The death penalty

[condor]

Both Trotsky and Castro have used the death penalty on occasions. When is the death penalty effective..?

[RedWorker]

The death penalty should never be used and communists have opposed it since the earliest personal writings of Marx on the subject (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/02/18.htm).

It's simply useless and cruel to kill someone. Revenge is pointless. Prevention of future harm is not.

And, of course, the death penalty falls with class society, cannot exist outside it.

[condor]

Then why have Trotsky and Castro used it?...

[Guardia Rossa]

Then why have Trotsky and Castro used it?...

My guess is


Prevention of future harm.

In other words, they only killed reactionaries, torturers, fascists, Batista's regime apologists, the bourgeoisie that would prefer to rent the people as slaves to the US and fight for their "Right" to do so.
They killed these people because if they didn't, a counter-revolution would rise and more and more people would die, perhaps the US would intervene and the Cubans would again be enslaved.
You, unfortunately, would not be killed, because would not be deemed a threat. Children are not killed in a revolution, aye?

[Aslan]

But isn't there a better way than just execution? These are people too, and I don't think its their fault that they are against revolutionary socialism. Instead of that, why not have them come to the conclusion that socialism is the best for humanity? It would mean more manpower in our struggle as well.

[Црвена]

You do all realise that Trotsky and Castro got some things wrong, right? The fact that they used the death penalty does not mean that it was the best course of action.

[Guardia Rossa]

But isn't there a better way than just execution? These are people too, and I don't think its their fault that they are against revolutionary socialism. Instead of that, why not have them come to the conclusion that socialism is the best for humanity? It would mean more manpower in our struggle as well.

Brainwash them. That's probably the only way you can negate a whole life of experiences that led to an ideological position

Now to a more rational thing.

Exile them.

[Ricemilk]

I appreciate the arguments both for and against executing reactionaries. I don't think a revolutionary socialist state has any more right to sentence people to death according to an imposed system of law than a pro-capitalist state, nor do I trust either one to choose the right people, but I am in favor of known fascists, rapists and self-aware racist organizers being hunted down by brave revolutionaries without any particular authority. Of course, they must exercise discipline, rigor and principles unknown to states, but which aren't automatically present among even committed comrades either.

One judicial/tribunal response sometimes used in anarchies/anarchistic societies is the ban, very similar to exile, but the person might get to stay put - just without any of the recognized rights and status that are otherwise assumed. So in this way, a fascist (for example) can be declared beyond the protection of militant and defense organizations in the area, thus 'fair game' by implication, and he can choose to either flee, beg reentry into society (on conditions) or live with the risk for as long as he's able. While i'm not specifically aware of this being used since the start of fascism, I'm given to understand most people choose to beg for reentry into society.

I'm honestly not sure whether it's more urgent to neutralize fascists for good or to demonstrate a different way of life and let them recruit themselves. I don't know enough about the mind to say for sure. But I will say that there is a distinction to be drawn between the death penalty as a state punishment vs. the decision of autonomous comrades to execute a grave and persistent threat to order and socialization. And that one can be for or against either, both or a combination, for various reasons.

[Guardia Rossa]

I appreciate the arguments both for and against executing reactionaries. I don't think a revolutionary socialist state has any more right to sentence people to death according to an imposed system of law than a pro-capitalist state, nor do I trust either one to choose the right people, but I am in favor of known fascists, rapists and self-aware racist organizers being hunted down by brave revolutionaries without any particular authority. Of course, they must exercise discipline, rigor and principles unknown to states, but which aren't automatically present among even committed comrades either.

One judicial/tribunal response sometimes used in anarchies/anarchistic societies is the ban, very similar to exile, but the person might get to stay put - just without any of the recognized rights and status that are otherwise assumed. So in this way, a fascist (for example) can be declared beyond the protection of militant and defense organizations in the area, thus 'fair game' by implication, and he can choose to either flee, beg reentry into society (on conditions) or live with the risk for as long as he's able. While i'm not specifically aware of this being used since the start of fascism, I'm given to understand most people choose to beg for reentry into society.

