyrannical government such revolutionaries would impose once in power.



Then what? I mean certainly this is not the ideal - but sometimes you have to deal with the fact that reality isn't as we plan it.

We keep them in the holding facility as long as need be. I'm not sure why a communist society would be less able to maintain prisons than any other society.

[Remus Bleys]

Not all morality and ethics are the ruling ideas, which is the operative term in the selection you're quoting. Well, they still kinda are ruling class ideas, and still result from class conflict even if they weren't. this is marxism 101. Even marxism is a simple result of class struggle.




It's when a group of people change the order of their society in a major and primarily political way outside of the existing institutions to do so.
Such a definition is purposefully vague to the point i am in full agreement - yet i doubt we have a different ideas.



Not all revolutions are communist revolutions, and you never specified that these non-violent revolutions had to be communist.These aren't revolutions period. The Bourgeoisie were still in charge before and after.




Perhaps, but I maintain that the Bolshevik regime's tactics were antithetical to their stated goals, and corrosive to the entire cause of revolutionary leftism.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand.



I stated that I would be willing to do so under certain specific conditions in which such an action would be warranted in my first post in this thread.
I doubt this, given by your insistence on an anti-authoritarian revolution. My favorite quote is by TAT (read:The Anarchist Tension) who stated that "A Revolution is a very authoritarian act" or something along those lines.



Defining such broad concepts will lead to less than precise or inclusive explanations. But to be simple: Liberty is when an individual has the realized power to chose the conditions they live in; equality is when the most individuals have the most liberty in their material conditions; justice is the quality of an action that is the least observant of hierarchies in the administration of what would be the best for the most in that situation.
Again, do these concepts exist? Why is this relevant?
If we are taking this route "The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny." So, how do your enlightened values compare with that?
Liberty, does this mean freedom of speech? How far does this go? Hate Speech?



Often when the opposition makes it that way. Again, I am in favor of an armed struggle if it is in self-defense. It makes an ethical difference, and it makes a difference to bystanders who could go either way.And this is so different under a communist revolution how? Why wouldn't the bourgeois use terror as a tactic when their own livelihood is threatened?



Or they'll rally people to the reactionary cause in fear of the kind of tyrannical government such a group would impose once in power.What? The proletariat leads the revolution - they're situation is better off in the dotp, no matter how "totalitarian" it is. And guess what, people care more about bread then they do about "free speech".





We keep them in the holding facility as long as need be. I'm not sure why a communist society would be less able to maintain prisons than any other society.Or we could ask what real revolutionaries, ie the bolsheviks and anarchists why they werent able to do that.
edit: i tried. im done.

[Ocean Seal]

I voted no you bloodthirsty Stalinoid, but I think that the death penalty should be used in the revolution, but certainly supporting it in times of capitalism is quite reactionary being that the justice system is in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

[Sabot Cat]

Well, they still kinda are ruling class ideas, and still result from class conflict even if they weren't. this is marxism 101. Even marxism is a simple result of class struggle.

No, it's not evident that all of morality and ethics are ruling class ideas, and I think the view that all principles related to the concept of what is good are the result of class struggle is overly reductionist.


Such a definition is purposefully vague to the point i am in full agreement - yet i doubt we have a different ideas.


It's inclusive to violent and non-violent revolutions, as both can be equally extralegal and sweeping in their changes.


These aren't revolutions period. The Bourgeoisie were still in charge before and after.


There is a qualitative difference between being ruled by a dictator that suppresses all dissidence and a democratically elected president who tolerates criticism. Which is a critical distinction I don't think you appreciate.


Irrelevant to the topic at hand.


It is, as I believe that history is relevant to theory, and the Bolsheviks are essentially the poster children for why authoritarian revolution is generally a flawed method for societal change.


I doubt this, given by your insistence on an anti-authoritarian revolution.

There is no parsimonious reason to doubt that I would want more people harmed than hurt in a crisis scenario, because I have clearly stated that I wouldn't pursuant to my repeatedly cited concern for the greatest good for the most people


My favorite quote is by TAT (read:The Anarchist Tension) who stated that "A Revolution is a very authoritarian act" or something along those lines.


Yes, many times they are, and other times they aren't. I don't see how they're exclusively authoritarian, or have to be.


Again, do these concepts exist? Why is this relevant?


Yes, they exist, and they're relevant in that you asked me to define them.


If we are taking this route "The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny." So, how do your enlightened values compare with that?


I have no idea what you're saying here. What is "liberty's despotism"? That's an oxymoron or an instance of blackwhite.


Liberty, does this mean freedom of speech? How far does this go? Hate Speech?


That is for individual communities to decide on a local scale.


And this is so different under a communist revolution how? Why wouldn't the bourgeois use terror as a tactic when their own livelihood is threatened?


Neither should, and "terror" isn't the same as violence in general. Terror is a tactic used when someone can't convince others of their ideals without threatening them with violence, which suggests to me that they're poor leaders of a revolution to begin with.


What? The proletariat leads the revolution - they're situation is better off in the dotp, no matter how "totalitarian" it is. And guess what, people care more about bread then they do about "free speech".


I think they'll think of all the other times in history where such revolutionaries had led to famines, whether or not they truly did from a scholarly standpoint is irrelevant to the popular consciousness, and thus be in fear of both.

Furthermore, a government that can tolerate no dissidence won't be responsive to failure because most will be too afraid to speak up about the problems they're experiencing. So the lack of free speech can have a causative relationship with the lack of bread.


Or we could ask what real revolutionaries, ie the bolsheviks and anarchists why they werent able to do that.

What reason are you alluding to?

Because right now, in my eyes, you're advocating the execution of political dissidents on principle or in reaction to an ill-defined and yet to be demonstrated threat to the lives of most while they're behind bars.

[NGNM85]

Dealing with all of the confusion, in this morass of a thread, would be a hurculean task. At the very least, however, we should all be able to differentiate between capital punishment, which is the subject of the OP's post, and; summary execution. Both of these things, of course, are thoroughly repulsive, and fundamentally incompatible with Libertarian Socialism, but they are different things.

[#FF0000]

the best part about this thread is that not only do people mistake summary execution and capital punishment but they act as if it's a good idea to carry out summary executions in 2013.

EDIT: without even touching the idea that any of them would be able to handle the totality of a revolution first hand, let alone ever taking a life. but y'all talk about it so easily.

[Sabot Cat]

I apologize for my role in entertaining a dialogue that's kind of off-topic anyways, but I believe that even with a trial, no one should be executed for expressing a political opinion if that is the full extent of the harm they pose to others.


the best part about this thread is that not only do people mistake summary execution and capital punishment but they act as if it's a good idea to carry out summary executions in 2013.

EDIT: without even touching the idea that any of them would be able to handle the totality of a revolution first hand, let alone ever taking a life. but y'all talk about it so easily.


I believe the conceptual leap was made in this post with the bolded text:


Honestly, comrade, I actually quite like the idea of the death penalty for the most serious of crimes. Of course we can't go dishing it out, but for serious economic crimes, paedophilia, murder, drug-dealing, etc., I think it should be an option. No fannying about with an electric chair, though; a bullet is all that's necessary.

