Communism and the death penalty?

[Red Star Rising]

Just out of curiosity, I want to find out what others think and, more importantly, start a discussion ;)

I have always been absolutely opposed to the death penalty myself and unconvinced by the effectiveness of retribution as a mechanism of justice. I could list all my reasoning but I would much rather read the thoughts of others and discuss.

[The Red Star Rising]

I'm personally a big opponent of it. Especially the industry that has been made out of it and the borderline creepy cult of cultural revenge porn that has been created out of it. It's not really an effective deterrent, brutality is not how you deter crimes. And the thought that innocent people could be executed for a crime that they did not commit appalls me. Anyway, when someone's in prison, they're no longer a threat to society. There's little reason to execute them other than out of a want to end a life or to show how "tough on crime" you are.

The death penalty is a relic of an older age and it's time the world moved past it.

[Blake's Baby]

There are several threads that have already explored the idea of 'justice' in a communist society. You could try searching for some of them.

But, at the risk of repeating myself, I think 'justice' has to be restorative, and dead people aren't much use to the rest of society. If you fuck something up, you should try to fix it (or if you can't, fix something else that's broken).

[Slavic]

As a weapon of war, not rehabilitation.

[Sinister Intents]

I oppose the death penalty except for extreme cases such as with serial killers/rapists/et cetera. Other than that the death penalty shouldn't be an option.

[Brutus]

I oppose empowering the bourgeois state with the means to legally execute people for any reason. I'm not against the use of violence on any moral basis, but from a class viewpoint.

[exeexe]

Death penalty? I dont know. Its the penalty part that sounds obnoxious. Does it really have to be a penalty? I dont think so. I think for something to be a penalty, at minimum the person who did something should be alive to get a penalty.

Lets call it a deathblow! A deathblow should be given to make sure people are safe. Like if someone like Breivik killed endless amounts of harmless people, then yeah, give him a deathblow so he doesnt do it again.

[Dagoth Ur]

In war you have to execute people because due process is not possible. Otherwise courts and work-camps for all.

[Rosa Partizan]

absolutely opposed to it, and it has no positive "learning effect" on society, either.

[Sinister Intents]

Death penalty? I dont know. Its the penalty part that sounds obnoxious. Does it really have to be a penalty? I dont think so. I think for something to be a penalty, at minimum the person who did something should be alive to get a penalty.

Lets call it a deathblow! A deathblow should be given to make sure people are safe. Like if someone like Breivik killed endless amounts of harmless people, then yeah, give him a deathblow so he doesnt do it again.

Firing squads are excellent ways of eliminating individuals like Breivik and Nazis

[Slavic]

Death penalty? I dont know. Its the penalty part that sounds obnoxious. Does it really have to be a penalty? I dont think so. I think for something to be a penalty, at minimum the person who did something should be alive to get a penalty.

Lets call it a deathblow! A deathblow should be given to make sure people are safe. Like if someone like Breivik killed endless amounts of harmless people, then yeah, give him a deathblow so he doesnt do it again.


Because if you were to imprison Breivik he would eventually escape and murder again?

[Dagoth Ur]

Also it should be noted that using the death penalty agaisnt people who did not commit murder increases the likelihood that they will murder their victim to keep them quiet.

[exeexe]

Because if you were to imprison Breivik he would eventually escape and murder again?
Why would you have prisons in the first place?

[exeexe]

absolutely opposed to it, and it has no positive "learning effect" on society, either.
Does it have to have a learning effect on society?

[flaming bolshevik]

If they're murderers, rapists, etc they should be shot. If they're spouting reactionary ideas then they should go through some sort of re education.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

In war you have to execute people because due process is not possible. Otherwise courts and work-camps for all.

Why would we continue inhumane acts and bourgeois workist bullshit?

[motion denied]

If they're murderers, rapists, etc they should be shot.

No, they shouldn't.


If they're spouting reactionary ideas then they should go through some sort of re education.

