Would you help the police?

[Rudolf]

Title says it all really.


So i've recently given a statement to the police which is going to get someone arrested and charged with a possible prison sentence and im conflicted about it. In my defense he broke into his own mother's flat who's on disability benefits and stole her tv. She wants to press charges.

:unsure:

[Lord Testicles]

I wouldn't beat yourself up about it, it's not like you're helping the police out of the goodness of your heart. Anyone who steals from his own class doesn't deserve our loyalty anyway.

[Bala Perdida]

Title says it all really.


So i've recently given a statement to the police which is going to get someone arrested and charged with a possible prison sentence and im conflicted about it. In my defense he broke into his own mother's flat who's on disability benefits and stole her tv. She wants to press charges.

:unsure:
I won't blame you. Personally, I don't talk to police. I mean, if my car got stolen or something I'd probably have to report that for insurance purposes. Then the police would come and ask me what's in it and crap. I don't like talking to them though, part of it because I don't like being around them. The other part is I don't like snitching and getting involved in that crap. I don't know, to each their own.

[RedWorker]

Your actions were not politically relevant and assuming that they were would misunderstand the communist position in regards to the police. You complaining about someone stealing your mother's TV to the police is not exactly an action that gives the bourgeoisie the upper hand in the class struggle.

People stealing TVs is a problem that occurs in capitalism. It doesn't mean that these people are evil. Nor does it mean that the person who complains about it is evil. To think in terms of these individual interactions completely misses the point. It is abolishing capitalist society that is relevant.

Of course, it would be a heinous crime to cooperate with the police in any way that could sabotage the proletarian struggle.


Anyone who steals from his own class doesn't deserve our loyalty anyway.

This is elitist. These people, in most cases, are victims of society. Marx's conception of the lumpen-proletariat was of sociological relevance, not something akin to the Nazi racial line. To argue that these people are "evil" in some way is church and bourgeois doctrine.

[Lord Testicles]

This is elitist. These people, in most cases, are victims of society. Marx's conception of the lumpen-proletariat was of sociological relevance, not something akin to the Nazi racial line. To argue that these people are "evil" in some way is church and bourgeois doctrine.

I'm not saying that these people are evil or that they are not victims of circumstance, I'm just saying they don't deserve our loyalty.

[Comrade Jacob]

If my friend was murdered and I knew something that could help the murderer face justice then I would.
So, in some circumstances.

[Rudolf]

I'm not saying that these people are evil or that they are not victims of circumstance, I'm just saying they don't deserve our loyalty.


It's not about loyalty though. Prisons are fucked up.


Your actions were not politically relevant and assuming that they were would misunderstand the communist position in regards to the police

And that's what's relevant for me, not that i'm a communist but that prisons are degrading.

[Lord Testicles]

It's not about loyalty though. Prisons are fucked up.

Yes they are, they're a social crime, but whether this individual is sent there or not isn't going to change that & if you had refused to give that statement it's not like this individual is going to be so overcome with gratitude that he'll give your mums TV back and promise to rob from a more victimless location next time.

I'm not saying you did good or you fucked up, I guess I'm just saying don't sweat it. I have absolutely no love for the police but it's not like I'm overcome with sympathy for the kind of people who would burgle your house either.

[Rudolf]

Yes they are, they're a social crime, but whether this individual is sent there or not isn't going to change that & if you had refused to give that statement it's not like this individual is going to be so overcome with gratitude that he'll give your mums TV back and promise to rob from a more victimless location next time.

I'm not saying you did good or you fucked up, I guess I'm just saying don't sweat it. I have absolutely no love for the police but it's not like I'm overcome with sympathy for the kind of people who would burgle your house either.


It's not my mum's tv, but my neighbour's. Her son robbed her. His only hope is pleading guilty and admitting to a drug problem.


But still, i'm interested in where others draw the line in helping the police, where do you draw it Skinz? Evidently for me i'd provide a witness statement to the pigs when someone robs poor people.

[Lord Testicles]

It's not my mum's tv, but my neighbour's. Her son robbed her.

Ah right, I misread your original post. Well, I obviously don't know this individual's circumstances and he might be more than justified in robbing his own mum, but my potential sympathy for him just got knocked down a notch. Personally, in that kind of situation I would have tried my hardest not to get involved.


But still, i'm interested in where others draw the line in helping the police, where do you draw it Skinz?

I don't know, thankfully I have yet to be put in a situation where I feel I would need to turn to the police. I think that at the end of the day the police are there and if we were to take things into our own hands then it could cause us more trouble than it's worth so I feel like in some situations I would use the police, begrudgingly. I just think if you go around reporting people to the police like you're doing their job for them, then you've crossed a line.

[Sentinel]

The question of the police may seem complicated but in the end it really isn't. When they crack down on workers or socialists they must be opposed but in the meanwhile we can't have psychos, rapists or even people robbing the elderly running around.

They should be opposed as an institution for their role in class society, as the guardians of the existing order (no, I never really agreed with the CWI about them being 'workers in uniform'). But we really have no other rational choice than to 'use their services' when it comes to actual crimes, before we have the power to create an alternative.

As for lumpen proletarians, they are not a revolutionary class, just as the police aren't a revolutionary institution. Some from their ranks may support a revolution - as people from any class, group or institution may, as we are individuals - but historically they have primarily constituted a recruitment pool for fascist shock troops in the service of reaction.

If we are marxists, it really isn't about who is the victim, or even worse who is 'good' or 'evil' It is about the role we play in class society.

[RA89]

Lol the question being asked doesn't really fit with the example.

If you're helping someone innocent get justice that's very different to say helping police identify people who were "rioting" at a protest.

[StromboliFucker666]

It completely depends on the situation. If someone killed someone I cared about, then I would do whatever I have to do to get justice. If that means talking to the police, so be it.

If something very important to me had been taken, I would talk to the police. Not to get justice but so I can maybe get the important item back. (Like something my mother gave me.)

If a friend of mine was being accused of plotting against the state, my lips would be sealed no matter the consequences.

If a friend stole from a rich person, I would not talk.

If my friend stole from a poor person, I would not talk but I would probably punch his ass and give the item back to the person in exchange for his freedom.

Those are just a few situations. Sometimes I may have to speak to the police but I will avoid it whenever possible.

[RedWorker]

As for lumpen proletarians, they are not a revolutionary class, just as the police aren't a revolutionary institution. Some from their ranks may support a revolution - as people from any class, group or institution may, as we are individuals - but historically they have primarily constituted a recruitment pool for fascist shock troops in the service of reaction.

If we are marxists, it really isn't about who is the victim, or even worse who is 'good' or 'evil' It is about the role we play in class society.

It never was claimed that the lumpen-proletarians were a revolutionary class; in fact, I have myself been previously argumenting against those who claim that the label 'lumpenproletarian' is of no relevance or that it is just used as a justification for discrimination, or those who argue that they should just be understood as workers.

The lumpenproletarian, though they are not revolutionary and though they may do reactionary actions, are most often victims of society who have been forced into their status and which often live in the worst fashion. The condition of the lumpenproletarian is, arguably, one which openly shows just how brutal and depraved bourgeois society is.

The lumpenproletarians and their rights are under constant attack from the bourgeoisie and their domination. As if they were not in bad enough status by their own, the criminalization of poverty and homelessness, among other occurrences, which expresses its thorough odious character when a homeless person is not even allowed to sleep in some corner of the streets, harrassed through the bourgeois society and its executors, leaves them finished.