[Creative Destruction]

edit: i tried. im done.

lol. is this your MO or what?

[Remus Bleys]

lol. is this your MO or what?
Go on threads, make a point, and get responses like "Hawaiian revolution of 1954" with that anti-abortionist going on about principles of libertarian socialism?
What the fuck do I do with that? I can only work with so much.

[BIXX]

I voted unsure, but only because for some dumb reason when I clicked the button, I couldn't get my mind sorted out.

I oppose the death penalty. I do not oppose killing in self defense.

I feel the death penalty wouldn't stop crimes etc... Plus, unless I am missing something, it would be statist in a lot of ways (there would have to be governance to determine if the individual should die). Of course you could do it through some fabled "workers' councils" that some people here like to talk about a lot, but I also have an opposition to the form of organization and imposition that would require.

[Creative Destruction]

Go on threads, make a point, and get responses like "Hawaiian revolution of 1954" with that anti-abortionist going on about principles of libertarian socialism?
What the fuck do I do with that? I can only work with so much.

Nah. When people come up with points that aren't your own, instead of trying to reach some ground, you say "I tried" or "There's nothing to work with here" or some other remark that announces you're hittin' the club. That shit is annoying. Also, you're the last person who should be telling people that they need to "read Marx." You seem to have a slippery understanding of what he wrote at best (see: "false consciousness.") Once you go back and read his stuff, it's probably best to look at it through a critical lens rather than parrot it back to someone who feels like they have a different conception of that value.

[Remus Bleys]

Nah. When people come up with points that aren't your own, instead of trying to reach some ground, you say "I tried" or "There's nothing to work with here" or some other remark that announces you're hittin' the club. That shit is annoying. Also, you're the last person who should be telling people that they need to "read Marx." You seem to have a slippery understanding of what he wrote at best (see: "false consciousness.") Once you go back and read his stuff, it's probably best to look at it through a critical lens rather than parrot it back to someone who feels like they have a different conception of that value.
Okay fuck off. I'm not going to "debate" with a self-described anarchist who thinks the Velvet Revolution was a genuine Revolution. I honestly have better things to do irl.

[Lily Briscoe]

I guess I'll just go ahead and butt into this discussion :)


I'm saying that you didn't demonstrate that all ethics are class based, unless you understand the word "morality" in a way divergent from its common meaning?Morality and ethics are ideas, and thus covered in that quote.

Remus Bleys, you seem to recognize that ideas and morality have a class basis (although I don't think that means all moral or ethical considerations are bourgeois any more than it means all ideas are bourgeois; however, the dominant ideas and the dominant ethics obviously are... this is an important distinction IMO). But then you seem not to realize that this is as true of violence as it is of ideas or morality. Violence isn't an abstraction - a 'tool' without any class basis, that can be wielded the same way by opposing class forces for completely opposite ends. There are forms of violence which, IMO, are intrinsically instruments of class society. Torture, rape, and punitive/retributive murder, for example. And I see absolutely no possibility that these forms of violence can be used towards working class self-emancipation, any more than Protestant ethics or free market ideology can be put at the service of communist revolution.



Thirdly, a general strike and the use of mass protests are proven to be successful tactics as the examples I cited demonstrated.
These are typically very bloody and violent as well.

And when they are, whose blood tends to be spilled as a result of whose violence?

[Remus Bleys]

Remus Bleys, you seem to recognize that ideas and morality have a class basis (although I don't think that means all moral or ethical considerations are bourgeois any more than it means all ideas are bourgeois; however, the dominant ideas and the dominant ethics obviously are... this is an important distinction IMO). Just because something is class based doesn't mean its bourgeois.

But then you seem not to realize that this is as true of violence as it is of ideas or morality. Violence isn't an abstraction - a 'tool' without any class basis, that can be wielded the same way by opposing class forces for completely opposite ends. There are forms of violence which, IMO, are intrinsically instruments of class society. Torture, rape, and punitive/retributive murder, for example. And I see absolutely no possibility that these forms of violence can be used towards working class self-emancipation, any more than Protestant ethics or free market ideology can be put at the service of communist revolution.Ill agree with you on rape. Rape is a tool of class society and can never be utilized, even for terror. Retribution is stupid moralist bullshit as well.



And when they are, whose blood tends to be spilled as a result of whose violence?The blood of workers. Which is why we need to be offensive and not defensive.

[Lily Briscoe]

Just because something is class based doesn't mean its bourgeois.
OK, that's what I was trying to say.

Ill agree with you on rape. Rape is a tool of class society and can never be utilized, even for terror. Retribution is stupid moralist bullshit as well.But not torture, then? How is it different? In addition to being psychologically detrimental not just to the victims but also to the 'practitioners', it's demonstrably worthless in terms of extracting accurate information. (and yes, I am also totally ethically opposed to it, and no, I don't care if that makes me a pussy in some peoples' eyes :))
The blood of workers. Which is why we need to be offensive and not defensive.And how exactly do you envision "being offensive" in those situations (i.e. what specifically would that entail, in your view)?

[Remus Bleys]

But not torture, then? How is it different? In addition to being psychologically detrimental not just to the victims but also to the 'practitioners', it's demonstrably worthless in terms of extracting accurate information. I'm still debating if ther could be concrete times where this is useful

(and yes, I am also totally ethically opposed to it, and no, I don't care if that makes me a pussy in some peoples' eyes :)) I thought revleft blocked the word pussy.

And how exactly do you envision "being offensive" in those situations (i.e. what specifically would that entail, in your view)?
I mean being the, for lack of a better term, authoritarian one. Winning the class struggle. Demolishing them.

[Sabot Cat]

Go on threads, make a point, and get responses like "Hawaiian revolution of 1954" with that anti-abortionist going on about principles of libertarian socialism?
What the fuck do I do with that? I can only work with so much.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or someone else as an anti-abortionist, but I thought the Hawaiian revolution of 1954 was fairly notable because:

1) It was organized by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union as well as the Communist Party of Hawaii
2) It was primarily conducted by the working class of the island against bourgeois exploiters.
3) The primary tactics were a general strike and the final result was an improvement of wages and working conditions as well as a leftward shift in politics.


Okay fuck off. I'm not going to "debate" with a self-described anarchist who thinks the Velvet Revolution was a genuine Revolution. I honestly have better things to do irl.

How is a massive general strike and protest that causes a major change in government, including the resignation of the current national executive and a change from a one-party state to a multiple party state, somehow not revolutionary?

[Mr. Mosley]

In my opinion, people who commit severe crimes against or refuse to contribute to the community aren't even worth a second thought. I say it should only be used very rarely since most people can be rehabilitated.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or someone else as an anti-abortionist, but I thought the Hawaiian revolution of 1954 was fairly notable because:

1) It was organized by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union as well as the Communist Party of Hawaii
2) It was primarily conducted by the working class of the island against bourgeois exploiters.
3) The primary tactics were a general strike and the final result was an improvement of wages and working conditions as well as a leftward shift in politics.



How is a massive general strike and protest that causes a major change in government, including the resignation of the current national executive and a change from a one-party state to a multiple party state, somehow not revolutionary?