I'm honestly not sure whether it's more urgent to neutralize fascists for good or to demonstrate a different way of life and let them recruit themselves. I don't know enough about the mind to say for sure. But I will say that there is a distinction to be drawn between the death penalty as a state punishment vs. the decision of autonomous comrades to execute a grave and persistent threat to order and socialization. And that one can be for or against either, both or a combination, for various reasons.

Well, I think different people deserve different treatment. Active ideologues, leaders, etc are to be shot at sight. They will be an active opposition and dangerous, it doesn't matters where. Even in jail they could be dangerous.

But if they aren't I don't see why not take some of their rights, and then exiling them, if they fail to adapt. But just taking their rights will give them no options to either align with the revolution, leave the region or resist actively against it.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The Bolsheviks actually abolished the death penalty immediately after the October Revolution. They only re-instituted it a short time later when the grave reality of the civil war set in.

My personal opinion is that, although we should not be afraid to use deadly violence against those who both endanger the revolution and the lives and liberties of free workers (and that's an important distinction to be made), the workers' republic should never EVER use violence lightly. Ideally, it would never use such violence at all, and would attempt instead to use compassion and education. But we don't live an ideal world, sadly.

[Art Vandelay]

Proletarian revolution - which yes, unfortunately necessitates execution - is merely the eruption of the violent antagonisms which lay not so dormant everyday under the rule of capital. Class struggle, even carried through by quote-unquote peaceful means, carries forth the embodiment 'in an expanded form all the elements of a civil war'; in other words, as Trotsky once said, there is no impervious demarcation between 'peaceful' class struggle and revolution.

The question of whether or not executions are palatable in times of revolution, is of no concerns to Marxists; we carry forth in our rhetoric and actions the knowledge that morality itself bears a class character - the stamp of capital - and that there is a dialectical interplay between means and ends, that the ends justify the means as long as there is something in turn which justifies the end.

Marxists oppose the death penalty not only under the capitalist mode of production and in the epoch following the establishment of classless society, while also being the most fervent advocates and applicants of the practice under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no contradiction here.

We support the death penalty during times of revolution, and oppose it under capitalism, not because that was the line of past notable Marxists, but because of our understanding of the realities of class society and the violent convulsions of a revolutionary transformation. To paraphrase Marx, we have no compassion and ask none from you, when our turns comes we shall not make apologies for the executions, there is only one way to hasten and concentrate the death throes of the old order and the bloody birth pangs of the new, revolutionary terror.

[Emmett Till]

The Bolsheviks actually abolished the death penalty immediately after the October Revolution. They only re-instituted it a short time later when the grave reality of the civil war set in.

My personal opinion is that, although we should not be afraid to use deadly violence against those who both endanger the revolution and the lives and liberties of free workers (and that's an important distinction to be made), the workers' republic should never EVER use violence lightly. Ideally, it would never use such violence at all, and would attempt instead to use compassion and education. But we don't live an ideal world, sadly.

And they re-instituted it only in 1922 I think it was, over the opposition of Cheka head Felix Dzherzhinsky, a consistent opponent of the death penalty to his dying day.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Cheka didn't shoot a lot of people. To Iron Felix, that was a different matter altogether. As he put it, "the Cheka does not judge, it strikes." Shooting people had in his opinion nothing to do with penalties, crime or punishment, but was simply warfare on the internal front, no different morally than shooting enemies on the battlefield. He was famous as the supreme moralist in the Bolshevik leadership, that's why he was given the job of heading the Cheka in the first place, over his objections.

Lenin's attitude was, well, that's all very well in theory, but in practice the Cheka is getting out of hand and shooting too many people, and what's more the civil war is over, so let's have a formal death penalty and trials instead of the Cheka shooting people right and left.

[Rafiq]

Amidst all utilitarian proposals, the element that is missing here is the acknowledgment of the necessity of terror: Terror is not simply some utilitarian task, that one must do for the greater good. One must become immersed and engaged in it, the terroristic wrath of a revolution must not be done reluctantly.