Furthermore, the ruling class constantly force proletarians into the position of lumpenproletarians. Such a tragedy is seen, for instance, in Spain, where leaving a whole family permanently jobless and then evicting them from their homes has become a daily routine.

To claim that the lumpenproletarians and their position in class society is irrelevant does not distinguish you but rather puts you in the same group as those who argue the label of "lumpenproletarians" ought not to exist at all. After all, most socialists start by some sort of 'sympathy' with 'the poor', which see their expression in these people.

Under this constant attack to the lumpenproletarians, the proletarians must clearly position themselves and struggle against the ruling class attacks against them.

The communist movement must argue that the thief, the murderer, etc. are nothing but a product of the society they have been born in. Furthermore, so it must argue that the beggar, homeless, etc. are clearly victims of society which show the thorough wickedness of bourgeois society in an overt fashion. Of course, it also must argue that the solution of this problem is through a revolutionary re-organization of society, and it must not create any illusions about the lumpenproletariat being a revolutionary class.

This does not go down to feeling 'sad' for them nor to claim they are 'the good victims'.

[BIXX]

No, I wouldn't help them. Not for any greater purpose, I just hate being around/talking to the cops.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't like even speaking to them and if at all possible I won't. If they come knocking on my door (which they have in the past) I won't open it or even acknowledge their presence. The closest my resolve has ever been tested was when the only thing of value I own (my car) got stolen, just like someone mentioned above. I knew who did that though so I recruited two of my friends to go hunt him down. Luckily I eventually located it, I probably would've had to have reported it stolen eventually though for insurance reasons. Generally I like to think that I can solve my own problems without the cops.

With that being said, as I've said on this website in the past, if someone I loved were in imminent danger and the only way to protect them was to notify the police, I would do it.

[RedWorker]

Two friends to go "hunt someone down". Okay, this may not necessarily be what some may think when reading that sentence, but in general: why does vigilante justice sometimes get worshipped in RevLeft? It's more backwards than bourgeois justice.

[The Disillusionist]

This is elitist. These people, in most cases, are victims of society. Marx's conception of the lumpen-proletariat was of sociological relevance, not something akin to the Nazi racial line. To argue that these people are "evil" in some way is church and bourgeois doctrine.

No, Marx thought the lumpen-proletariat was composed of worthless, hopeless scum. Literally, he called them "social scum". It was only later that the modern sociological relevance was imposed over Marx's backward ideas to preserve his godhood in the sociological realm.

So yes, to argue that these people are "evil" or "degenerated" in some way is bourgeois doctrine, but Marx was absolutely guilty of it himself, that elitist...

Cue three pages of cognitive gymnastics trying to explain away what I just said and preserve Marx's godhood.

[Os Cangaceiros]

^ All I wanted was to locate and retrieve my vehicle.

[RedWorker]

No, Marx thought the lumpen-proletariat was composed of worthless, hopeless scum. Literally, he called them "social scum". It was only later that the modern sociological relevance was imposed over Marx's backward ideas to preserve his godhood in the sociological realm.

So yes, to argue that these people are "evil" or "degenerated" in some way is bourgeois doctrine, but Marx was absolutely guilty of it himself, that elitist...

Cue three pages of cognitive gymnastics trying to explain away what I just said and preserve Marx's godhood.

What a philistine understanding. He said they are what is commonly understood as the "social scum", that this is the social meaning of the lumpenproletarian class. Furthermore, even if he called them "social scum" as a hateful label; to rally against this would be a stupid show of political correctness. Does the content of a political analysis about, e.g. race, fundamentally change when the word "black" is replaced for "nigger", or the opposite is done? Do you think this petty emotional understanding had a role in Marx's politics or sociology?

He never argued that they are "evil" or "degenerated" in any fashion, and, even if Marx himself personally disliked these people, this does not necessarily alter his analysis, which leads to the rejection of that doctrine.

I must now be honest: Your understanding of Marx is simply stupid. You rally against others for supposedly taking Marx as some sort of sacred individual, and I understand why you do this: because your analysis of Marx is an analysis that can only be framed in terms of 'sacred individuals'. I was talking about Marxism, not Marx. I don't care about "Marx". It's obvious you do, and that you can't understand this on a higher level than that.


Cue three pages of cognitive gymnastics trying to explain away what I just said and preserve Marx's godhood.

Hit and run; if you don't want to talk about a topic then don't talk about it. Don't make a point then beg that someone does not refute it, and furthermore, don't accuse of dogmatism when the person does not submit to your understanding without criticism.

[Futility Personified]

On the question of prole on prole violence and theft, quite often I have to see people who've had their shit nicked, and it is pretty dispiriting. I'd like to romanticize appropriation, but when it is lumpen and working folk getting at each other, directly prioritising themselves over us as a class....

It's tricky. Considering that leftist ideological proliferation is at a comparative low, not in the sense of "let's all vote for corbyn" (which I will, as an aside) but in actual class based analysis, it is unfair to demonize people who end up committing crimes out of poverty or addiction when they have not, for lack of a better term, seen the light.

But on the other hand, as much as I dislike the police as an institution that protects the needs of the bourgeoisie, perpetuates racism and attacks us whenever class struggle actually manifests, when I see folks who haven't got all that much themselves, and some belligerent crack head has just broken into their home, stolen all their shit and made their lives much more difficult, I know where my sympathies lie. With the victims of what has happened, as opposed to an idealized lumpen who quite frankly doesn't give a fuck about what's going on in general or the people he is fucking over so he can go score and treat other people like shit.

So yeah, there are certain occasions where I think it is appropriate to help the police, and not wring your hands about it. If some macho arsehole beats the shit out of you, what are you going to do? Retaliate, go around to their place like John Fucking Rambo tooled up with a meter ruler and a sharpened toothbrush, or phone the police and hope that they might actually do something in this instance. There are many occasions where morality should be set aside, because without a complete change in how society is organised all it leads us to is talk of sinfulness, innate evil and stigmatisation of people for biological and social phenomenon. But in the absence of a mobilized and politically conscious class, getting the police involved (sometimes, as they are still at the end of the day fuckers and will not hesitate to get you for crimes regardless of how victimless they are) can really be the only solution you have.

[RedWorker]

But on the other hand, as much as I dislike the police as an institution that protects the needs of the bourgeoisie, perpetuates racism and attacks us whenever class struggle actually manifests, when I see folks who haven't got all that much themselves, and some belligerent crack head has just broken into their home, stolen all their shit and made their lives much more difficult, I know where my sympathies lie. With the victims of what has happened, as opposed to an idealized lumpen who quite frankly doesn't give a fuck about what's going on in general or the people he is fucking over so he can go score and treat other people like shit.

And what is this moralism, this emotional understanding relevant for? Are sympathies on the level described here politically relevant? Do you think these people are stealing stuff for fun? Are the thieves themselves not victims of capitalist society, which is far more relevant than any individual event?

The lumpen may not give a fuck about what's going on in general, but why or how should he? The fact that he does not give a fuck - nor can he - is part of the condition of the lumpenproletarian. Is he not being 'fucked over'? Do you think this truly goes down to 'treating other people like shit'?

You may have emotions in an individual situation in which people you know have been the victims of some crime, and nobody here is challenging your right to feel whatever you want to (after all, these feelings by themselves are politically irrelevant, even though they may have reactionary conclusions in some cases); the point is, why attempt to make politics out of this?

Though on the matter of feelings I would object: why not limit your feeling to feeling bad for your friends? What's the point of feeling anger towards these lumpenproletarians? What does it accomplish?