NGNM85 is restricted for his anti-abortionism.

Uh.. these revolutions transferred power from the bourgeoisie... to the bourgeoisie!

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

SEwTZULuzhE

[Goblin]

I am an opponent of any revolution which holds that death is a just retribution for disagreement with the fallible intellects of those who govern them.

By "Enemies of the revolution", i don't mean people who are simply in disagreement with the revolution.

[NGNM85]

Go on threads, make a point, and get responses like "Hawaiian revolution of 1954" with that anti-abortionist going on about principles of libertarian socialism?

As I made abundantly clear in the last abortion thread, which you participated in, I am pro-choice, and I always have been. This is a bold-faced lie.

[NGNM85]

NGNM85 is restricted for his anti-abortionism.[/i]

Holy crap, you did it, again. I'll say this; you've got stones. No, I was not restricted for; 'anti-abortionism', again, because I am pro-choice, and I always have been. You're lying, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. (Which is hardly unprecedented.)

[Creative Destruction]

Holy crap, you did it, again. I'll say this; you've got stones. No, I was not restricted for; 'anti-abortionism', again, because I am pro-choice, and I always have been. You're lying, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. (Which is hardly unprecedented.)

I'm interested though, why were you restricted?

[Radio Spartacus]

I don't buy this vague "revolutionary situation" hand wave, articulate who you think that a revolutionary communist movement should be killing outside of combat.

Personally, I can't think of a case where we would need to kill non-combatants. I feel that once you seize the instruments of capitalist oppression from the bosses/bourgeois state and defeat those who seek to violently quell revolution, the opposition has been marginalized enough to not be worth the resources and loss of support that would come from some kind of ideological purge.

[Sabot Cat]

Uh.. these revolutions transferred power from the bourgeoisie... to the bourgeoisie!

I was defending the fact that they were revolutions, not that they were communist revolutions.


By "Enemies of the revolution", i don't mean people who are simply in disagreement with the revolution.

Even if means violent reactionaries who have blood on their hands, if it is practical to arrest them, if they pose little danger in a cell, and if we can avoid killing them, we shouldn't kill them.

[Remus Bleys]

I was defending the fact that they were revolutions, not that they were communist revolutions.
I was saying they weren't revolutions. Period. No where in their did I say they weren't communist, i mean, they werent, but thats irrelevant.

[Sabot Cat]

I was saying they weren't revolutions. Period. No where in their did I say they weren't communist, i mean, they werent, but thats irrelevant.

But your stated objections were that the proletariat didn't assume power after the revolution, which implies that any revolution that doesn't involve a shift in the means of production isn't a revolution (I originally interpreted your statements as you believing me to say that they were communist revolutions instead of just revolutions). Which, if your strict interpretation of the word revolution is something I'm correctly understanding, implies that the American Revolution and the French Revolution weren't revolutions somehow, and considering the state capitalist regimes they ushered in with a new bureaucratic bourgeois, then the criteria you seem to be pushing would except even the Russian and Chinese Revolutions.

[Remus Bleys]

But your stated objections were that the proletariat didn't assume power after the revolution, which implies that any revolution that doesn't involve a shift in the means of production isn't a revolution (I originally interpreted your statements as you believing me to say that they were communist revolutions instead of just revolutions). Which, if your strict interpretation of the word revolution is something I'm correctly understanding, implies that the American Revolution and the French Revolution weren't revolutions somehow, and considering the state capitalist regimes they ushered in with a new bureaucratic bourgeois, then the criteria you seem to be pushing would except even the Russian and Chinese Revolutions.
No. France China and America were bourgeois revolutions. Power transferred between classes.
This did not happen in the instances you gave.
edit: i never said the proletariat didn't assume power i said the bourgeois were still in charge
lol

[Sabot Cat]

No. France China and America were bourgeois revolutions. Power transferred between classes.
This did not happen in the instances you gave.
edit: i never said the proletariat didn't assume power i said the bourgeois were still in charge
lol

There can be a revolution without a class-based transfer of power, even if that may be a common feature, because a revolution is inclusive to any primarily extralegal transfer of power. If there was a theocratic nation where Christianity was the state religion, and there was an Islamic general strike, mass protest, and possibly an armed struggle that ousted the Christian priests in favor of Muslim ones, there would be a definite difference in the conduct of the country accomplished through extralegal means. That is to say, it would be a revolution despite the fact that the Christian and Muslim priests were of the same class.

[Comrade Chernov]

In cases of murder or rape only, but definitely yes.

[#FF0000]

In cases of murder or rape only, but definitely yes.

gonna copy and paste it cuz i'm still curious what people have to say in response to it:

It doesn't stop the crime from happening
It doesn't deter other criminals
It doesn't repair the damage done by the crime
It can't guarantee an innocent person will not be wrongly executed.

So how can you justify it?

[Art Vandelay]

I fail to see how morality, understood to mean the principles for determining which actions are good, is inherently class-based.

Morality falls entirely into the realm of the social superstructure and is therefor constrained and conditioned by the economic base of society. There is a reason why it was considered morally normal and acceptable to own slaves in slave societies; why it was considered morally acceptable for kings and queens to rule large sections of land under the feudal mode of production, etc....it is because morality is class based. Its honestly a very basic materialist conviction; the belief in 'eternal moral truths' is a view which is rooted in philosophical idealism. The dialectical materialist paradigm does not recognize a dualism between means and ends; to quote Trotsky:


The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end. The immediate end becomes the means for a further end.

Transcendental morality is an ideological weapon of the ruling class and those who uphold it, enslave the proletariat in its fiction, instead of helping the oppressed "elaborate the morality of insurrection." All that leads to the overthrow of the global capitalist system is moral, nothing else.

To believe that any authoritarian imposition of a societal order will reflect the democratic ideals that might have inspired it is equally naive.

I'm about as unapologetically authoritarian as they come, so you're really not going to convince me of much with this rehashed liberalism.


Any revolution fought by a small faction against the will of the people can only produce another oligarchy in its place, as those who agitated for the conflict clearly don't trust the consciences of their fellow workers to initiate the new infrastructure voluntarily through a general strike, mass protest and/or electoral politics.

Which is an absolute red herring. I'm honestly not even sure why you addressed this comment to me. Can you point me in the direction where I've stated anything in favor of a revolution carried out by a minority? You can't, because I didn't. As I just posted in another thread, the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves; to posit otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes proletarian revolution.

[Remus Bleys]

There can be a revolution without a class-based transfer of power, even if that may be a common feature, because a revolution is inclusive to any primarily extralegal transfer of power. If there was a theocratic nation where Christianity was the state religion, and there was an Islamic general strike, mass protest, and possibly an armed struggle that ousted the Christian priests in favor of Muslim ones, there would be a definite difference in the conduct of the country accomplished through extralegal means. That is to say, it would be a revolution despite the fact that the Christian and Muslim priests were of the same class.
Then you do not know what a Revolution is. A revolution is the change in the mode of production.

