Death Penalty

[DisIllusion]

What do you guys think about the death penalty? Where do you draw the line on where somebody should be put to death? Do you support it at all? Do you believe in jailing them for life, trying to re-educate them, or just putting them to death immiediately?

Personally, I think that all criminals should be re-educated by the State, and not in the Stalinist way, where people disappeared and stuff, just like rehabilitation. If they cannot be trusted to go back to society or are still dangerous, then they should be put in jail. The death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous and dangerous criminals.

[Delirium]

I support the death penalty for rapists and murderers. I would not want to spend money keeping these scumbags alive in some resort when the money could be spent much better somwhere else.

[Magraheed]

I dont agree with the death penalty ever, no matter what someone has done. I believe people can change and have the right to a second chance.

[Entrails Konfetti]

The penal system of today for rapists and murderers is shaped around the death penalty, or it plays into the hands of private mental hospitals, private prinsons or pharmecutical companies.

Well, I don't know what its like for nationalized healthcare in this sense, since I've been out of British healthcare since I was six years old.

However, in the USA, thats the case.
I'm doubtful they will ever touch base with trying to rehabilitate. Its all about prozac, anti-pyschosis medications, and making stock-holders happy. There will have to be massive expenditure in finding cures.

One of my on-line buddies who lives in Canada, says they're setting in the right direction with group discussion therapy in hospitals, instead of it being in prisons where prison culture is prominent.

The question I'm interested in, is if some does recieve true rehabilition, will they ever be trusted by society? Will they have to be under watch for the rest of their lives?

Is that the price to pay for muder, and rape?

[Simotix]

While I do not have an opinion per-say on what should constitute you to have to use the death penalty on a person, I do believe that if it has to be used then it should only be used when a person is without a doubt guilty.

[Delirium]

That is the problem and it give me reservations. You can never be absolutly certian of anything, much less whether a committed a crime.

[Magraheed]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 27 2005, 06:13 PM
That is the problem and it give me reservations. You can never be absolutly certian of anything, much less whether a committed a crime.
Exactly

[Xvall]

I would much prefer forced labor, just because it's more productive and avoids those cases of accidentally murdering an innocent person. I think fascists, nazis, racists, and the like need to be outright shot, though - possibly even tortured.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:47 PM
I dont agree with the death penalty ever, no matter what someone has done. I believe people can change and have the right to a second chance.
Agreed, well put man.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:53 PM
I would much prefer forced labor, just because it's more productive and avoids those cases of accidentally murdering an innocent person. I think fascists, nazis, racists, and the like need to be outright shot, though - possibly even tortured.
Torture is wrong, no matter what.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by leftistmarleyist+Nov 27 2005, 08:01 PM--> (leftistmarleyist @ Nov 27 2005, 08:01 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 11:53 PM
I would much prefer forced labor, just because it's more productive and avoids those cases of accidentally murdering an innocent person. I think fascists, nazis, racists, and the like need to be outright shot, though - possibly even tortured.
Torture is wrong, no matter what. [/b]
If prison and forced labour and execution are out of the question, what the fuck do you think should be done?

You do realise that if rapists and murderers are allowed to run free, people (women especially) will carry guns and other weapons regardless of the law concerning them.

Are you sure you want a world where every individual makes their own laws?

[Noah]

I would much prefer forced labor, just because it's more productive and avoids those cases of accidentally murdering an innocent person. I think fascists, nazis, racists, and the like need to be outright shot, though - possibly even tortured.

I agree slightly. But this also brings it's problems, what if you forced one to work for say 10 years of their life and then the real killer was found? You'd have some very angry people and many would be opposed to this.

I think fascists, nazis, racists and so on need to be re-educated and change the way they think about fellow human beings. But if they carry on being racist and making people's lifes terrible, they should be put into forced labour camps (a possible form of torture)


I think the death penalty should be saved only for the wackos that have committed so much bad in the past that would probably commit suicide if they were forced to work. People like Saddam H. or Adolf H.

Rapists and murderers should be rehabilitated and if they get released into society and commit again they should be forced into a labour camp.

While i'm typing this..I do seem quiet harsh forcing people into labour camps and using them as a machine than a human being.