[Ele'ill]

I have never been in a situation, including violent situations, where they did anything other than make things a lot worse.


*I also don't get the discussion right now about using the police as a weapon to get revenge on people who have beaten you up or stolen your stuff I think that is complete shit. The talk about 'the working class' only being attacked by police in moments of class struggle is absurd and dangerous. The fact that people are discussing this soley around political morality being damaged by calling the police is out of touch to say the least since the actual consequences for police being involved in anything often leads to being terrorized, maimed, killed, and incarcerated, and these consequences are extended to the victims and others around them because the cops are present due to an incursion in law.

[RedWorker]

It's not about getting revenge, it's about recovering stolen stuff. Punishment is about preventing further cases and rehabilitating criminals, though bourgeois justice obscures this, and indeed involves 'revenge' in a backwards fashion.

What alternative do you suggest? Assaulting the thieves with three friends with AK-47's? Even if this was possible, to expect this to become the norm of society would be reactionary.

The criticism of bourgeois justice has nothing to do with "the police only makes things worse" when being involved in cases that do not relate to the class struggle. If your argumentation truly relies on this, it could be proven entirely wrong by countless examples.

Why senselessly discuss on an individual level? This is a social issue.

[BIXX]

It's not about getting revenge, it's about recovering stolen stuff. Punishment is about preventing further cases and rehabilitating criminals, though bourgeois justice obscures this, and indeed involves 'revenge' in a backwards fashion.

What alternative do you suggest? Assaulting the thieves with three friends with AK-47's? Even if this was possible, to expect this to become the norm of society would be reactionary.

The criticism of bourgeois justice has nothing to do with "the police only makes things worse" when being involved in cases that do not relate to the class struggle. If your argumentation truly relies on this, it could be proven entirely wrong by countless examples.

Why senselessly discuss on an individual level? This is a social issue.

See, what youre saying about punishment is ridiculous. Punishment has never been about making it not happen again, punishment is about dominating someone. Punishment is about hoping it happens so you can dominate someone.

Discussing it as a social issue is similar- how can we adopt a coercive force that is more effective at making people behave the way we want them to? That is the question youre trying to answer.

[The Feral Underclass]

Marx's conception of the lumpen-proletariat was of sociological relevance


As for lumpen proletarians, they are not a revolutionary class

This is tangential, but I think it's important to raise because it keeps being brought up: The lumpen proletariat doesn't exist. It's not a class. It is a section of the proletariat. Class isn't based on what job you do or do not have. Denying that people who are unemployed or a criminal element are part of the working class, denies their legitimate ability to challenge capitalism as well as undermining the nature of class itself.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's not about getting revenge, it's about recovering stolen stuff. Punishment is about preventing further cases and rehabilitating criminals

Punishment has never prevented crime. Also, the literal definition of punishment is, "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence." Retribution is a synonym for revenge.

[Futility Personified]

Redworker: I don't disagree, really. 6 months ago I would've held that exact line, and felt a bit of shame in what I posted just now. It is down to a change in employment, resulting in me having to see victims of crime occasionally, some of it is really upsetting. It's all down to material conditions, but as a human being, there are some people who you just have to think "...wow, what a fucking bastard". The whole situation unfolding is sad enough, especially against the backdrop of the world sliding into the toilet one turd at a time.

Mari3l, I'll concede to you on that, seeing as where I live is not exactly rough and the police mostly spend their time hassling under-age drinkers and molesting wildlife. FWIW, I also know people who've had to involve the police for something, and the police themselves have needlessly escalated the situation. It isn't an undocumented phenomenon, and it has the capacity to happen anywhere. But, I still say that there are situations where they have been involved, and it has prevented the situation from deteriorating into somebody being killed. Does that mean that the police force as an institution is redeemable? No. They are still the enforcers of capital, and they'll be staying as long as it does.

[RedWorker]

This is tangential, but I think it's important to raise because it keeps being brought up: The lumpen proletariat doesn't exist. It's not a class. It is a section of the proletariat. Class isn't based on what job you do or do not have. Denying that people who are unemployed or a criminal element are not part of the working class, denies their legitimate ability to challenge capitalism as well as undermining the nature of class itself.

By some definition of class it would. Why are you assigning words a godly power? Certainly Marx's theory would not change one bit if every mention of "class" was changed by "stratum", "kind", "group" or any other term. Why should this have some political significance?

And obviously the permanently unemployed, criminals, beggars etc. are not a section of the proletariat - at least not in a Marxist analysis. There is no relation of exploitation between the lumpenproletariat and the bourgeoisie. (exploitation understood as a Marxist concept)

And how can a sociological concept not exist? Does the permanently unemployed not exist? Give me a break. I know why you're saying this: your understanding of the godly power of words. Anyone can create a classification term - that does not, by itself, mean anything. So what you really mean probably is: "in my political line I believe no distinction should be made between what Marxists understand as the proletarians and the lumpenproletarians". Please try to state what you really mean in discussions, it's annoying to have to de-construct things like this.


Punishment has never prevented crime. Also, the literal definition of punishment is, "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence." Retribution is a synonym for revenge.

Come on, are we seriously dropping to appeals to dictionary definitions?

Fact: Coercion can manipulate the behaviour of humans. There's a reason Jews didn't openly shout "I'm a Jew!" in late 1930s Germany.

Given this, to argue that punishment, a form of coercion, has no potential to change human behaviour is absurd. The topic of its efficiency and ethics is another debate.

Justice, including bourgeois justice, places importance on the concepts of punishment (including incarceration) as a means to stop further crime and rehabilitation. In bourgeois justice, of course, this is obscured by notions of revenge, and so on.

What I meant in the portion of my post you quoted, anyway, is that people here who talk about robbery care more about recovering lost stuff than getting 'revenge'.

I'm not even stating an opinion here.

[Bala Perdida]

Two friends to go "hunt someone down". Okay, this may not necessarily be what some may think when reading that sentence, but in general: why does vigilante justice sometimes get worshipped in RevLeft? It's more backwards than bourgeois justice.
How is that more backwards? Finding a car and driving it back home. It's not like they broke into the person's house and beat them. Even then, that's still less backward than kidnapping the person and locking them in a concrete box for several years.

Also, your obsession with Marxist apathy for morals seems to be nothing more than a promotion for systematic dependence.

[StromboliFucker666]

The reason why I would call the cops if an IMPORTANT item was stolen isn't because I want revenge, it's because the item is important and I would want it back because the item is obviously important to me. (Like if someone stole something that belonged to my mother. I only have 2 things that belonged to her so I naturally do not want them stolen.)

[The Disillusionist]

What a philistine understanding. He said they are what is commonly understood as the "social scum", that this is the social meaning of the lumpenproletarian class.


What an EXCELLENT example of the cognitive gymnastics I was talking about. Bravo. Here's the exact quote:

"The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue."

Marx wasn't saying they are "commonly understood" as social scum, he was directly expressing a negative personal opinion. People don't use that kind of corny prose on things they aren't opinionated about.



Furthermore, even if he called them "social scum" as a hateful label; to rally against this would be a stupid show of political correctness. Does the content of a political analysis about, e.g. race, fundamentally change when the word "black" is replaced for "nigger", or the opposite is done? Do you think this petty emotional understanding had a role in Marx's politics or sociology?

I think this thought process is pretty hilarious, though it is also pretty disturbing. As if hatred is just a matter of semantics and "political correctness". Just goes to show that people will justify all kind of evil if it is endorsed by their gods. Social science is about people. Yet what you are essentially saying here is, "I don't care about people, I just want to be right." Which in social science, is wrong. Also, Marx's interpretation and definition of the lumpenproletariat is entirely based on hateful ideology, so his analysis is groundless, if not demonstrably wrong (though in my opinion it is also demonstrably wrong).