We're in a communist society, one guy comes up and shouts: "O great days of yore, when wage-labour was still a thing..." Yeah, I don't see that happening.

[flaming bolshevik]

No, they shouldn't.

Then what would you suggest?

We're in a communist society, one guy comes up and shouts: "O great days of yore, when wage-labour was still a thing..." Yeah, I don't see that happening.

Maybe not in a communist society but in the period before it might be a good idea.

[flaming bolshevik]

Quote fucked up^

[Dagoth Ur]

If they're murderers, rapists, etc they should be shot.


Also it should be noted that using the death penalty agaisnt people who did not commit murder increases the likelihood that they will murder their victim to keep them quiet.


Why would we continue inhumane acts and bourgeois workist bullshit?
What are you talking about? The only reason you have to execute criminals during war is that you don't have the ability to charge, hold, and try them. If you are capable then execution is barbaric.

Also bourgeoisie workism? Wat?

[Creative Destruction]

There are several threads that have already explored the idea of 'justice' in a communist society. You could try searching for some of them.

But, at the risk of repeating myself, I think 'justice' has to be restorative, and dead people aren't much use to the rest of society. If you fuck something up, you should try to fix it (or if you can't, fix something else that's broken).

Exactly this.

[exeexe]

Firing squads are excellent ways of eliminating individuals like Breivik and Nazis
Yes what a cancer cell is to a body, so is a nazi to society. And our desire to eliminate them both will be at equal.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

In peacetime, there's no practical reason to have a death penalty, but, as Sinister said, I'm all for shooting fascists during a revolution, if need be.

[Sinister Intents]

Yes what a cancer cell is to a body, so is a nazi to society. And our desire to eliminate them both will be at equal.

Which in and of itself, is an authoritarian thing. What if they change there minds on there views, should we still kill them? Or should we give them a chance? I think firing squads for the most ardent fash scum, but for those who may change we give a chance perhaps

[exeexe]

I dont care if its an authoritative thing. Nazis dont deserve such elaborate thoughts. Against nazis one must be brutal and effective.

Have you studied what happened between Germany and USSR in ww2?
I hate to say this but i think Stalin would agree because he learned a lesson too about how you cant give them a chance in ww2.

[consuming negativity]

The best course of action tends to be the one which is reversible. The dead cannot seek or be given any sort of restitution that is meaningful to them. But at the same time, the dead cannot be punished in any meaningful way, either. There are many fates worse than death, depending on the situation. And in many situations, there are deaths which are not only unavoidable but good. Avoiding death is a generally good heuristic but I won't go so far as to make generalizations about any hypothetical circumstances.

But thinking and such are almost always to be encouraged under ordinary circumstances. "Re-education" as a term evokes reactions of horror among most people, and rightly so. I am not the comrade of anyone who would kill or otherwise punish someone merely for having a belief, no matter how stupid or wrong it is. Anti-fascism is not about the censorship of fascist ideas but about preventing fascists from organizing, killing people, and bolstering their ranks. It is pro-active, pragmatic defense, which like any medicine should be administered in appropriate doses. That doesn't mean going into the homes of peaceful dissenters and throwing them in prison cells until they recant their beliefs.

A society where persons are executed without necessity is not what we are trying to bring about. Revolutionary violence doesn't mean going around and shooting capitalists or their sympathizers, either. The Democratic Socialists aren't wrong because they endorse peaceful means of bringing about socialism but because they rule out violent means as a rule. Some of you are very blood-thirsty. It is okay to be angry and say things you don't really mean, but I'd rather us not degenerate into the band of wanton murderers that we are so often portrayed as.

[Red Star Rising]

In war you have to execute people because due process is not possible. Otherwise courts and work-camps for all.

Work camps for all? Including the petty criminals? That, like prisons, creates nothing but resentment. A process of rehabilitation would be a viable option for those whose crimes are not very severe. criminals should still give something back, but our primary goal ought to be preventing the crime from happening again. Prisons and work camps are not effective means of doing that.