[Sea]

I don't see the death penalty as a problem. Death is taboo, which makes it hard for people to see that there's really nothing wrong with using it. But then again, I'm probably one of the only ones here who like La Marseillaise for its lyrics.

[Art Vandelay]

Then you do not know what a Revolution is. A revolution is the change in the mode of production.

There is a distinction between social and political revolutions.

[Remus Bleys]

There is a distinction between social and political revolutions.So the Velvet Revolution was a genuine Revolution according to you?

[#FF0000]

So the Velvet Revolution was a genuine Revolution according to you?

please stop posting

[Remus Bleys]

please stop posting
I'm going to take that as a yes.

edit: Where the fuck did I say something had to be proletariat to be a revolution?

[Sea]

gonna copy and paste it cuz i'm still curious what people have to say in response to it:

It doesn't stop the crime from happening
It doesn't deter other criminals
It doesn't repair the damage done by the crime
It can't guarantee an innocent person will not be wrongly executed.

So how can you justify it?Oh, wow. Change "executed" to "imprisoned" on the last one and it works for the life penalty too!

I guess your laziness paid off. :rolleyes:

So the Velvet Revolution was a genuine Revolution according to you?Yeah, and it was lead by the Blanquist group "The Velvet Underground"!

[#FF0000]

I'm going to take that as a yes.

Like populi said, there's a difference between a social revolution when society itself is changed and a political revolution where a new government is put in place.

But this is miles off topic and I don't care about the velvet revolution or this dumb tangent. Of course things like the "Velvet Revolution" or the recent "revolution" in Egypt aren't proletarian revolutions -- but no one's saying that. So no, no one here thinks it was a "genuine" revolution, if that's what you mean.

But changing topic again, please stop posting.

[#FF0000]

Oh, wow. Change "executed" to "imprisoned" on the last one and it works for the life penalty too!

I guess your laziness paid off. :rolleyes:

That doesn't really change the point I'm making though, does it? False imprisonment being horrific doesn't make executions any less monstrous, does it?

And hey while I'm at it I'll copy/paste this too:

"Fuck off if you aren't for prison abolition as well"

[Sabot Cat]

Then you do not know what a Revolution is. A revolution is the change in the mode of production.

Definitions of "revolution" in the societal sense:

Merriam-Webster, "fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed".

Collins Dictionary, "the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed".

Wikitionary, "A political upheaval in a government or nation state characterized by great change."

Although I'm not using the word how you or Marx would, I'm not ignorant of its definition.


Morality falls entirely into the realm of the social superstructure and is therefor constrained and conditioned by the economic base of society. There is a reason why it was considered morally normal and acceptable to own slaves in slave societies; why it was considered morally acceptable for kings and queens to rule large sections of land under the feudal mode of production, etc....it is because morality is class based.

The claim that 'most prevailing theories of morality will be influenced by the culture and material conditions that produced them' is distinct from the assertion that 'all moral systems are inherently class based' . The former is likely to be true, the latter has yet to be demonstrated.


Its honestly a very basic materialist conviction; the belief in 'eternal moral truths' is a view which is rooted in philosophical idealism. The dialectical materialist paradigm does not recognize a dualism between means and ends; to quote Trotsky:


I am a materialist and a realist who favors consequential ethics. More to the point, I think Trotsky's argument can be more succinctly described as "the ends justifies the means", which is not only a type of ethical maxim, but one often used to justify aristocratic cruelties as it was in Machiavelli's The Prince.


Transcendental morality is an ideological weapon of the ruling class and those who uphold it, enslave the proletariat in its fiction, instead of helping the oppressed "elaborate the morality of insurrection." All that leads to the overthrow of the global capitalist system is moral, nothing else.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but I'm not a transcendental moralist, I'm a moral realist, and I believe that which is good and that which isn't good are verifiable (although analytic) distinctions.



I'm about as unapologetically authoritarian as they come, so you're really not going to convince me of much with this rehashed liberalism.


I'm not sure why you even want a revolution, honestly, as you've stated that you find all evaluation of what is goodness (ethics or morality) to be inherently class-based.


Which is an absolute red herring. I'm honestly not even sure why you addressed this comment to me. Can you point me in the direction where I've stated anything in favor of a revolution carried out by a minority? You can't, because I didn't. As I just posted in another thread, the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves; to posit otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes proletarian revolution.

I believe that we should liberate ourselves, but if it's unnecessary to begin a war, I don't see why we should start one preemptively. I suppose I was assuming that you were working from the historical model of armed revolution, wherein an ideological minority enforces their will upon the populace by superior firepower.


I don't see the death penalty as a problem. Death is taboo, which makes it hard for people to see that there's really nothing wrong with using it. But then again, I'm probably one of the only ones here who like La Marseillaise for its lyrics.

Yes, death is so "taboo". I am so in fear of violating social norms that even I don't want to die.

[Logical seal]

*No you blood-thristy stalinoid!*

Coulden't be said in better words.

[Tim Cornelis]

So those who voted 'no', you would have tried to save Mussolini's or Ceausescu's life? Or you wouldn't have participated in their execution?

[Radio Spartacus]

So those who voted 'no', you would have tried to save Mussolini's or Ceausescu's life? Or you wouldn't have participated in their execution?

I'm more interested in looking at the death penalty in the context of socialist revolution, and I see mercy as a smart political move. Our image in the popular consciousness suggests we'd get power and start scalping unarmed capitalists, and psychologically-sound people aren't into that.

As far as Mussolini and Ceausescu go? I suppose that's more nuanced, and I won't claim to have all the answers. I could disagree with the following tomorrow:

Mussolini's death doesn't make me too uncomfortable. I think you could argue that he was a military target, even if his regime had little chance of restoration. I can't really figure out what useful thing Italian partisans could have done with a living Mussolini, but I'll admit I have got to put more thought into the subject.

As for Ceausescu? I feel his death just fueled his narcissistic image of himself, I don't really see the point. The man went to death singing the internationale as though he understood what that song really meant. Regardless, his death was inter-bourgeois conflict so not that relevant to my views.

[#FF0000]

So those who voted 'no', you would have tried to save Mussolini's or Ceausescu's life?

Nope. And I don't wring my hands over nazis getting blasted in Greece either -- but neither of those situations are what we're talking about when we're talking about the death penalty.

[Czy]

I would support it for prominent bourgeois members post-revolution, and any reactionaries in the aftermath of the revolution, attempting to reinstate the old order.

I also support it for high treason - any plots or conspiracies against the leaders of the various syndicates and councils, etc.

I view it as purely barbaric in any other cases, except perhaps serial killers/mass murderers. The fact is that it doesn't do a good job in deterring or preventing ordinary crime. And I would like to think that instating a society based on common ownership would reduce the instance of murder to such a level that it would be treated as a mental illness.

[Invader Zim]

Fuck off if you aren't for prison abolition as well

Well, they operate at the moment - absolutely. That said what do you do with the likes of Peter Sutcliff, Anders Breivik? Secure hospitals? And should someone like Breivik who is, apparently sane, according to expert opinion, be incarcerated in a hospital is he isn't 'sick' in the literal sense of the word?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Oh, wow. Change "executed" to "imprisoned" on the last one and it works for the life penalty too!