I must now be honest: Your understanding of Marx is simply stupid. You rally against others for supposedly taking Marx as some sort of sacred individual, and I understand why you do this: because your analysis of Marx is an analysis that can only be framed in terms of 'sacred individuals'. I was talking about Marxism, not Marx. I don't care about "Marx". It's obvious you do, and that you can't understand this on a higher level than that.


Right, how stupid of me to assume that a theoretical approach based entirely on the writings of one man, and indeed, named after that man, is in any subject to any kind of unhealthy obsession that man..

Are you freaking kidding me? What a load of crap. You people devote pages and pages, entire threads, to studying and debating the tiniest minutiae of what Marx the man wrote, and how those writings should dictate how you think, and yet somehow Marxism is "on a higher level" than Marx? Your entire argument in this post that I'm quoting in this very moment is based on an interpretation of what Marx the man wrote in some silly book more than 100 years ago! What a joke. Marxism is a religion, based on the gospel of Marx as dictated by every sentence he ever wrote. This religion, like any other religion, has since been modified to suit changing viewpoints, but it's still based in the same god.... Marx. You're like a Christian claiming that your version of Christianity is "on a higher level" than Christ the man. It's impossible, your entire viewpoint is based on what that one man wrote. It's pathetic.

[The Feral Underclass]

By some definition of class it would. Why are you assigning words a godly power? Certainly Marx's theory would not change one bit if every mention of "class" was changed by "stratum", "kind", "group" or any other term. Why should this have some political significance?

And obviously the permanently unemployed, criminals, beggars etc. are not a section of the proletariat - at least not in a Marxist analysis. There is no relation of exploitation between the lumpenproletariat and the bourgeoisie. (exploitation understood as a Marxist concept)

And how can a sociological concept not exist? Does the permanently unemployed not exist? Give me a break. I know why you're saying this: your understanding of the godly power of words. Anyone can create a classification term - that does not, by itself, mean anything. So what you really mean probably is: "in my political line I believe no distinction should be made between what Marxists understand as the proletarians and the lumpenproletarians". Please try to state what you really mean in discussions, it's annoying to have to de-construct things like this.

As a sociological concept it can exist, but as a class-object it doesn't. You don't understand class, evidently. The class of a human is not defined based on what job they do or do not do, it is based on their imperative to earn a living.


Come on, are we seriously dropping to appeals to dictionary definitions?

I'm not appealing to a dictioanry definition, I am telling you what the literal definition of punishment is. If you want to pretend punishment means something else, then that's up to you, but for everyone else who speaks and undertsands English, you are simply using a word incorrectly.


Given this, to argue that punishment, a form of coercion, has no potential to change human behaviour is absurd. The topic of its efficiency and ethics is another debate.

If it had the potential to change human behaviour then it would do, wouldn't it. If its efficiency can be brought into question, then the entire premise that it can achieve this objective can also be brought into question. Something that is successful at something is efficient at doing it.


Justice, including bourgeois justice, places importance on the concepts of punishment (including incarceration) as a means to stop further crime and rehabilitation. In bourgeois justice, of course, this is obscured by notions of revenge, and so on.

Punishment is -- by definition -- an act of revenge.

[John Nada]

Shit, some of the answers on this thread tell me I better be more careful what I post.:glare:

No, I would not help the cops at all. I refuse to legitimize a bourgeois police state. I second that they only make things worse, both for the victim and perpetrator. Police are objectively a class enemy of the proletariat. You'd just be asking a more powerful faction of the lumpenproletariat to go after a proletarian or a weaker faction of the lumpenproletariat.

And for this lumpenproletariat shit I've addressed over and over, cops are just the biggest gang of the lumpenproletariat with the best state connects. Marx and Engels describe all kinds of shit the proletariat has to go through that are like what is commonly claimed to be lumpenproletarian(crime, poverty, homelessness, living off welfare/charity and unemployment if not unemployable). Nearly every time the lumpenproletariat is brought up by Marx and Engels are as spies or a paramilitary for the bourgeoisie. Unlike the proletariat proper who have nothing but their labor power for sale, their relation to the bourgeoisie is one of a violent tool for hire. The lumpenproletariat are the hired guns for the bourgeoisie. Not just gangs, pimps and hitmen, but mercenaries, PIs, cops, UI, informants, spies and assassins. It's cross-class like the intelligentsia, since Marx said it was not only (violent)gangsters for hire, but sections of the bourgeoisie. They're basically mercenaries, usually for the bourgeoisie. That's what makes them a dangerous class enemy.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think the only legitimate time to help the police is when you are under direct threat and there is no other option and even then you need to be very cautious.

Little example. A few months back I was threatened by by somebody who had ties to criminals and about whom I knew for a fact that they could act on it. I went to the cops to make a statement in case something would happen to me. (In the Netherlands you can make a "melding" which means the cops just write it down and don't necessarily act on it. Or you can file charges...in which case the cops are supposed to act on it. I did the first thinking if anything happened they at least knew about it because shit seemed real). Sure enough the cops pulled up criminal records and one or both of the people turned out to be flagged in a wider investigation involving drug trade. Four hours later I was called by the state police urging me to file charges. I refused to change from a statement to charges. I was summoned to their local headquarters and now they threaten with an indictment to me because I am apparently obstructing their investigation.And it may be coincidence but I now also get a lot of fines and tickets (1200 € worth in the last 4 months).....and I haven't gotten a ticket in the years before that. Meanwhile....neither of the two people who were mentioned in the statement had any probeys what so ever.

[Palmares]

Recently I was doing this short woodworking course, and on my last day, my fellow classmate queried our teacher about his previous work before starting up this small business. He said that he was a driving instructor, but especially specialised in high speed driving. He had been a normal driving instructor, but spent a long time training the police how to undertake high speed chases. The "not wanting to be associated with a pig" side of just wanted to believe he was a cop associate, not an actual cop. But then I went ahead and crushed my illusion, and straight up asked him if he was an actual cop. He said yes.

I dropped the subject and tried to forget about it for the rest of the day. at least it was the last day of the course...

This situation has confused me alot. Sure, I hate cops. Especially as an institution. But yeah, meeting one on a human level, and especially actually liking them as a person before finding out their past messed with my head.

I guess I gave them money ("helping a[n ex-]cop" financially) before knowing they were an ex-cop. But I was thinking to do more courses with him before I knew all this, but now I'm unsure...

[RedWorker]

Marx wasn't saying they are "commonly understood" as social scum, he was directly expressing a negative personal opinion. People don't use that kind of corny prose on things they aren't opinionated about.

Yeah, because the Manifesto of the Communist Party is a document in which Marx wrote his own opinions about how beggars are annoying and dislikeable people. Look - two words don't fundamentally alter the character of something, nor can you construct an argument about the supposed character about such a concept relevant to Marxism over two words. I understand this is something new for your idealism and religious thinking process, but please, don't overwhelm me with your doubt. Consult astrology.


I think this thought process is pretty hilarious, though it is also pretty disturbing. As if hatred is just a matter of semantics and "political correctness".