[Red Star Rising]

In peacetime, there's no practical reason to have a death penalty, but, as Sinister said, I'm all for shooting fascists during a revolution, if need be.

Does that include people who simply profess fascist views, or those who are actively taking up arms and fighting and killing in the name of fascism. I would hope that when we get to the point when revolution is possible, shooting fascists to avoid threats from fascism wouldn't be necessary.

[Red Star Rising]

Firing squads are excellent ways of eliminating individuals like Breivik and Nazis

Is preventing them from killing again not enough? If you kill them they would go to the grave believing that they are right. That does not serve as a punishment. The dead cannot feel upset or angry or remorse. Neither are they in any way useful to society.

[hatzel]

Neither are they in any way useful to society.

Oh, I dunno about that...compost?

(I'm not actually endorsing composting as retribution or whatever, just hinting at the obscenity of such a rigidly utilitarian approach to justice)

I also notice a recent outbreak of words like 'cancer' and 'medicine'; seems the thread has been infected with some kind of social biologism...

[Red Star Rising]

Oh, I dunno about that...compost?

(I'm not actually endorsing composting as retribution or whatever, just hinting at the obscenity of such a rigidly utilitarian approach to justice)


Obscenity? In what way is it obscene? I see nothing wrong with criminals doing manual labour that nobody else wants to do. At least not when the alternatives are just confinement or death?

[Црвена]

Why should the state ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to take a person's life? Nothing justifies murder. Even if someone is a murderer themself, they're still a human being whose life is of equal importance to everyone else's, and no one is beyond rehabilitation. It's also utter hypocrisy on the part of the state to say that killing is wrong and then kill people. I don't see why this isn't immediately obvious.

[consuming negativity]

It's also utter hypocrisy on the part of the state to say that killing is wrong and then kill people. I don't see why this isn't immediately obvious.

Because most people realize that morality usually has some kind of contextual basis. I shake your hand when we meet, I shake your hand after wiping my ass. Same action, different meaning, opposite results.

[Blake's Baby]

But, the question is really, does the social body have the right to collectively impose themselves on an individual that they, but not necessarily the individual concerned, have decided has broken the social group's rules?

If it does, what's the difference in type (rather than scale) in taking away liberty, and taking away life?

[Црвена]

Because most people realize that morality usually has some kind of contextual basis. I shake your hand when we meet, I shake your hand after wiping my ass. Same action, different meaning, opposite results.

Morality does usually have a contextual basis, but taking someone's life is never, ever justified. This is life we're talking about. It's going to be an exception to regular moral rules.

[consuming negativity]

But, the question is really, does the social body have the right to collectively impose themselves on an individual that they, but not necessarily the individual concerned, have decided has broken the social group's rules?

If it does, what's the difference in type (rather than scale) in taking away liberty, and taking away life?

One is demolition, the other is replacement. It is unnecessary to ask ourselves philosophical questions like you are posing in regards to rights. The group itself determines the correct answer.


Morality does usually have a contextual basis, but taking someone's life is never, ever justified. This is life we're talking about. It's going to be an exception to regular moral rules.

If I ever see someone about to shoot you in cold blood, I won't stop them, because my killing them to save you wouldn't be justified according to your own argumentation.

[The Red Star Rising]

Morality does usually have a contextual basis, but taking someone's life is never, ever justified. This is life we're talking about. It's going to be an exception to regular moral rules.
I generally only subscribe to self defence or the defence of others for the taking of a life. And then generally only as a last resort or if nothing less final can be done fast enough. This means if I see you in seemingly life threatening danger and I'd feel justified in taking your assailant's life.

Now execution as I said before, is both ineffectual and wrong, serving only to titillate revenge fetishism.

[Slavic]

In war you have to execute people because due process is not possible. Otherwise courts and work-camps for all.

Just want to second this again.

Executions are entirely circumstantial. Only those who pose an immediate danger to society at large should be execution. This scenario should only occur during a war time environment where transport of POWs and imprisonment is unfeasible.