So I could change my opinion depends on how the debate goes!

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by NoXion+Nov 28 2005, 02:40 AM--> (NoXion @ Nov 28 2005, 02:40 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:01 PM

[email protected] 27 2005, 11:53 PM
I would much prefer forced labor, just because it's more productive and avoids those cases of accidentally murdering an innocent person. I think fascists, nazis, racists, and the like need to be outright shot, though - possibly even tortured.
Torture is wrong, no matter what.
If prison and forced labour and execution are out of the question, what the fuck do you think should be done?

You do realise that if rapists and murderers are allowed to run free, people (women especially) will carry guns and other weapons regardless of the law concerning them.

Are you sure you want a world where every individual makes their own laws? [/b]
I suggest you read Revolutionary Suicide by Huey P. Newton for his take on the situitation, I think he has great ideas on it.

[Magraheed]

Whats the point in doing what racist do or what a nazi would do. Thats not solving anything, basicly you are becoming a nazi =/

Yall sound like the political right not left.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:06 AM
Whats the point in doing what racist do or what a nazi would do. Thats not solving anything, basicly you are becoming a nazi =/

Yall sound like the political right not left.
I agree, that is one of the things that I dont like about some people in these forums, they write things like this.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by leftistmarleyist+Nov 28 2005, 03:16 AM--> (leftistmarleyist @ Nov 28 2005, 03:16 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 03:06 AM
Whats the point in doing what racist do or what a nazi would do. Thats not solving anything, basicly you are becoming a nazi =/

Yall sound like the political right not left.
I agree, that is one of the things that I dont like about some people in these forums, they write things like this. [/b]
And by writing things like this, I mean they write stuff in support of torture, like Magraheed pointed out.

[Noah]

How else do you expect to minimilize inequality? why give them the freedom of speech to spread hatred?

INFACT Magraheed, the right wingers allow Neo-Nazi and BNP type movements to happen and the left is doing the opposite.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:18 AM
How else do you expect to minimilize inequality? why give them the freedom of speech to spread hatred?

INFACT Magraheed, the right wingers allow Neo-Nazi and BNP type movements to happen and the left is doing the opposite.
We can minimize inequality by educating people on the dangers of people like neo-nazis, instead of mistreating neo nazis which may make people have sympathy for groups like that.

[Magraheed]

Originally posted by leftistmarleyist+Nov 27 2005, 11:24 PM--> (leftistmarleyist @ Nov 27 2005, 11:24 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 03:18 AM
How else do you expect to minimilize inequality? why give them the freedom of speech to spread hatred?

INFACT Magraheed, the right wingers allow Neo-Nazi and BNP type movements to happen and the left is doing the opposite.
We can minimize inequality by educating people on the dangers of people like neo-nazis, instead of mistreating neo nazis which may make people have sympathy for groups like that. [/b]
Yes, i totally agree.


You guys are letting your anger get the best of you, Your not thinking things through.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I suggest you read Revolutionary Suicide by Huey P. Newton for his take on the situitation, I think he has great ideas on it.

No, I didn't ask what fucking book to read, I asked for what you think should be done.

[WUOrevolt]

He suggests that prisons, if they need to exist, should really not be focused on punishment but more rehabilitation.

People have the ability to change, everyone deserves a second chance, even murderers and rapists.

[WUOrevolt]

But regardless, you should read that book anyway, it is great.

[Noah]

alot Neo-nazis and racists, will pass on their ideology to their children and so on.

Just like my dad educated me about communism because of his beliefs from the past.

So to eradicate the problem, nazis/racists who spread their propaganda should be locked away, do we really want to take the rist of rehabilitating someone and then trusting them to totally forget about the past.

I agree some racists/nazis could be rehabilitated but radicals can't and will do anything for their cause and must be gotten rid of or locked away or so on.

But I will read the recommended book! Cheers for the suggestion.

Noah

[DisIllusion]

So to eradicate the problem, nazis/racists who spread their propaganda should be locked away, do we really want to take the rist of rehabilitating someone and then trusting them to totally forget about the past.

I agree some racists/nazis could be rehabilitated but radicals can't and will do anything for their cause and must be gotten rid of or locked away or so on.