Except it's not hatred, it's an objective analysis. If it was hatred, it would still be irrelevant. Marx may have hated whatever group of people, but unless that had an effect on his politics, to argue about it would be to dwell on political correctness. Interestingly you used similar arguments to now to claim that Bakunin's anti-Semitism wasn't relevant because it's just down to "some minor detail of what he wrote"; even though Bakunin was overtly declaring it as some great element in his analysis (the Jews supposedly rule capitalism). Just goes on to show how comfortable doublethink can become once you've set yourself up in a narrative. Don't bother trying to convince me with your mental gymnastics about how it isn't this way; I'm not interested. Perhaps if you weren't an overt stubborn dogmatic who swears he's the opposite.


Also, Marx's interpretation and definition of the lumpenproletariat is entirely based on hateful ideology, so his analysis is groundless, if not demonstrably wrong (though in my opinion it is also demonstrably wrong).

It was based on those who are permanently unemployed, do not have a direct relation of exploitation to the bourgeoisie and therefore may include criminals, beggars, etc. This group forms a clearly distinct group which is obviously relevant to social science.


Right, how stupid of me to assume that a theoretical approach based entirely on the writings of one man, and indeed, named after that man, is in any subject to any kind of unhealthy obsession that man..

Aren't you such an idealist? Words really are gods in your head, are they not? Perhaps if the term "Marxism" was never used and it was named anything else, its contents, social relevance and role may have been completely different.

You really do think this is about "Marx" - there's no hope for you.

Would you please stop thinking of individuals as sacred relics on your head? You projecting this on everyone else doesn't excuse you.

Anyway - where do I sign up for your church?

Yes, you do have a narrative in which you're some kind of "new thinker" who accepts the "new" and rejects the "dogmatic old", but there is a difference between you believing this and others actually doing so. They don't, because it's obviously false, and that's what angers you.

If your next post is another instance of a broken record, I'm not going to reply - you've already wasted enough time near here.


As a sociological concept it can exist, but as a class-object it doesn't. You don't understand class, evidently. The class of a human is not defined based on what job they do or do not do, it is based on their imperative to earn a living.

I don't care about the term "class", specifically. The lumpenproletariat is a group that exists, and analysis involving that concept is useful. Obviously it is not a section of the proletariat, except if you define the proletariat as anyone who isn't part of the bourgeoisie - which certainly isn't what occurs in Marxist analysis.


I'm not appealing to a dictioanry definition, I am telling you what the literal definition of punishment is. If you want to pretend punishment means something else, then that's up to you, but for everyone else who speaks and undertsands English, you are simply using a word incorrectly.

Punishment means using some kind of violence (mental or physical) against someone in order to achieve an indefinite aim. That aim may include prevention of it happening again. It doesn't have to step down to petty notions of revenge.

If we're gonna bring dictionary definitions in, I think an encyclopedia article is more relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment


If it had the potential to change human behaviour then it would do, wouldn't it. If its efficiency can be brought into question, then the entire premise that it can achieve this objective can also be brought into question. Something that is successful at something is efficient at doing it.

Ok, please bring up a meta-study that results in your conclusion. If this is not given in the next post, I'll consider you to be simply wrong. I'm not up for one of these debates that pretend to replace evidence. You may argue that punishment is something undesirable in communist society and not have to bring any such hard evidence up, but for the assertion you are making (punishment doesn't change behaviour) you do have to.


Punishment is -- by definition -- an act of revenge.

It is an act that necessarily follows another act. Revenge would mean doing it exclusively to get some sort of sadist pleasure. It can have aims. Again: words don't have a godly power. It's not about the word punishment -- even though my usage is right.

[Ele'ill]

It's not about getting revenge, it's about recovering stolen stuff. Punishment is about preventing further cases and rehabilitating criminals, though bourgeois justice obscures this, and indeed involves 'revenge' in a backwards fashion.

What alternative do you suggest? Assaulting the thieves with three friends with AK-47's? Even if this was possible, to expect this to become the norm of society would be reactionary.

The criticism of bourgeois justice has nothing to do with "the police only makes things worse" when being involved in cases that do not relate to the class struggle. If your argumentation truly relies on this, it could be proven entirely wrong by countless examples.

Why senselessly discuss on an individual level? This is a social issue.

I have and will rely on friends, family, and neighbors, instead of cops. This isn't limited to preventing or recovering from encounters with 'criminals' or often, other 'criminals'. It extends to helping friends, family, and neighbors, avoid and get through encounters with the state. What other instances of class struggle are more vivid than the daily violent occupation of our world that is a hopeless nightmare of permenant unemployment, part time/temp work, disposable shit jobs, constant housing transition, homelessness, evictions, with the constant police presence maintaining this civil order.

[human strike]

People in this thread talking about helping the police where it helps a victim "get justice" - the fuck are you talking about?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't care about the term "class", specifically. The lumpenproletariat is a group that exists, and analysis involving that concept is useful. Obviously it is not a section of the proletariat, except if you define the proletariat as anyone who isn't part of the bourgeoisie - which certainly isn't what occurs in Marxist analysis.

I, just like Marx, define the proletariat by a compulsion to sell labour. Being unemployed does not negate that compulsion. Being a criminal does not negate that compulsion. The fact that these proletarians have found extraordinary methods to make money beyond selling labour does not suddenly evaporate their compulsion to sell their labour as beings in class society. As a "group" the lumpenproletariat can exist if you feel the need to create some stratification of the working class, but there is no such thing as the lumpenproletariat class -- and I would question the motives of those who create those stratifications.


Punishment means using some kind of violence (mental or physical) against someone in order to achieve an indefinite aim. That aim may include prevention of it happening again.

No, the word punishment means to impose a penalty on someone for retribution of an offence. That's what punishment means.


It doesn't have to step down to petty notions of revenge.

It cannot avoid doing that. It is written into the very fabric of our understanding of punishment.


Ok, please bring up a meta-study that results in your conclusion. If this is not given in the next post, I'll consider you to be simply wrong. I'm not up for one of these debates that pretend to replace evidence. You may argue that punishment is something undesirable in communist society and not have to bring any such hard evidence up, but for the assertion you are making (punishment doesn't change behaviour) you do have to.

Punishment has existed for Millenia as a form of justice against crimes and social infractions, yet crimes and social infractions continue to exist. If this was not obvious enough for you, a cursory Google search will show you plenty of studies that demonstrate the overwhelmingly high rates of recidivism amongst former prisoners. One such study (by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics) showed that between 2005-2010, two thirds of prisoners released went on to be re-arrested, with up to three-quarters arrested after five years. Of course, these are statistics that show how "criminals" respond to the punishment of having their liberty revoked, but what other "punishment" do you suggest?


If we're gonna bring dictionary definitions in, I think an encyclopedia article is more relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

[...]

It is an act that necessarily follows another act. Revenge would mean doing it exclusively to get some sort of sadist pleasure. It can have aims. Again: words don't have a godly power. It's not about the word punishment -- even though my usage is right.

Revenge isn't about sadist pleasure, it's about maintaining a presupposed form of justice that has existed for Millenia. Many rationalisations can be made for why punishment is necessary. The Wikpedia article you link to does a good job of that. It does not, however, address the age-old presupposition of society that maintains an eye-for-an-eye mentality. There are obviously various interpretations of this principle, but as a Biblical legacy, it remains the bedrock of understanding modern justice. Someone does something negative in society, therefore the response must be an act of punishment that is equal to and befitting of that negative act, i.e. revenge. In some parts of the United States for example, if someone takes the life of another, they themselves forfeit their life. And so on and so forth. You do something wrong, therefore something wrong is done to you. This is the foundation of our legal system and the cornerstone of punitive justice. The idea that someone could do something negative to someone and have nothing done to them is a principle that most people could not even fathom. This is because justice -- as seen by the majority -- is something that requires retribution. For most, you cannot simply do negative things and not expect to have something negative done to you. In other words, revenge is the fundament by which people understand justice; it is written into the very core of what people understand as a reasonable response to social transgressions, even if they then rationalise that by seeing it has "rehabilitation."