When logistics is feasible to transport and imprison, then executions are not warranted since the danger to society can be quickly eliminated.

There is no revenge/retribution fetishism, no moral absolutes, no justice. Just cold hard utilitarian action.

It is impossible to rehabilitate on the battlefield.

[Comrade #138672]

I oppose empowering the bourgeois state with the means to legally execute people for any reason. I'm not against the use of violence on any moral basis, but from a class viewpoint.But what about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is the dictatorship of the proletariat allowed to impose the death penalty on those deemed counter-revolutionaries posing a threat to the revolution?

[Red Star Rising]

But what about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is the dictatorship of the proletariat allowed to impose the death penalty on those deemed counter-revolutionaries posing a threat to the revolution?

Threats to the revolution in what way? I think one group dishing out death unto another for actively disagreeing with them is a threat to any revolution that professes liberation.

[#FF0000]

y'all act like prisoners of war aren't a thing lol

[exeexe]

POW is a bourgeoisie concept. Either you take their guns and set them free or you kill them.

[Zoroaster]

POW is a bourgeoisie concept. Either you take their guns and set them free or you kill them.

Kill them? Why?

[Red Star Rising]

POW is a bourgeoisie concept. Either you take their guns and set them free or you kill them.

Why not take their guns and keep them prisoner? If you set them free they could just, you know, get more guns?

[Red Star Rising]

Kill them? Why?

I second this. Why kill them when there is an alternative to the same effect.

[Red Star Rising]

POW is a bourgeoisie concept. Either you take their guns and set them free or you kill them.

In what way is it a bourgeoisie concept? And more importantly how is killing them not? Humans have been killing each other and keeping prisoners for thousands of years. Capitalism has existed for a few centuries.

[exeexe]

Why not take their guns and keep them prisoner? If you set them free they could just, you know, get more guns?


Kill them? Why?
Theres a difference between going to war as a conscript or as a private who were forced by economic conditions or political repression and as an elite unit ideologically determined to bring back bourgeoisie peace and order.

If you can give them an alternative society to live in, the soldiers who had no direct motivation for war will not again rise as your enemies.

[bricolage]

POW is a bourgeoisie concept. Either you take their guns and set them free or you kill them.
Did you learn this from all the revolutionary wars you've fought in?

[exeexe]

In what way is it a bourgeoisie concept? And more importantly how is killing them not? Humans have been killing each other and keeping prisoners for thousands of years. Capitalism has existed for a few centuries.

Prisons is a bourgeoisie concept. It is domination over peoples lives. Something we should be against. Slavery has also existed for longer time than capitalism. Does that mean we should like slavery?

POW are to be set free when the war is over. So if you are gonna set them free when the war is over you might aswell just set them free initially.

Either you are ready to set them free or you are not.

[exeexe]

Did you learn this from all the revolutionary wars you've fought in?
Yes

[human strike]

The bureaucratic mechanisms necessary to enable a death penalty or prisoner of war (or an army for that matter) are anathema to communism. That isn't to say we can't or shan't kill class enemies. Mob violence? Yes. Revolutionary courts? No.

[consuming negativity]

Prisons is a bourgeoisie concept. It is domination over peoples lives. Something we should be against. Slavery has also existed for longer time than capitalism. Does that mean we should like slavery?

POW are to be set free when the war is over. So if you are gonna set them free when the war is over you might aswell just set them free initially.

Either you are ready to set them free or you are not.

Do you not understand the concept of a POW going back and continuing the war against you? Not even the Romans just went and massacred their prisoners of war, and they fucking crucified people. If someone is shooting at me, I am by anyone's rights allowed to shoot back at them, even if they're justified for coming after me. And if I capture them rather than killing them, they can deal with being in a crummy camp for a year or so rather than having their life ended. Not, you know, to endorse drawn-out wars or prisons or anything. But I think most people would rather be a POW, assuming they aren't being tortured or something.

[exeexe]

And if I capture them

What would the point be of capturing them? to display them as a revolutionary trophies? Remember our revolutionary trophies are not humans but production facilities. For this we do not need to capture humans.