I don't believe all of them should. Reeducation and rehabilitation should still be our main goal. Why take a potentially useful part of society away just because we are too lazy to try to make them see the light? But yes, if all else fails, resorting to prison or community service might be the best idea.

[Rockfan]

Surely grouping Neo Nazis togeather wouldn't work out well. A culture would develop between them and they would try and escape/kill/form there own state possibly if they hed enough support. And surely most would be killed in the revolution, there would be shit all really. Besides if they walked down the street they would be spat on or something by the people.

[SanPatricio'sSoul]

Originally posted by leftistmarleyist+Nov 27 2005, 11:11 PM--> (leftistmarleyist @ Nov 27 2005, 11:11 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:01 PM

[email protected] 27 2005, 11:53 PM
I would much prefer forced labor, just because it's more productive and avoids those cases of accidentally murdering an innocent person. I think fascists, nazis, racists, and the like need to be outright shot, though - possibly even tortured.
Torture is wrong, no matter what.
If prison and forced labour and execution are out of the question, what the fuck do you think should be done?

You do realise that if rapists and murderers are allowed to run free, people (women especially) will carry guns and other weapons regardless of the law concerning them.

Are you sure you want a world where every individual makes their own laws?
I suggest you read Revolutionary Suicide by Huey P. Newton for his take on the situitation, I think he has great ideas on it. [/b]
I'm curious, where could you get a copy of Revolutionary suicide? I've been looking for it for a while now and have yet to find any copy that costs under 60 dollars.

As far as the death penalty goes I am wholeheartedly against it because no one has the right to kill. Also prisons themselves do not rehabilitate at all, but rather they break down a person's ability to function in modern society. Also rehabilitation was given up on (i heard in 1979), and in its place we see the prison-industrial complex. As far as felons go (including non-violent drug offenders) once they get out of prison they find that they cannot survive without returning to crime since they are excluded from society (mainly jobs). Thus is the creation of the Incarceration/Release/Incarceration cycle that unfortunately consumes the lives of many prisoners.

Also as far as forced labor goes I don't think allowing slavery will help prisoners rehabilitate into society. Especially if you sit on a chain gang for 20 years. Prison work these days has transformed into private corperation work (answering calls for corperations) and agribuisness.

The prison system has to be reformed so to actually be rehabilatory as opposed to a 6 by 8 cell to rot for (insert amount of years) and certain laws need to be reformed (laws such as the Rockafeller Drug Laws (mandatory minimum sentances) and laws concerning drugs in general, to get the same sentance of having over 500 grams of cocaine you only need 5 grams of crack).

Peace Love,
Dave

[RadicalLeft62]

there is no death penalty when talking politics. to kill is to do only one thing, to end the life of one to put political pressure on some institution. We kill in the US to put political pressure on international social liberalism, but mostly to put pressure on our own people.

[DisIllusion]

but mostly to put pressure on our own people.

You mean as an example to everybody in society? Or did you mean something else.

[Clarksist]

The death penalty for a murderer, is like raping the child of a pedophile.

An eye-for-an-eye never works!

It does, in the short term deter, but in the long run... your creating a criminal mindset and a mentality of vengeance, not punishment of rehabilitation.

[Xvall]

Torture is wrong, no matter what.

Why? According to whom?

[DisIllusion]

The death penalty for a murderer, is like raping the child of a pedophile.

If we were to take this literally, the death penalty only hurts the murderer, raping the child of a pedophile would hurt the child.

[DisIllusion]

Why? According to whom?

What do you define as "torture", comrade Xvall?

[Xvall]

The death penalty for a murderer, is like raping the child of a pedophile.

Bad analogy. See DisIllusion's comment.


What do you define as "torture", comrade Xvall?

I neither know nor care. A lot of things could be defined as torture, and it's entirely subjective. I do not think there is any need for restrain for dealing with Fascists, whether it is for interrogation purposes or simply to set an example.

[DisIllusion]

You said yourself that this could be used as a tactic to use people as an example. Now I hate Fascists as much as any comrade around here, if not more, but killing them or torturing them may give them a sort of motley appeal as a rebellious group. They could reach out to young, easily-influenced kids and draw them in to this "rebellion".