[RedWorker]

I, just like Marx, define the proletariat by a compulsion to sell labour. Being unemployed does not negate that compulsion. Being a criminal does not negate that compulsion. The fact that these proletarians have found extraordinary methods to make money beyond selling labour does not suddenly evaporate their compulsion to sell their labour as beings in class society. As a "group" the lumpenproletariat can exist if you feel the need to create some stratification of the working class, but there is no such thing as the lumpenproletariat class -- and I would question the motives of those who create those stratifications.

Being unemployed doesn't necessarily shift one's overall class status. Being of permanent unemployment, having a permanent criminal status, having a permanent inability to acquire education, permanent inability to fit in the social norms dictated by the superstructure and facing permanent social antagonism, however, does. That makes you a lumpenproletarian.

Is the mafia boss a proletarian, too, by your logic?

Marxist analysis certainly does not agree with your premise of those who are never engaged in a relation of exploitation with the capitalists being proletarians. The proletariat is specifically defined and also does not have to do with a "working class" broad label, though the terms are sometimes used synonymously.

Your posts rely on rhetoric such as watering down 'permanent unemployment' to simply 'unemployment'. I am not sure with what intentions this is done, but such underhanded debate is simply annoying. I don't want to refute a strawman. Why must you argue that 'unemployment' does not shift class status, is it because you cannot argue that 'permanent unemployment' does not shift class status?


No, the word punishment means to impose a penalty on someone for retribution of an offence. That's what punishment means.

I don't care if it's specifically classed as 'retribution', the point is it does not always have to go down to petty notions of revenge but can instead be focused completely on preventing further crime and rehabilitation.


Punishment has existed for Millenia as a form of justice against crimes and social infractions, yet crimes and social infractions continue to exist.

This is a fallacy: "because measure X hasn't completely eliminated problem Y, measure X simply does not work in any case." ("Punishment has never prevented crime" was your statement). Also, don't move the goalposts. It just reveals the weakness of your arguments.


If this was not obvious enough for you, a cursory Google search will show you plenty of studies that demonstrate the overwhelmingly high rates of recidivism amongst former prisoners. One such study (by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics) showed that between 2005-2010, two thirds of prisoners released went on to be re-arrested, with up to three-quarters arrested after five years.

This does not prove anything. Perhaps 66% went on to be re-arrested, but without punishment it may have been 80% (it's also possible that punishment was counterproductive, but still, this is no evidence). Also, the U.S. is not very representative, given that it's infamous for its very inefficient system of justice.


Of course, these are statistics that show how "criminals" respond to the punishment of having their liberty revoked, but what other "punishment" do you suggest?

So you concede that I am right. Note, I haven't been advocating punishment, I've merely explained its purposes and criticized your claim about it supposedly not being able to effect human behaviour.


Revenge isn't about sadist pleasure, it's about maintaining a presupposed form of justice that has existed for Millenia.

The real conditions of existence dominate the superstructure, not the opposite. It's not down to maintaining some notions of "justice"; it's about responding to real social conditions, and then maintaining certain ideas of "justice" to justify the actual response.


The Wikpedia article you link to does a good job of that. It does not, however, address the age-old presupposition of society that maintains an eye-for-an-eye mentality. There are obviously various interpretations of this principle, but as a Biblical legacy, it remains the bedrock of understanding modern justice. Someone does something negative in society, therefore the response must be an act of punishment that is equal to and befitting of that negative act, i.e. revenge.

"Eye for an eye" is a justification, not the foundation for real conditions. It is the real conditions that determine the need for such justification. There are permanent causes of crime exclusive to bourgeois society, thus the need for bourgeois justice, which later finds justification in ideas of "justice". We argue that these permanent causes of crime can only be solved through a communist transformation; therefore, we must also argue that bourgeois justice is not created by ideas of justice but rather generates these ideas of justice as a justification for itself.


The idea that someone could do something negative to someone and have nothing done to them is a principle that most people could not even fathom. This is because justice -- as seen by the majority -- is something that requires retribution.

The reason they can't imagine having nothing done to them is created by real conditions, real conditions which have created a superstructural idea of "cannot imagine having nothing being done to a criminal", as a justification for the justice that these real conditions have necessitated.

Your inversion of the base and superstructure principle finds its expression in that you imagine that justice is something dictated by the majority of the population, rather than the opposite: it is actually existing justice and the conditions that have required it that has dictated the popular opinion.


For most, you cannot simply do negative things and not expect to have something negative done to you. In other words, revenge is the fundament by which people understand justice; it is written into the very core of what people understand as a reasonable response to social transgressions, even if they then rationalise that by seeing it has "rehabilitation."

The natural conclusion of your idealist view; you are truly correct as far as idealism is concerned. There is no inner logical inconsistency.

[The Feral Underclass]

Being unemployed doesn't necessarily shift one's overall class status. Being of permanent unemployment, having a permanent criminal status, having a permanent inability to acquire education, permanent inability to fit in the social norms dictated by the superstructure and facing permanent social antagonism, however, does. That makes you a lumpenproletarian.

Is the mafia boss a proletarian, too, by your logic?

Marxist analysis certainly does not agree with your premise of those who are never engaged in a relation of exploitation with the capitalists being proletarians. The proletariat is specifically defined and also does not have to do with a "working class" broad label, though the terms are sometimes used synonymously.

Your posts rely on rhetoric such as watering down 'permanent unemployment' to simply 'unemployment'. I am not sure with what intentions this is done, but such underhanded debate is simply annoying. I don't want to refute a strawman. Why must you argue that 'unemployment' does not shift class status, is it because you cannot argue that 'permanent unemployment' does not shift class status?

You are still defining class based on what someone's job is, rather than on what their relationship to labour-power is. If a person is permanently unemployed it is because the bourgeoisie maintains a reserve army of labour in order to bring down wages and discipline workers. A permanently unemployed person can only exist because of the mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie buy labour-power as a commodity. The unemployed and under-employed, whether they are permanent or temporary serve specific functions in order for the bourgeoisie to extract profit. A permanently unemployed person is still defined by their compulsion to sell their labour-power; that's what makes them an effective part of the proletariat as far as the bourgeoisie is concerned -- the constant possibility that they are able to sell their labour-power maintains a stable environment in which to exploit those who are actually selling their labour-power. The fact that the bourgeoisie requires their permanent unemployment doesn't alter their class nature. For those who literally have no labour-power because they live with complete incapacitating disabilities are permanently unemployed because they have no labour-power in which to sell.

In terms of those who carry out crimes, the whole issue with that is that it's predicated on a bourgeois notion of property rights. If someone steals something, they are only a criminal insofar as the bourgeois state defends private property and has established an ideological code of conduct in terms of how individuals are to relate to that code. I reject the notion of "criminals" because I don't subscribe to a bourgeois understanding of property relations or criminal justice (which is primarily based on property relations). Be that as it may, when we talk about "criminals" (be they permanent or otherwise) the same principle applies as those who are "permanently" unemployed. If they exist in society as someone who is otherwise compelled to sell their labour-power, then they are by definition part of the proletariat. In answering your specific question of whether a Mafia boss can be classed as part of the proletariat, then I think the question has to be rephrased: What is this person's relationship to labour-power? Are they compelled to sell theirs or do they achieve their wealth from buying the labour-power of others? I think the answer to that is evident.