[Brotto Rühle]

If they're murderers, rapists, etc they should be shot. If they're spouting reactionary ideas then they should go through some sort of re education.
And if at some point we find out "Hey, they were innocent. Whoops!".

People with boners for killing people need to start with themselves.

[Red Star Rising]

Theres a difference between going to war as a conscript or as a private who were forced by economic conditions or political repression and as an elite unit ideologically determined to bring back bourgeoisie peace and order.

If you can give them an alternative society to live in, the soldiers who had no direct motivation for war will not again rise as your enemies.

And if they were conscripts but did want to return to their own society? Where they may well have to take up arms again. You would kill them for that?

[Red Star Rising]

What would the point be of capturing them? to display them as a revolutionary trophies? Remember our revolutionary trophies are not humans but production facilities. For this we do not need to capture humans.

Because we need to stop them from fighting but aren't barbaric enough to just kill them because we can't be bothered detaining them.

[Red Star Rising]

Do you not understand the concept of a POW going back and continuing the war against you? Not even the Romans just went and massacred their prisoners of war, and they fucking crucified people. If someone is shooting at me, I am by anyone's rights allowed to shoot back at them, even if they're justified for coming after me. And if I capture them rather than killing them, they can deal with being in a crummy camp for a year or so rather than having their life ended. Not, you know, to endorse drawn-out wars or prisons or anything. But I think most people would rather be a POW, assuming they aren't being tortured or something.

Exactly. Even in the days where people crucifying each other was acceptable, few people went and massacred people for no reason. POWs are not a bourgeois concept and keeping captured soldiers as prisoners is perfectly viable.

[exeexe]

And if they were conscripts but did want to return to their own society? Where they may well have to take up arms again. You would kill them for that?
Well if someone really did want to be a member of that old society why should they come to us in the first place? Just doesnt make logic sense.

Oh over there is the enemy. Lets go over there and surrender. Then at entrance point. Oh wait. Id rather be a tool of my old boss.

[exeexe]

Because we need to stop them from fighting but aren't barbaric enough to just kill them because we can't be bothered detaining them.
Well without barbarism we (europeans at least) would still live in a roman empire with slavery and all kinds of inhumane atrocities. With barbarism they brought progress.

[Red Star Rising]

Well without barbarism we (europeans at least) would still live in a roman empire with slavery and all kinds of inhumane atrocities. With barbarism they brought progress.

What? It wasn't barbarism that ended slavery in America. And you make the Romans sound particularly evil - they were nothing special for their time- human society is in a constant state of evolution we do not have to be monsters to each other to progress.

[Red Star Rising]

Prisons is a bourgeoisie concept. It is domination over peoples lives. Something we should be against. Slavery has also existed for longer time than capitalism. Does that mean we should like slavery?

POW are to be set free when the war is over. So if you are gonna set them free when the war is over you might aswell just set them free initially.

Either you are ready to set them free or you are not.

And shooting people for the sake of convenience is not domination over peoples lives (and deaths)? :glare:

[exeexe]

What? It wasn't barbarism that ended slavery in America. And you make the Romans sound particularly evil - they were nothing special for their time- human society is in a constant state of evolution we do not have to be monsters to each other to progress.
I didnt talk about America, i was talking about roman empire. And yes we do have to do bad things from time to time if we want progress because some people in our society will be against progress. Thats why there are counterrevolutions.

[exeexe]

And shooting people for the sake of convenience is not domination over peoples lives (and deaths)? :glare:
Its not because of convenience, its because they have chosen to side with exploitation and i have chosen to side with the end of exploitation.

If both sides refuse to surrender and if both sides are prepared for a fight, one of the side has to get killed. Such is the logic of war. War is the farthest away you can get from convenience.

[bricolage]

Yes
ha ha
I don't think any of you have a clue what you are talking about. you act like revolution (let alone communism!) is some kind of military strategy game, it's nonsense. we have no idea what kind of war-like scenario might emerge so all this speculation is just that. it's also really creepy when people go on the internet and start mouthing off about executing prisoners and the like, it doesn't warm me to their politics.