I use the example of the French resistance during World War II. The Nazi's were known for killing or torturing any resistance fighters that were caught, but they were regarded as martyrs among the resistance. The Nazi's even resorted to killing off entire villages and towns just because they were suspected of helping French resistance fighters and this just gave the French resistance more volunteers and greater sympathy.

What i'm saying is, if you kill or torture any fascists, they could use that as a tool in their propaganda to portray us as evil.

[Xvall]

There is a difference though; the french are a large population, the fascists are not. If I murder an innocent frenchman, of course all of the people in france are goung to be outraged and the man's group or organization will gain appeal - but this is not the case with fascists. If I kill a fascist, the only people who will be bothered by it are other fascists. Everyday citizens who hear that some skinhead got shot to death are probably not going to take up arms and fight alongside them. The only people who will be outraged are his other fascists associates, who will also hopefully be killed in due time.

I wouldn't put it past them to use it as a propoganda, but I doubt they would attract much of an audience unless these people already have inclinations towards fascism, in which case perhaps their deaths are in order as well.

It also depend on the type of torture used. You can't simply let people know they've been tortured. You have to go the whole way. You have to torture the person to the point where you can sit him in front of a video camera, record and broadcast him stating that he has reprented for all his ways, and then get him to kill himself with a dull pencil in the name of our cause.

[Tommy-K]

I disagree entirely with the death penalty. No matter what somebody has done, I don't believe death is a suitable punishment. The end doesn't justify the means. Lifelong imprisonment for crimes such as rape and murder is accpetable. Lifelong imprisonment under a strict regime, things such as, meals are at a certain time with pretty limited choice limited TV watching, lightsout at a certain time, etc. etc. pretty much how most prison systems operate today (or should do anyway). I mean, locking someone up isn't a punishment if they are allowed to live a carefree and easy life, obviously they have to be punished in some way. But two wrongs don't make a right so death or torture or anything of that nature is entirely unacceptable. The only time death is acceptable is in a socialist revolution! Torture is NEVER accpetable, it's sick.

[Xvall]

Torture is NEVER accpetable, it's sick.

Again, you people are prone to making this claim spontaneously without any justification for it. Why is it sick?

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:17 AM

Torture is NEVER accpetable, it's sick.

Again, you people are prone to making this claim spontaneously without any justification for it. Why is it sick?
Because everyone has certain inalienable rights no matter what they have done in the past, or why they are presently. And the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment like torture is one of them.

Like Malcolm X sais, Human rights are things you are born with that can never be taken anyway by anyone, no matter what.

[DisIllusion]

Agreed comrade LeftistMarleyist, but i'm still not sure where comrade Xvall draws the line on "torture".

[Xvall]

Because everyone has certain inalienable rights no matter what they have done in the past, or why they are presently.

Again, a useless platitude. Says who? Who made up this rule? You? God?


And the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment like torture is one of them.

So then shouldn't we refrain from ever killing anyone either? Torching a person to death with a flamethrower is pretty cruel and un-fucking-usual, but I imagine that for whatever reason you and the other people who so vehemently denounce torture wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

These are fascists. They are not people; they are violent entities that need to be systematically eliminated and wrought with fear.

[Xvall]

Like Malcolm X sais, Human rights are things you are born with that can never be taken anyway by anyone, no matter what.

True, but isn't the right to "life" part of our human rights? Malcolm didn't seem to have a problem taking that away, under the right circumstances, nor did a large number of famous revolutionaries.

[violencia.Proletariat]

death penalty by the state should be opposed for obvious reasons. how ever the "death penalty" in communism shouldnt be call that. its not a "penalty" for what you did. its not "punishment" its to stop you from doing what you did again. therfore it should be called a violent attack(death, rape, etc) prevention system. while it isnt "preventing" all violent attacks, its stopping an individual who has done it in the past from doing it again.

in regards to torture, i find it unecessary. as xvall i hate fascists but i wouldnt waste my time tortureing them. it will never bring back the people they killed or give back the freedom they took by opressing people. executing them will stop them from doing it again, and it saves time. torture as a use for interrogation is useless as its not reliable because people will admit to anything if they cant handle the pain.