I don't care if it's specifically classed as 'retribution', the point is it does not always have to go down to petty notions of revenge but can instead be focused completely on preventing further crime and rehabilitation.

[...]

This is a fallacy: "because measure X hasn't completely eliminated problem Y, measure X simply does not work in any case." ("Punishment has never prevented crime" was your statement). Also, don't move the goalposts. It just reveals the weakness of your arguments.

The basis of your argument was that measure X can eliminate problem Y. I am attacking your argument based on its own logic. If you argue that punishment can prevent crime, then you have to be able to verify that based on measuring that assertion in reality. Since measure X has demonstrably been unable to eliminate problem Y, the statement that measure X can prevent problem Y is false.


This does not prove anything. Perhaps 66% went on to be re-arrested, but without punishment it may have been 80% (it's also possible that punishment was counterproductive, but still, this is no evidence). Also, the U.S. is not very representative, given that it's infamous for its very inefficient system of justice.

Actually, what it proves is that revoking someone's liberty isn't an effective way of preventing crime. I would wager that the statistics on recidivism are similar world-wide. In the UK for example, some prisons top 70% of re-offending, with national average being almost 60%.


So you concede that I am right. Note, I haven't been advocating punishment, I've merely explained its purposes and criticized your claim about it supposedly not being able to effect human behaviour.

I have made no proclamation about how punishment effects human behaviour. In fact, I would be happy to say that it does indeed effect human behaviour, but certainly not in the way that you and the bourgeois justice system would like it. The purpose of my intervention was to assert that punishment as a form of justice has not prevented crime. I know this is true because despite the existence of a punitive justice system, crime still exists. If punishing people prevented crime, then crime would not exist. It's as simple as that.


The real conditions of existence dominate the superstructure, not the opposite. It's not down to maintaining some notions of "justice"; it's about responding to real social conditions, and then maintaining certain ideas of "justice" to justify the actual response.

[...]

"Eye for an eye" is a justification, not the foundation for real conditions. It is the real conditions that determine the need for such justification. There are permanent causes of crime exclusive to bourgeois society, thus the need for bourgeois justice, which later finds justification in ideas of "justice". We argue that these permanent causes of crime can only be solved through a communist transformation; therefore, we must also argue that bourgeois justice is not created by ideas of justice but rather generates these ideas of justice as a justification for itself.

[...]

The reason they can't imagine having nothing done to them is created by real conditions, real conditions which have created a superstructural idea of "cannot imagine having nothing being done to a criminal", as a justification for the justice that these real conditions have necessitated.

Your inversion of the base and superstructure principle finds its expression in that you imagine that justice is something dictated by the majority of the population, rather than the opposite: it is actually existing justice and the conditions that have required it that has dictated the popular opinion.

[...]

The natural conclusion of your idealist view; you are truly correct as far as idealism is concerned. There is no inner logical inconsistency.

While I understand the nature of your argument, I'm not entirely sure why you're making it. You've constructed an argument of mine in order to respond to it and somehow mystified what we're talking about. I don't really see any reason for you to make a defence of Marxist materialism because it doesn't really make any difference to my argument. I'm not making a case for how the punitive justice system emerged, I am simply discussing its existence. A punitive justice system exists, the ideology of which is predicated on revenge.

[BIXX]

So wait redworker you want police in socialism

You want to coerce people away from living in a way that they actively choose using social violence

Why bother with communism just become a politician or capitalist

[RedWorker]

You are still defining class based on what someone's job is, rather than on what their relationship to labour-power is. If a person is permanently unemployed it is because the bourgeoisie maintains a reserve army of labour in order to bring down wages and discipline workers. A permanently unemployed person can only exist because of the mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie buy labour-power as a commodity. The unemployed and under-employed, whether they are permanent or temporary serve specific functions in order for the bourgeoisie to extract profit. A permanently unemployed person is still defined by their compulsion to sell their labour-power; that's what makes them an effective part of the proletariat as far as the bourgeoisie is concerned -- the constant possibility that they are able to sell their labour-power maintains a stable environment in which to exploit those who are actually selling their labour-power. The fact that the bourgeoisie requires their permanent unemployment doesn't alter their class nature. For those who literally have no labour-power because they live with complete incapacitating disabilities are permanently unemployed because they have no labour-power in which to sell.

Someone isn't a proletarian merely because his existence as lumpenproletarian would is characteristic of bourgeois society and would be made impossible by the communist transformation. Plus, someone does not need to sell his labour-power if he can live another way.


In terms of those who carry out crimes, the whole issue with that is that it's predicated on a bourgeois notion of property rights. If someone steals something, they are only a criminal insofar as the bourgeois state defends private property and has established an ideological code of conduct in terms of how individuals are to relate to that code. I reject the notion of "criminals" because I don't subscribe to a bourgeois understanding of property relations or criminal justice (which is primarily based on property relations).

The point is that it's not about whether you agree with it or not. It's about criminals and bourgeois justice really existing. Obviously, many crimes today would be made impossible with the abolition of private property.


Be that as it may, when we talk about "criminals" (be they permanent or otherwise) the same principle applies as those who are "permanently" unemployed. If they exist in society as someone who is otherwise compelled to sell their labour-power, then they are by definition part of the proletariat.

Again, not in Marxist analysis. The proletarian's definition is not down to being poor or a worker, as was explained by Marx and Engels on several occasions. As Engels explained in Principles of Communism, the proletariat constitutes "the class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat. "

The lumpenproletariat, on the other hand, does not sell its labour to the bourgeoisie nor is obliged to (they find other ways of surviving), nor do they get their means of subsistence from the bourgeoisie.


The basis of your argument was that measure X can eliminate problem Y. I am attacking your argument based on its own logic. If you argue that punishment can prevent crime, then you have to be able to verify that based on measuring that assertion in reality. Since measure X has demonstrably been unable to eliminate problem Y, the statement that measure X can prevent problem Y is false.

The point is that you claimed that punishment wasn't able to prevent any crime at all; I argued that it can at least change the behaviour of criminals or prevent some crime. "Some" may go down to 1%. You, however, now conceded that punishment can prevent some crime. I never defended the efficiency of punishment: I stated "The topic of [punishment's] efficiency and ethics is another debate."

This is, once again, the fallacy: "Since measure X has demonstrably been unable to eliminate problem Y, the statement that measure X can prevent problem Y is false." Prevent refers to stopping it to some degree, not completely eliminating it.

You have never proven that punishment does not prevent any crime at all.


Actually, what it proves is that revoking someone's liberty isn't an effective way of preventing crime.

As I explained on post #29, efficiency is not under debate here, because my aim is not defending punishment but rather explaining its existence, social role and meaning under bourgeois justice.


The purpose of my intervention was to assert that punishment as a form of justice has not prevented crime. I know this is true because despite the existence of a punitive justice system, crime still exists. If punishing people prevented crime, then crime would not exist. It's as simple as that.

This fallacy was already debunked, and I'm not up to a fight over the word "preventing". It is known that I never claimed that punishment can prevent all crime, as already on post #29 I stated that it may very well be inefficient.


While I understand the nature of your argument, I'm not entirely sure why you're making it. You've constructed an argument of mine in order to respond to it and somehow mystified what we're talking about. I don't really see any reason for you to make a defence of Marxist materialism because it doesn't really make any difference to my argument. I'm not making a case for how the punitive justice system emerged, I am simply discussing its existence. A punitive justice system exists, the ideology of which is predicated on revenge.