At least someone who's wrongfully imprisoned can be released.

On a different note, this whole "what is revolution argument is senseless. Use the context to understand what someone means. Words can have more than one meaning.

[Art Vandelay]

The claim that 'most prevailing theories of morality will be influenced by the culture and material conditions that produced them' is distinct from the assertion that 'all moral systems are inherently class based' . The former is likely to be true, the latter has yet to be demonstrated.

It certainly has been demonstrated, perhaps not by me in this thread, but by many Marxists over the years who have outlined the case for Marxist 'amoralism' much more succinctly and articulately than I ever could. The fault in your line of argumentation is that you posit that abstract notions of morality should be the compass by which we seek to build a more rational and humane world, as opposed to the harsh realities of the class struggle. This useless moralism is indeed rooted in philosophical idealism, not scientific socialism and the Marxist method; as if morality is something which exists independent of material conditions. It is, as Trotsky predicted and was proven correct by many of the former Marxists who became demoralized following the degeneration of the Russian revolution, a bridge from revolution to reaction. The entire point is that under capitalism, different socio-economic classes have different moral characteristics; that no universal morality exists, "unrelated to social classes, their economic underpinnings and abrupt historical changes."


More to the point, I think Trotsky's argument can be more succinctly described as "the ends justifies the means", which is not only a type of ethical maxim, but one often used to justify aristocratic cruelties as it was in Machiavelli's The Prince.

His argument was that the ends justify the means, but in turn, the end must be justified. He was a dialectical materialist, as I stated before, dm doesn't recognize any dualism between 'means' and 'ends.'


Dialectical research begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding ot the whole from which one has begun...Conversely to being with a supposedly independent part or parts is to assume a separation with its corresponding distortion of meaning that no amount of later relating can overcome. Something will be missing, something will be out of place, and, without any standard by which to judge, neither will be recognized.

Which is indeed what happens, especially when self described Marxists approach the topic of morality without adhering to the dialectical materialist paradigm, it results in useless moralism, stemming from the philosophical idealism and abstract notions of morality with no basis in material reality.


I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but I'm not a transcendental moralist, I'm a moral realist, and I believe that which is good and that which isn't good are verifiable (although analytic) distinctions.

How is what you've said here in anyway incompatible with anything I've said? Outside of your label of 'moral realist.'


I'm not sure why you even want a revolution, honestly, as you've stated that you find all evaluation of what is goodness (ethics or morality) to be inherently class-based.

What? This is honestly absurd. First off it showcases your total misconception of the development of class consciousness. I want revolution because I am a proletarian, because it is in my class interests. On top of this, you clearly have no understanding of what Marxist amoralism entails, which seems weird why you'd be critiquing it if you don't know what it is you're critiquing; you know that old Hitchens bit, about the first prerequisite for polemics is being able to succinctly articulate the opposing argument?


The amoralism of Lenin, that is, his rejection of supra-class morals, did not hinder him from remaining faithfull to one and the same ideal throughout his whole life; from devoting his whole being to the cause of the oppressed; from displaying the highest conscientiousness in the sphere of ideas and the highest fearlessness in the sphere of action; from maintaining an attitude untainted by the least superiority to an 'ordinary' worker, to a defenseless woman, to a child. Does it not seem that amoralism in the given case is only a pseudonym for higher human morality?

Marxist amoralism is only a rejection of existing forms of morality, or 'supra-class morality.'


I believe that we should liberate ourselves, but if it's unnecessary to begin a war, I don't see why we should start one preemptively. I suppose I was assuming that you were working from the historical model of armed revolution, wherein an ideological minority enforces their will upon the populace by superior firepower.

I have no idea why you would suppose such a thing.

[Red_Banner]

No, I do not. It's inherently retributive, unnecessary and ineffective.

So what is more effective?

[Red_Banner]

So those who voted 'no', you would have tried to save Mussolini's or Ceausescu's life? Or you wouldn't have participated in their execution?

I would have given Ceausescu a better trial than that sham.

[#FF0000]

So what is more effective?

Prevention. Rehabilitation. Virtually anything else.


Well, they operate at the moment - absolutely. That said what do you do with the likes of Peter Sutcliff, Anders Breivik? Secure hospitals? And should someone like Breivik who is, apparently sane, according to expert opinion, be incarcerated in a hospital is he isn't 'sick' in the literal sense of the word?

The baseline assumption here is that most of these sorts of crimes would be eliminated in a communist society, so in going forward we're assuming we're talking about extreme exceptions. In this extreme situation, some kind of enforced separation would probably be required or acceptable. But it's difficult to answer that because most of our "criminal justice system" has been oriented towards punitive "justice", with alternatives that just haven't been explored yet.

[Radio Spartacus]

I would support it for prominent bourgeois members post-revolution, and any reactionaries in the aftermath of the revolution, attempting to reinstate the old order.

I also support it for high treason - any plots or conspiracies against the leaders of the various syndicates and councils, etc.

I view it as purely barbaric in any other cases, except perhaps serial killers/mass murderers. The fact is that it doesn't do a good job in deterring or preventing ordinary crime. And I would like to think that instating a society based on common ownership would reduce the instance of murder to such a level that it would be treated as a mental illness.

Isn't any reactionaries kind of a broad category? Sounds like the kind of thing that could be twisted into a bloodbath.

[Red_Banner]

Prevention. Rehabilitation. Virtually anything else.



The baseline assumption here is that most of these sorts of crimes would be eliminated in a communist society, so in going forward we're assuming we're talking about extreme exceptions. In this extreme situation, some kind of enforced separation would probably be required or acceptable. But it's difficult to answer that because most of our "criminal justice system" has been oriented towards punitive "justice", with alternatives that just haven't been explored yet.

Okay you do mention rehabilitation, but what about life in prison?

Do you think that is acceptible?

[Art Vandelay]

Okay you do mention rehabilitation, but what about life in prison?

Do you think that is acceptible?

I'd take a bullet over being held in a cage for the rest of my life.

[Red_Banner]

I'd take a bullet over being held in a cage for the rest of my life.

Same here.

[#FF0000]

Okay you do mention rehabilitation, but what about life in prison?

Do you think that is acceptible?

Nope. When it comes to "crime" the way to deal with it is to stop it before it happens, by getting rid of the conditions that lead to people acting in ways that harm others. Any kind of imprisonment or enforced separation, might only be an option for the "worst of the worst" who are an existential threat to others if they are free no matter what.

I don't expect there to be more than a tiny handful of those people.


I'd take a bullet over being held in a cage for the rest of my life.

I think I'd rather be kept in a cage with a chance to be free than killed on a false conviction. But I could go either way on that.

[NGNM85]

The baseline assumption here is that most of these sorts of crimes would be eliminated in a communist society, so in going forward we're assuming we're talking about extreme exceptions. In this extreme situation, some kind of enforced separation would probably be required or acceptable. But it's difficult to answer that because most of our "criminal justice system" has been oriented towards punitive "justice", with alternatives that just haven't been explored yet.