[Red Star Rising]

Its not because of convenience, its because they have chosen to side with exploitation and i have chosen to side with the end of exploitation.

If both sides refuse to surrender and if both sides are prepared for a fight, one of the side has to get killed. Such is the logic of war. War is the farthest away you can get from convenience.

I fail to see the logic in the notion that every conflict has to bee resolved with the purge of one side. You sound incredibly authoritarian, the only time that killing is OK is when your own life is threatened. If you have prisoners, you don't need to kill them - they can be detained to stop them from continuing to aid the enemy.

And how do you suppose a revolution will happen if the dissent against it is widespread enough to be a big enough threat to it to merit such extreme measures? I hope that you are not advocating forcing the views of a minority onto a the majority and therefore the superiority of said group over others - that would be incredibly undemocratic and therefore non-communist.

[Red Star Rising]

I didnt talk about America, i was talking about roman empire. And yes we do have to do bad things from time to time if we want progress because some people in our society will be against progress. Thats why there are counterrevolutions.

When did "being against progress" become an offense that merits death?

[human strike]

I fail to see the logic in the notion that every conflict has to bee resolved with the purge of one side. You sound incredibly authoritarian, the only time that killing is OK is when your own life is threatened. If you have prisoners, you don't need to kill them - they can be detained to stop them from continuing to aid the enemy.

Why?


And how do you suppose a revolution will happen if the dissent against it is widespread enough to be a big enough threat to it to merit such extreme measures? I hope that you are not advocating forcing the views of a minority onto a the majority and therefore the superiority of said group over others - that would be incredibly undemocratic and therefore non-communist.

Imprisonment requires far more a system of violence than murder does, and yet you accuse others of being authoritarian? Also, the dictatorship of the majority is exactly the kind of (authoritarian) logic that communism combats.

[exeexe]

You sound incredibly authoritarian.
If you think it is authoritarian to be against exploitation, then i let it be at that.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, much less authoritarian to kill people, that's about as libertarian as you can be.

[exeexe]

Yeah, much less authoritarian to kill people, that's about as libertarian as you can be.
From where did you get the idea that being an anarchist then you cant kill someone? Some serious brainwash has been going on ..

[Blake's Baby]

You think that killing someone (permanently depriving someone of all opportunity to do anything) is less authoritarian than imprisoning them (temporarily taking away their ability to do some things).

That's some serious cognitive dissonance you got going on there.

[exeexe]

So i asked you a question. Where did you get brainwashed?

[Red Star Rising]

Why?
Because this is the only time when it is the only measure that can prevent further violence. Whenever killing is unnecessary it should not be done because the destruction of another human life, however despicable, is the ultimate expression of hate and authoritarianism.



Imprisonment requires far more a system of violence than murder does, and yet you accuse others of being authoritarian? Also, the dictatorship of the majority is exactly the kind of (authoritarian) logic that communism combats.

Learn the definition of violence - you have in no way compelled me to believe that statement, I think that prisons are an ineffective way of dealing with criminals but POW detention is fine. They are also a less harmful and therefore less violent measure than execution. I never said dictatorship of the majority - I questioned the dictatorship of the minority. And I'm quite sure that if it was 9 of us and 1 capitalist/fascist/right-winger you'd be perfectly content with the dictatorship of the majority. In fact, isn't dictatorship of the majority exactly what a dictatorship of the proletariat is? The 99% (the workers) seize control of production and the state in the interest of stamping out the bourgeois concept of the social dictatorship of the minority.

[Red Star Rising]

You think that killing someone (permanently depriving someone of all opportunity to do anything) is less authoritarian than imprisoning them (temporarily taking away their ability to do some things).

That's some serious cognitive dissonance you got going on there.

This. I wish people would stop throwing around the word "authoritarian and applying it to anything that they disagree with to give themselves more legitimacy.