Only the guilty blush, the innocent are ashamed of nothing. A terror that is not ashamed of itself will leave no blind alleys: The terror of a revolution must be as organized, consistent and merciless as possible - only then can such 'excesses' done under the temptation that the practices of the old world be avoided, only then can there be no - for example - rape under terror, only then can there be no corruption in the act of spilling blood.

During revolutions, 'excesses' occur because killings and terror are fervently opposed by revolutionaries. When the time comes that it becomes necessary, the onset of terror is unrestrained and fully unhinged: If one can take a human life, so the implicit logic goes, what else is left? Terror must be exercised in accordance with the highest ideals of the revolution, whose message is: No mercy for the bloodsuckers, no mercy for the reactionaries, no mercy for the renegades, no mercy for the demons of the old order.

If the revolution merely concerned the proletariat and the immediate bourgeoisie at a personal level, it could be completely peaceful. But this is not the problem - individual members of the bourgeoisie will succumb, by merit of their inherent cowardice. No, no - terror is reserved for the reaction, terror is reserved for even those who violently oppose the bourgeois liberal order on reactionary terms. A counter-revolution is NEVER simply the old 'status quo', it learns from the standards of the revolution opportunistically - from a Communist revolution, a 'socialist' counter-revolution will arise, from a Jacobin revolution, a constitutional monarchy will arise.

Revolutions are not moments in history which sing the chorus of old melody. The next revolution will come to remind humanity that it is death drive which makes us human, the passive beasts capitalism has made us.

Revolution is the re-assertion of man over animal, after which, he will never have to be reminded.

[blake 3:17]

Marxists oppose the death penalty not only under the capitalist mode of production and in the epoch preceding the establishment of classless society, while also being the most fervent advocates and applicants of the practice under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no contradiction here.

The lack of contradiction you present is that we'd move from one murderous system to another murderous system. So we'd shuffle who kills who, but it'd stay the same.

Socialists should unilaterally oppose the the death penalty. What kind of a just society would force people to be executioners?

[Rafiq]

What kind of a just society would force people to be executioners?

If the revolution does not already inspire the necessary rage among the masses to drink the blood of the reaction, it is no revolution.

A revolution puts everything on the line. A revolution changes everything, it is merciless and all encompassing - everything which defines what it means to be a human, a revolution forces you to question even the most cynical, everyday habits, a revolution leaves nothing to gods, 'nature' or something else.

Many will die. But only insofar as we ourselves are ready to die for this new world.

[Art Vandelay]

The lack of contradiction you present is that we'd move from one murderous system to another murderous system. So we'd shuffle who kills who, but it'd stay the same.

Socialists should unilaterally oppose the the death penalty. What kind of a just society would force people to be executioners?

Your disagreement with my comments, may arise from a misreading/misunderstanding, although I can't be sure. Let me reiterate what I said above, the death penalty will be non-existent in socialism. No society can make pretenses towards being humane while carrying out executions. However, during the dictatorship of the proletariat (civil war), the death penalty will be an unfortunate reality. As Lenin once said, when it boils down to it, politics is about who cuts who's throat.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

If the revolution does not already inspire the necessary rage among the masses to drink the blood of the reaction, it is no revolution.

...
No thanks, blood tastes like Iron and I don't like Iron.

Check this out, might help you.
http://www.yellowpages.com/detroit-mi/psychiatric-hospitals

[Rafiq]

Check this out, might help you.
http://www.yellowpages.com/detroit-mi/psychiatric-hospitals

Good advice. This would be of benefit because my goal in life is to be a normal, functioning member of society. Fuck! I gotta do it so I can get that job I always dreamed of.

[Alan OldStudent]

I oppose the death penalty during times of civil peace. But in a war, the situation is different. A revolutionary government facing a counterrevolutionary armed force unfortunately has to take repressive measures until the situation has stabilized. I hate the idea, hate violence, but recognize the necessity.

It's not a matter of revenge or even punishment. It's a matter of self defense.