[Hampton]

It does, in the short term deter, but in the long run... your creating a criminal mindset and a mentality of vengeance, not punishment of rehabilitation.

Prison as it stands now does the same thing that you say the death penalty does and it si not a deterrent in the long or short term.


Like Malcolm X sais, Human rights are things you are born with that can never be taken anyway by anyone, no matter what.

Taken in context of that speech(Ballot of the Bullet) it has nothing to do with this argument. He was reffering to getting rights that were denied to them, civil as well as human rights. Fascists, unfortunately, already have these rights. I'm sure Malcolm would not have had a problem doing away with people, who in all likelihood, would have wanted him dead.

[ComTom]

I think its obvious that giving someone the death penalty doesn't amount to anything. Its been preached by moralists ever since the beginning of time, one wrong does not make a right. If we killed a serial killer, would it bring back the people he killed or honor them in any way? No, its state murder in my opinion. The only people who should receive the death penalty are people who kill or oppress masses and are well aware of what they were doing.

[Trissy]

I am against the death penalty for many reasons. Firstly I'll address the issues people raise for the death penalty.

The question of whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to me seems a non-starter. Leaving aside the squables over what the statistics show (because to be fair the pro's and the anti's will always find the statistics that back themselves up) it just doesn't seem to be a reasonable point. If I'm going to commit a crime then I do so thinking that I will get away with it. If I plan it then I plan to avoid being caught surely? I certainly don't plan to get caught that's for sure and so I won't be too bothered about the punishment I'll face whether it be life in jail or death. I don't see how a murder or rapist is going to be put off by the death penalty but not a life sentance! This argument also seems to ignore the amount of murders that occur in the heat of the moment...in a state of anger and/or drunkeness then a don't feel a person is going to be able to take a step back from the situation, think calmly and sensibly about it and then stop. They'd just do it! Then there is the mentally ill who'll very likely never be prevented by any deterrent. Are we going to execute them as an example to others? Hmm...well it's never stopped Texas I suppose.

The other main argument is the argument of 'an eye for an eye'. But as the famous responce goes, that'd leave us all blind. Executing a murder or a rapist cannot bring back a loved one or remove the harm that has been caused. Of course some victims will want revenge but that is not the aim of a judicial system which is justice. From a utilitarian standpoint it seems to me that the most beneficial form of justice would be to give these criminal life sentances and attempt to rehabilitate them. If rehabilitation proves impossible then just give them life sentances. I see no reason to kill these criminals because the only people to suffer from this in the long term are the criminals friends and family (unless you happen to be a bitter and cruel theist who thrives on the idea of eternal suffering and damnation dispatched from a loving God).

In terms of the arguments against it then it seems that these are equally persuasive. Firstly, the death penalty is at the present time of writing an irrevocable process which means we can't exactly compensate the accused if they later turn out to be innocent. All judicial systems are fallible and so we often get mistrials...how can we dispatch the ultimate punishment if we have no way of knowing for certain whether it is a fair sentance to a guilty man? The history of justice is very liberally littered with cases of innocent people being executed and I can think of very few worse experiences then going to the gallows/chair/gas chamber, etc knowing that I am innocent. At least if someone was falsely imprisoned for a long time then you can offer them some sort of appology, financial compensation and counsiling as an attempt to right the wrong somewhat. None of those are of much comfort to a corpse or the people facing a trial.

Secondly I cannot see where the state gets its right to kill from. We're told that killing people is wrong by a State that is about to execute someone. Am I the only one who sees that as troubling and hypocritical? As someone who is an atheist (or at an extreme push an agnostic) I think that in order for the State to rule that certain actions are illegal then they must not only take a moral highground and lead by example, they must also be capable of arguing where their authority comes from. It seems to come from the people and if the people have no right to execute people then how does the State acquire such a right? The notion of international justice I admit is a joke but if it weren't then it would seem fair that a State is required to argue that the actions it carries out aren't contrary to those of international law. I certainly don't see the UN marching into tyranical sovereign countries and executing those who are either above the law or who have managed to evade it.