Is that a reasonable assumption? It depends on how you define; 'most.' I would expect even a robust, thriving, democratic, egalitarian society, where the means of production are publicly owned, etc., we'd still have our share of rapists, thieves, pedophiles, and murderers, a number of whom will simply be too dangerous to allow to roam freely, no doubt indulging in their antisocial proclivities. Also, I would argue it's a safe assumption that a number of these individuals will be clinically sane, but also mostly, or entirely unresponsive to rehabilitation. There's simply no other alternative. Also, while I concede rehabilitation should take precedence over punishment, providing it's even possible, I don't see why it should be entirely absent from the equation. Let's say someone commits a homicide, in the heat of passion, without premeditation, is; 'Sorry.' really sufficient? Should they not pay any cost, whatsoever?

[NGNM85]

So those who voted 'no', you would have tried to save Mussolini's or Ceausescu's life? Or you wouldn't have participated in their execution?

That's the wrong question. What you should be asking is; would opponents of capital punishment, such as myself, oppose executing someone like Mussolini, or Ceausescu. I'd say; yes, for the reasons already stated. It' s not as if there is some magic number where the equation flips. That's totally arbitrary. It's not about sympathy for the accused, (although, executing innocent people is a virtually inevitable consequence of capital punishment) I don't mourn for Ted Bundy; I'm opposed to murder, state-sanctioned, or otherwise.

[#FF0000]

Is that a reasonable assumption? It depends on how you define; 'most.' I would expect even a robust, thriving, democratic, egalitarian society, where the means of production are publicly owned, etc., we'd still have our share of rapists, thieves, pedophiles, and murderers, a number of whom will simply be too dangerous to allow to roam freely, no doubt indulging in their antisocial proclivities.

Why do you think that? People aren't just born "anti-social". Generally speaking this kind of behavior is learned. And I think we know this. Most people convicted of violent crime have come from extremely difficult backgrounds, or were the victims of abuse themselves. In the society we want, I don't imagine these problems would go away entirely, but the resources to help people who suffer before they lash out and commit these acts would (hopefully) be freely and fully available


I don't see why it should be entirely absent from the equation. Let's say someone commits a homicide, in the heat of passion, without premeditation, is; 'Sorry.' really sufficient? Should they not pay any cost, whatsoever?No, and I don't think anyone suggested that? If someone committed a murder because they got mad, then yeah, obviously they've got serious problems that they need to deal with, and they should be separated and given the resources to deal with them, and there ought to be a process towards restorative justice between the injured and injuring parties.

What we can all agree with here now is that the modern prison is a ghastly institution, and whatever exists in the future ought to bear as little resemblance to it as possible.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

Some people can't conduct themselves in a civilized manner and the world loses nothing of value with their deaths. Since self-defense is a natural right, a person can kill to protect themselves. Once a person has victimized another person they are likely to do it again and so shuffling them loose the mortal coil can be viewed as a defense against further attacks and protection of other people. Then of course there is the retributive aspect of it, which I also understand and agree with.

That being said, I don't support the State's capital punishment; too many innocent people have been executed and many on death row have been exonerated. Nothing short of irrefutable proof that a person is guilty should be required before execution can even be considered.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Kind of tired of the navel gazing re: "A REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION" as if that's a reality y'all are even capable of handling.

this response tho I think is particularly out of touch. "Ah well no room to keep this one better just dig a shallow ditch"

What would you do in such a rare situation? I can't imagine that if their wasn't enough resources to care for prisoners, you'd just let them go. I mean like if you have a better idea, say it. I'm open to other possibilities, I know my post is not supposed to be the policy of a future Red Army.

[#FF0000]

Nothing short of irrefutable proof that a person is guilty should be required before execution can even be considered.

They always believe their proof is "irrefutable".

[Esoteric]

Many innocent folks have died under the death penalty because of human error.

If we had a society that had eliminated market-driven resource scarcity, then you would see crime rates drop anyway and a 'need' for a death penalty no longer unnecessary.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

They always believe their proof is "irrefutable".

True. But I am thinking something more along the lines of DNA evidence, being caught in the act, etc.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm going to quote my own post, which seems so pretentious to me, but I wonder if perhaps since it was the last post on page 6, maybe it got overlooked; regardless, anyone who argues against the absolute ruthlessness of the proletariat during a revolutionary situation, needs to put forth an argument which refutes the idea that morality does not have both correlation and causation, with socio-economic classes.


It certainly has been demonstrated, perhaps not by me in this thread, but by many Marxists over the years who have outlined the case for Marxist 'amoralism' much more succinctly and articulately than I ever could. The fault in your line of argumentation is that you posit that abstract notions of morality should be the compass by which we seek to build a more rational and humane world, as opposed to the harsh realities of the class struggle. This useless moralism is indeed rooted in philosophical idealism, not scientific socialism and the Marxist method; as if morality is something which exists independent of material conditions. It is, as Trotsky predicted and was proven correct by many of the former Marxists who became demoralized following the degeneration of the Russian revolution, a bridge from revolution to reaction. The entire point is that under capitalism, different socio-economic classes have different moral characteristics; that no universal morality exists "unrelated to social classes, their economic underpinnings and abrupt historical changes."

Now the argument has been put forth (which is a strawman) that the people who uphold certain theoretical positions on this matter, wouldn't survive any revolutionary situation, or be capable of the tangible implementation of the theoretical conclusions they've come to. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't refute this; I'm a skinny white kid from Canada, there is no doubt in my mind, I wouldn't know what to do in these sorts of situations, but that isn't a basis for refuting the argument. On top of this, this whole discussion (unless completely centered on the basis of a socialist society) is mute. None of us know what will be necessary, to ensure the surpassing of the capitalist mode of production. What I do know, is that a revolution being 'messy' or 'bloody' pales in comparison to the barbarity which would arise, from the continuation of the capitalist mode of production. And for that reason, I consider most people who disavow revolutionary terror (keep in mind I'm using this in the historical marxist sense, not with all the baggage which arises with the modern connotations of the term), as nothing but moralists who objectively side with the ruling class, regardless of whether or not they subjectively side with the oppressed.

[NGNM85]

...I consider most people who disavow revolutionary terror (keep in mind I'm using this in the historical marxist sense, not with all the baggage which arises with the modern connotations of the term), as nothing but moralists who objectively side with the ruling class, regardless of whether or not they subjectively side with the oppressed.

Pretty much all of this is bullshit. First of all; saying you are using the word; 'terror'; ' in the Marxist sense' is nonsense because, unlike; 'state', etc., this word is not Marxist jargon, it has no special meaning exclusive to Marxism. When Marx wrote of; 'revolutionary terror', he was referring to the Jacobin's; 'Reign of Terror', which is the way it was generally understood. Furthermore, with a brief exception of the embittered period from 1848-50, Marx opposed revolutionary terror, which he saw as unproductive. Marx's fiercest opponents also love the '48-50 period, for the same reason, they also want to turn Marx into this bloodthirsty, would-be despot. However, this caricature bears almost no resemblance to Marx, the man. Of course, you also think; 'dialectical materialism' has something to do with Marxism.