Your explanation of bourgeois justice in that post rests on idealism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Someone isn't a proletarian merely because his existence as lumpenproletarian would is characteristic of bourgeois society and would be made impossible by the communist transformation. Plus, someone does not need to sell his labour-power if he can live another way.

[...]

The point is that it's not about whether you agree with it or not. It's about criminals and bourgeois justice really existing. Obviously, many crimes today would be made impossible with the abolition of private property.

...Erm, what?


Again, not in Marxist analysis.

That's okay, I'm not a Marxist.


The proletarian's definition is not down to being poor or a worker, as was explained by Marx and Engels on several occasions. As Engels explained in Principles of Communism, the proletariat constitutes "the class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat. "

In 1847, Marx talked about selling labour, but in Capital he goes on to clarify the difference between labour and labour-power. Marx didn't mean sell labour; you can't sell labour. It's our labour-power that we are compelled to sell. They are different things.


The lumpenproletariat, on the other hand, does not sell its labour to the bourgeoisie nor is obliged to (they find other ways of surviving), nor do they get their means of subsistence from the bourgeoisie.

For Marx, the entire purpose of understanding the "lumpenproletariat" was to understand that there existed an element of the proletariat who engaged in no socially productive work. He didn't argue that they were not part of the proletariat, but that they were simply outcasts of production. In that respect, they remain compelled to sell their labour-power, but simply don't. That makes them proletarian (not a separate class) as much as any one else who is compelled to sell their labour.


The point is that you claimed that punishment wasn't able to prevent any crime at all; I argued that it can at least change the behaviour of criminals or prevent some crime. "Some" may go down to 1%. You, however, now conceded that punishment can prevent some crime. I never defended the efficiency of punishment: I stated "The topic of [punishment's] efficiency and ethics is another debate."

I said punishment has never prevented crime. That statement remains true. If it is not true, then show me a society in which punishment has been used and crime does not exist.


This is, once again, the fallacy: "Since measure X has demonstrably been unable to eliminate problem Y, the statement that measure X can prevent problem Y is false." Prevent refers to stopping it to some degree, not completely eliminating it.

You have never proven that punishment does not prevent any crime at all.

I don't think you understand what a fallacy is.

The word 'prevent' means 'to keep from happening.' Do we live in a society in which crime does not keep happening?


As I explained on post #29, efficiency is not under debate here, because my aim is not defending punishment but rather explaining its existence, social role and meaning under bourgeois justice.

Well, actually, it is under debate. When the efficiency of something is able to determine whether that something is successful, then I think it is entirely relevant. You claim you are not defending punishment, but that seems to be what you have been doing in this thread.


This fallacy was already debunked, and I'm not up to a fight over the word "preventing". It is known that I never claimed that punishment can prevent all crime, as already on post #29 I stated that it may very well be inefficient.

As far as I can tell it has been unable to prevent any crime.


Your explanation of bourgeois justice in that post rests on idealism.

My explanation of bourgeois justice is that its based on the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie. I don't understand why you would object to that?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

not if i could possibly avoid it

[Guardia Rossa]

I would use civil arrest to arrest (And taser on the way, you can never be safe if they are attempting to gain a upper hand on you) fascists, someone stealing me, etc.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I probably wouldn't have gave testimony to the cops. If this lady tried to lock up her son for stealing a tv to pay for drugs why would I want to help with that? Prisons are terrible places in the U.S. and in the absence of other options I'd rather not send people there because it doesn't really help much, especially for crimes such as stealing a tv, it's just going to create more damage for the people involved. I don't know how many times I've gotten the,"we're bringing your dad away with us for a little while so he can get better so you can get better" speech from pigs to calm the situation down knowing full well my mom can't take care of my sisters and I on a waitresses wages. And what type of help do you get to overcome drugs? Quitting cold turkey and being locked in isolation when you act out since you haven't had your fix? You come out as damaged as before with a even more extensive criminal record which will make it harder to sell your labor power which will drive you to... steal more tvs.

I think communists should counteract this reality. I would really like parties to have structure in the community to where people can come to us and say help x person stole a tv because he needs drug money and then we go in and get the person to return the tv(and if that's not possible, get her a new tv) and set him up with people who are going to try and help him overcome his drug problems and so on without incarcerating him and getting the police involved.

And I don't say this without never being in a situation like this. For instance one time at a local carnival I saw a group of about 8 people who were going to jump one person after two of them had already beat him down once so I stepped in to stop it and it just ended up being 2 against 8. When the cops came around asking the crowd questions I sank into the crowd and acted like I didn't get involved and the other guy who got fucked up wasn't saying who those people were either. Neither one of us wanted those people to go to prison for that even though I severely wish nothing but pain on them.

[Counterculturalist]

Years ago, I was coming home from work at 7:00 am, and a neighbor from a few doors down came staggering up to me. She was bruised and swollen and seemed to be in a daze. She asked if I would call the cops because her boyfriend had beaten her up and wouldn't leave. Her daughter was there and was terrified, and she had to get him out of the house.

Of course I called the cops. When I told my tuffguy co-workers about this, they dismissed me as a "rat." So what should I have done? "Go in there and beat the fuck out of him" was their answer. (Others said I should have just minded my own business and ignored her, but I'm not even dignifying that with any sort of consideration.)

Just going in there and fighting this asshole wasn't a reasonable option. I don't have much skill as a fighter - I'm heavy and uncoordinated. After this guy finished kicking my ass, he'd probably hurt her some more for getting me involved. And he might have had a gun, for all I know.

So I called the pigs. I'm curious if there might have been a better way to deal with that particular situation.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think that the only reason to get cops involved is when there are no other possibilities and either your life or the life of another is in direct danger...I don't much care for the distinction between whether that is a real danger or a perceived one.

I think sitiations such as rape and abuse can qualify...but...and that is what you seriously need to consider. Post factual always should depend, amongst others, on the wishes of the victim since they will invariably carry the burden of the criminal justice system.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Years ago, I was coming home from work at 7:00 am, and a neighbor from a few doors down came staggering up to me. She was bruised and swollen and seemed to be in a daze. She asked if I would call the cops because her boyfriend had beaten her up and wouldn't leave. Her daughter was there and was terrified, and she had to get him out of the house.

Of course I called the cops. When I told my tuffguy co-workers about this, they dismissed me as a "rat." So what should I have done? "Go in there and beat the fuck out of him" was their answer. (Others said I should have just minded my own business and ignored her, but I'm not even dignifying that with any sort of consideration.)

Just going in there and fighting this asshole wasn't a reasonable option. I don't have much skill as a fighter - I'm heavy and uncoordinated. After this guy finished kicking my ass, he'd probably hurt her some more for getting me involved. And he might have had a gun, for all I know.

So I called the pigs. I'm curious if there might have been a better way to deal with that particular situation.
Like Phoenix just said (and many others before) it really depends on the situation. If there's someone being beaten and they don't have a safe place to be and the fucker has your baby you might want to call the cops. But should the cops have shown up everytime I've gotten in a fight? Hell no, I'd be doing a lot of time for things that got handled without the hand of the state coming in and fucking up everybody's lives. I can't think of many situations where that's justified.

I've seen a lot of people use cops as their own personal tool for gain, which really bothers me. Like someone I knew hated her neighbor(because she didn't like her drug use) so she would look for any reason to call the cops and would tell me how great it would be if the neighbor had to go to jail for a few months. Wtf, why would somebody do that to someone else because they personally don't like them?

[motion denied]

~be the police you want to see in the world~

<3 <3 <3