[Comrade #138672]

While I agree that self-defense against the counter-revolution is a necessity, some people seem way too eager for bloodshed. That seems like a recipe for disaster. A possible threat to the revolution if it is directed against the revolutionaries, much like how the Bolshevik leaders ended up being assassinated by their old comrades.

[RedKobra]

We shouldn't shirk from defending ourselves in the cause of revolution, and make no mistake the forces of Capital will be brutal and unflinching in their reaction but if you're not utterly disgusted by the thought of violence, murder and death then there is seriously something wrong with you. The way I look at it is, as in any violent conflict, the stomach for the ugliness is a product of the conditions. Very few conscript soldiers have gone off to war actively looking to butcher their fellow human, but when the enemies' bullets start flying and poison gas starts creeping over the trenches you suddenly see more clearly what must be done and you do it. No one should be able to countenance that kind of behaviour BEFORE the conditions arise.

[Luís Henrique]

Then why have Trotsky and Castro used it?...

Some possibilities...

... those were not death penalties, but war casualties.
... they didn't control all of the world, and couldn't rely on mercy from the other side.
... maybe they were wrong.

Luís Henrique

[Emmett Till]

I oppose the death penalty during times of civil peace. But in a war, the situation is different. A revolutionary government facing a counterrevolutionary armed force unfortunately has to take repressive measures until the situation has stabilized. I hate the idea, hate violence, but recognize the necessity.

It's not a matter of revenge or even punishment. It's a matter of self defense.

Yes indeed! Good ol' Iron Felix couldn't have put it better.

[Exterminatus]

I just don't see how do we plan to dismantle the entire present order without utilizing organized mass executions of our enemies, those who exist to preserve it.

Workers will go for their master's blood anyway once the revolution starts. Communists must organize and direct this revolutionary terror to get the most out of it.

[Ricemilk]

No thanks, blood tastes like Iron and I don't like Iron.

Check this out, might help you.
http://www.yellowpages.com/detroit-mi/psychiatric-hospitals
Must be nice to be sane and believe the bourgeoisie and their defenders will simply hand over the means of production if you draw them a colorful enough unicorn.


I just don't see how do we plan to dismantle the entire present order without utilizing organized mass executions of our enemies, those who exist to preserve it.

Workers will go for their master's blood anyway once the revolution starts. Communists must organize and direct this revolutionary terror to get the most out of it.
You raise an important point. Theorizing is all well and good, but when revolution comes, the ppl most insulted by the all-consuming nature of their oppression will act outside of the constraint of any morality, including ours. I'm not totally sure what our response must be, in detail, but I'm pretty sure it can't be "tsk tsk, we wanted to send that slumlord/rapist cop/etc. off to trial"

[Emmett Till]

I just don't see how do we plan to dismantle the entire present order without utilizing organized mass executions of our enemies, those who exist to preserve it.

Workers will go for their master's blood anyway once the revolution starts. Communists must organize and direct this revolutionary terror to get the most out of it.

There were people with ideas like this running around in 1917, some of them got into the Cheka where things were disorganized, anarchistic and chaotic.

Dzherzhinsky had the ones who got into the Cheka shot as major dangers to the Revolution.

One of the purposes of creating the Cheka was to *stop* spontaneous orgies of revenge, which dirty the banner of revolutions.

[HevMet]

Well the death penalty doesn't make society safer or crime free, at least not here in the US, as for a revolutionary war scenario, should it be used? I don't know, revolutions have happened without mass executions, like in Nicaragua.

[Emmett Till]

Well the death penalty doesn't make society safer or crime free, at least not here in the US, as for a revolutionary war scenario, should it be used? I don't know, revolutions have happened without mass executions, like in Nicaragua.

I don't necessarily disagree, but you've chosen a very poor example, being as the revolution in Nicaragua was a failure, the Sandinistas handed the country right back to capitalism (which on Castro's advice they never really broke free of anyway) and US economic domination when the Soviet Union, their main support in the world, collapsed. And you even have a "Sandinista" government in Nicaragua now, and the country is in pretty much the same misery as the rest of Central America.