[standfirm]

It's a no for me for a few reasons.
Firstly, what if the person is found to be innocent further down the line and the have been killed for a crime they didn't commit?

Secondly, I don't think the state can say murder is wrong and then have the person killed. It is hypocrisy of the highest order!

Also giving the state the option to take a human life is very dangerous, as when you give them that right then the control they have over people with fear is increased massively!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[IBleedRed]

IMO support of or opposition to the death penalty should not be a matter of principle but of practicality. So I don't really go one way or the other. For practical reasons, though, I think the death penalty by the state should be used sparsely because of the risk of executing someone who isn't guilty.

IMO the death penalty isn't much worse than life imprisonment Either way, your life has been taken from you. The DP should be utilized when necessary in a revolutionary situation. Our enemies would do no better for us.

[standfirm]

IMO support of or opposition to the death penalty should not be a matter of principle but of practicality. So I don't really go one way or the other. For practical reasons, though, I think the death penalty by the state should be used sparsely because of the risk of executing someone who isn't guilty.

IMO the death penalty isn't much worse than life imprisonment Either way, your life has been taken from you. The DP should be utilized when necessary in a revolutionary situation. Our enemies would do no better for us.


The only upside to life imprisonment compared to the DP is the fact that if you are found to be innocent you can at least get the taste of freedom again.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Marshal of the People]

True. But I am thinking something more along the lines of DNA evidence, being caught in the act, etc.

Evidence can be tampered with! Witnesses are prone to lie and sometime DNA evidence could be wrong!

[Marshal of the People]

Some people can't conduct themselves in a civilized manner and the world loses nothing of value with their deaths. Since self-defense is a natural right, a person can kill to protect themselves. Once a person has victimized another person they are likely to do it again and so shuffling them loose the mortal coil can be viewed as a defense against further attacks and protection of other people. Then of course there is the retributive aspect of it, which I also understand and agree with.

That being said, I don't support the State's capital punishment; too many innocent people have been executed and many on death row have been exonerated. Nothing short of irrefutable proof that a person is guilty should be required before execution can even be considered.


Some people can't conduct themselves in a civilized manner and the world loses nothing of value with their deaths.

Define civilized. How could you say the world would lose nothing in their deaths? How do you know they won't become a great scientist or doctor when they grow older?


Since self-defense is a natural right, a person can kill to protect themselves.

Define "self defense", your view that it is okay to kill in self defence is open to interpretation. Say I threatened to hit someone very lightly they could then stab me to death in self defence! Your view is flawed in my opinion.


Once a person has victimized another person they are likely to do it again and so shuffling them loose the mortal coil can be viewed as a defense against further attacks and protection of other people.

Not everyone is a sociopath!

So say someone may steal from a store and then to stop them from doing it again they will be killed, how is that fair or logical?


Then of course there is the retributive aspect of it, which I also understand and agree with.

That is quite hypocritical! You killed someone and that is bad so now I will kill you!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Loving the comments by retribution-crazed savages in this thread. Reminds me of those creeps that want criminals to get raped in prison.

[Remus Bleys]

Loving the comments by retribution-crazed savages in this thread. Reminds me of those creeps that want criminals to get raped in prison.
Or like people who want pedophiles to get immediately torn to shreds by mob action.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Or like people who want pedophiles to get immediately torn to shreds by mob action.

If you want to misconstrue my positions on a completely unrelated topic, do it somewhere else.

[Remus Bleys]

If you want to misconstrue my positions on a completely unrelated topic, do it somewhere else.
Except it really isn't unrelated, is it? The thread is about the death penalty - and you do support the death penalty against pedophiles, dont you?

[Rottenfruit]

I support it in extreme cases such as war criminals , mass murderers like breivik , or vicious sadistic serial killers Richard Ramirez or the ripper crew which was a group of 4 satanic serial killers that tortured and killed 18 women .

But i dont support death penalty in most cases like a bank robbery gone wrong where somebody got shot or a gang hit.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

There shouldn't even be a discussion about this anymore!

1. No death penalty, ever, unless we're at war. And even then, it should be minimized.

2. In peace time, we should always focus on rehabilitation. In a socialist world, with most economic troubles a thing of the past, the vast majority of crimes will be committed by the mentally ill--people who aren't always responsible fo their own actions. Some poor souls will be beyod help. In that case, we'll lock them up, feed them, clothe them, and be as humane as we can in our treatment of them.

Funny, Edward Bellamy wrote a book I love called Looking Backward. The main character, Julian West, falls asleep and wakes up over a century in the future. The U.S. has become a quasi-communist (I say quasi because there's no withering away of the state and there are some undesirable authoritrian elements) utopia. Julian learns that people who commit crimes are now looked upon with great pity. Prisons have been replaced almost entirely with special rehabilitative hospitals for the criminally insane.

That's the kind of future I want to see. No dark, dirty prisons; no retributive justice. Just as much forgiveness and rehabilittion as possible.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Killing is justifiable as:

1. Self-defense.
2. A last resort to save many more lives.

Neither of these conditions applies to anybody who's already locked up and poses no imminent threat to anyone. "Retributive" justice is just a throwback to earlier societies (not even found in certain if any hunter-gatherer societies) and has no place in any rational discussion of how to handle dangers to society.

Also, if murder justifies murder in retaliation, when it inevitably turns out an innocent person was executed and posthumously acquitted, will you execute an executioner? If not, that seems inconsistent.

Even if you are stubbornly keen on retribution, I'm sure Leninists especially will appreciate this:


It hath long since been observed that a man after he is hanged is good for nothing, and that punishments invented for the good of society ought to be useful to society. It is evident that a score of stout robbers, condemned for life to some public work, would serve the state in their punishment, and that hanging them is a benefit to nobody but the executioner.

So one way or another, even if you advocate for "retributive justice", the death penalty is just irrational and wrong.

[RedWaves]

I find it to be barbaric

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I'm not sure why so many are against the death penalty.

So if someone violently murders people or rapes people or tortures people… You think it is barbaric to kill them? Now that logic is just beyond me. So you would rather keep them alive with our resources? And if not and you say "just starve them or work them to death", why do you think that is not barbaric if killing them is? Or did you just want to throw them in some nice Norweigan-style prison?

Violent crimes, including sex crimes and child molestation, should be dealt with a zero tolerance policy. That means, you do not get to live in society anywhere. The death penalty swiftly removes them. Of course everyone must have a trial.

Now, what about non violent crimes? That is what labor camps are for. And I do NOT mean some type of gulag before you think I'm a sociopath. I mean simply a camp where you cannot leave for a set amount of time, but you are given menial housing, food, etc. And you simply mass produce food and work longer hours than normal people. Does this not sound like a fair system?

[Radio Spartacus]

I'm not sure why so many are against the death penalty.

So if someone violently murders people or rapes people or tortures people… You think it is barbaric to kill them? Now that logic is just beyond me. So you would rather keep them alive with our resources? And if not and you say "just starve them or work them to death", why do you think that is not barbaric if killing them is? Or did you just want to throw them in some nice Norweigan-style prison?

Violent crimes, including sex crimes and child molestation, should be dealt with a zero tolerance policy. That means, you do not get to live in society anywhere. The death penalty swiftly removes them. Of course everyone must have a trial.

Now, what about non violent crimes? That is what labor camps are for. And I do NOT mean some type of gulag before you think I'm a sociopath. I mean simply a camp where you cannot leave for a set amount of time, but you are given menial housing, food, etc. And you simply mass produce food and work longer hours than normal people. Does this not sound like a fair system?

If the logic behind not killing people for killing people is "beyond you", I fear for your ability to grasp higher level concepts. Do you believe in that liberal crap where when someone takes "rights" away they lose their "rights"?

[dodger]

If the logic behind not killing people for killing people is "beyond you", I fear for your ability to grasp higher level concepts. Do you believe in that liberal crap where when someone takes "rights" away they lose their "rights"?

As one of the dimmer contributors , that is precisely one of my concerns.

,,,,,,,,,,,,, "I'm Spartacus"...

[#FF0000]

I'm not sure why so many are against the death penalty.

Did you read the thread or are you just uninterested in views other than your own? Because people made their case many, many times.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

If you've read the research you'll find the death penalty does nothing to reduce crime.
Death penalty isn't designed to reduce crime, it's supposed to reduce criminals.


Many innocent folks have died under the death penalty because of human error.

We can always make sure they're not innocent.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Now, what about non violent crimes? That is what labor camps are for. And I do NOT mean some type of gulag before you think I'm a sociopath. I mean simply a camp where you cannot leave for a set amount of time, but you are given menial housing, food, etc. And you simply mass produce food and work longer hours than normal people. Does this not sound like a fair system? oh cool so regular slave labour, and not just slave labour to death
wait a minute that's not nice at all

[#FF0000]

Death penalty isn't designed to reduce crime, it's supposed to reduce criminals.

So is rehabilitation, isn't it?


We can always make sure they're not innocent.

OH WOW WHAT A CONCEPT JUST MAKE SURE THE "GUILTY" ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY unlike what the system does now which is uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Radio Spartacus]

Round of applause. We just make sure they're guilty. No one thought of that until this grand moment.

[consuming negativity]

Eh. Just a few thoughts after reading through the thread.

I feel like if the dichotomy between "life in prison" and "death penalty" was actually focused on being as humane as possible in dealing with people who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk around amongst a population, it would make sense to give people the option of what they'd like their punishment to be.

And don't misconstrue my words - it is, ultimately, a punishment, even if it serves the goal of keeping a population safe. People who rape children and lock women in their basement for decades and shit like that, they aren't the products of a normal, healthy society. Even "normal" rapists (oh god, it hurts me so badly to say that) are, ultimately, a product of a society that heavily devalues women amongst the dozens of other contributing sociological factors that lead to such large amounts of rape. So if you think about it, the punishment is really not even for the actions of the person, but society is actually dealing with the problem of its own depravity by simply getting rid of the people who end up being too deeply affected by their surroundings.

If we are to rearrange society itself in a manner that is designed to minimize these kinds of failures of the system - that is, with good education, communal living and parenting, good housing and nutrition access, and all that - the natural result would be a lot of these potential problems never surfacing.

However, I find it somewhat insulting to those with mental illnesses to imply that anybody who murders or rapes lots of people is just a member of their community and can be fixed with lots and lots of medicine. At least in part because it ignores the fact that people without mental illnesses can be affected by their surroundings in such a way for them to commit these behaviors - it's, at it's heart, a defense of the system. So the idea that "oh well we'll just stick all of 'those people' in hospitals" is really not a lot different from the scenario where we throw people in prison, except perhaps the more humane accommodations.

That there is a lot of confusion ITT about how these [what should be VERY] rare cases should be handled is probably a good thing, actually. If cases such as this are more than very rare, it signals a problem with what we've created that allows an environment in which people like that will be created. In the event that some of us are wrong, and even in the best of societies, people like this will exist to some degree, I think a bit of confusion and moral hazard in dealing with those situations is inevitable in a community of non-sociopaths. These situations shouldn't be easy to handle.

Although, I don't want people to read this and think I'm on the boat with those of you who think catching a rapist in the act and summarily executing them is the moral equivalent of the racist, classist "justice system" and death sentences that exist today. I think what I'm trying to say is that this thread and this question itself are more or less meaningless, and seem to be us looking at a future of communism through the lenses of what we know to be society today.

[Rottenfruit]

for example i find it a horribul injustice that richard chase was sentenced to death because he clearly commited those murders because of his mental illness and should have been placed in a place for criminaly insane, heck the poor man should have not ever been released to society because his delusions were that dangerous (he belived that nazis had poisned him so his body could not produce new blood cells so he had to kill people and drink there blood to survive) but it was the schizophrenia that caused him to commit 6 murders not him.

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

[Marshal of the People]

I'm not sure why so many are against the death penalty.

So if someone violently murders people or rapes people or tortures people… You think it is barbaric to kill them? Now that logic is just beyond me. So you would rather keep them alive with our resources? And if not and you say "just starve them or work them to death", why do you think that is not barbaric if killing them is? Or did you just want to throw them in some nice Norweigan-style prison?

Violent crimes, including sex crimes and child molestation, should be dealt with a zero tolerance policy. That means, you do not get to live in society anywhere. The death penalty swiftly removes them. Of course everyone must have a trial.

Now, what about non violent crimes? That is what labor camps are for. And I do NOT mean some type of gulag before you think I'm a sociopath. I mean simply a camp where you cannot leave for a set amount of time, but you are given menial housing, food, etc. And you simply mass produce food and work longer hours than normal people. Does this not sound like a fair system?

You are a sociopath!

[Buttscratcher]

What's your take?

I know I'll get a bunch of wankers saying "waaah, waaah you're a blood-thirsty-Stalinoid". etc
If the crime is bad enough (like mass murdering just for the sake of it or terrorrism), and if there's 100% proof the suspect was the one who committed the crime, euthanize him.

[Sabot Cat]

If the crime is bad enough (like mass murdering just for the sake of it or terrorrism), and if there's 100% proof the suspect was the one who committed the crime, euthanize him.

Why is 'badness' the method of appraisal for whether or not it would be better to imprison someone or execute them, and not the present danger they pose after the act?

[A Psychological Symphony]

I'm not sure why so many are against the death penalty.

So if someone violently murders people or rapes people or tortures people… You think it is barbaric to kill them? Now that logic is just beyond me. So you would rather keep them alive with our resources? And if not and you say "just starve them or work them to death", why do you think that is not barbaric if killing them is? Or did you just want to throw them in some nice Norweigan-style prison?

Violent crimes, including sex crimes and child molestation, should be dealt with a zero tolerance policy. That means, you do not get to live in society anywhere. The death penalty swiftly removes them. Of course everyone must have a trial.

Now, what about non violent crimes? That is what labor camps are for. And I do NOT mean some type of gulag before you think I'm a sociopath. I mean simply a camp where you cannot leave for a set amount of time, but you are given menial housing, food, etc. And you simply mass produce food and work longer hours than normal people. Does this not sound like a fair system?

What exactly is a non-violent crime in a communist society?