I support the death penalty for rapists and murderers. I would not want to spend money keeping these scumbags alive in some resort when the money could be spent much better somwhere else.
In fact what with all the extra evidence that has to be gathered and the appeals that have to gone through it actually costs first world countries more to execute a person then to imprison them for life. For America the statistics are pretty damning on this one.

In prediction of a possible responce that all we'd have to do to change that situation is to remove all the appeals courts and costly actions then you still run into problems because if you just take someone out back and blow a hole in their head with a shotgun then you're more likely to have more mistrails and then you're likely to have to pay out a hefty wad of cash to the family of the guy you've just mistakenly slaughtered. Well just don't pay them I hear you say...er...well now you'd be left with a judicial system that was on par with some of the worst authoritarian regimes in history. If all we want to do is kill people who are "probably guilty" then heck why not go the whole hog and model our idea of justice on that of the Nazis, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Jong-il and a host of others.


While I do not have an opinion per-say on what should constitute you to have to use the death penalty on a person, I do believe that if it has to be used then it should only be used when a person is without a doubt guilty.
A fair point but unfortunately all judicial systems will be fallible because they are based on the actions of humans who are fallible. The infallibility needed to make sure we always only ever executed the guilty would require us to be God-like.


I would much prefer forced labor, just because it's more productive and avoids those cases of accidentally murdering an innocent person. I think fascists, nazis, racists, and the like need to be outright shot, though - possibly even tortured.
But if we force people to work then doesn't that reduce us to borrowing the ideals of economic system that came BEFORE capitalism? We'd be moving backwards surely? It's been a long time since blatant serfdom and slavery were rife in societies that prided themselves on their humanitarian spirit.

As for torture then I must say I don't know how to respond. Of what f***ing benefit would that possibly serve? Apart from perhaps satisfying the sadistic urges of a few people who like to be in a position of power how does that help humanity? If someone has enough faith in their cause to mean that they're prepared to exterminate a whole race of people or to blow themselves up in order to cause maximum loss of life then they're not likely to recant their views because you reduce yourself to their level and ideology by putting them through hideous amounts of pain. To toture someone because simply because you can degrades yourself and the whole reason for wanting to remove as much suffering from the world as is possible.


If prison and forced labour and execution are out of the question, what the fuck do you think should be done?

They didn't oppose the idea of sending someone to prison though. They simply said torture was wrong. Nobody here has objected to prison, they've merely suggested that if someone can be rehabilitated successfully then perhaps they can be released oneday. If someone opposes rehabiliatiion then why do we let thieves, fraudsters, perjurers, drug dealers and the such like out of jail? Perhaps we should chop off a hand, or their tongue or a testicle or something? Brutality does not reduce crime...it does not deter crime if someone is mentally ill, or if their situation is desperate (like extremely poverty), or if their greed and vanity are strong enough. If we're prepared to allow torture then how low will we stoop? Societies exist for the benefit of the community...if we start to brutalise one another then we may as well just fall into a state of nature and war of all against all.

The big question is how are we to deal with the circumstances that lead people to a life of crime...


You do realise that if rapists and murderers are allowed to run free, people (women especially) will carry guns and other weapons regardless of the law concerning them.

Are you sure you want a world where every individual makes their own laws?

Nobody has said that we must allow them to run free though. It's a question of whether we believe that people are free and can be helped.

If you support torture and execution then it can equally be argued that your option leads to a world were we all act according to our own law (see above).


How else do you expect to minimilize inequality?
If I truly wanted to minimise equally to the maximum extent then I'd just execute everyone. If thereis only one human then there is the only certain equal race you can have. I'm sure that nobody truly wants that.

Rather equality must be sought as much as it can be through peaceful methods in a pre-revolutionary society. Why do we need to act violently? It is superfluous and to me masks a darker desire within those who espouse it. The natural responce to what I've said seems to be 'What...do you want someone close to you to get raped or murdered?' Of course I don't but I don't think that justifies me electrocuting someone or cutting off their genitals or ripping out their heart and burning it. Violence is a last resort for me...immediate self-defence or practical necessity (like stealing to feed your starving children) seem to be the only arguments for it. It stikes me as satisfying neither of these.


why give them the freedom of speech to spread hatred?

INFACT Magraheed, the right wingers allow Neo-Nazi and BNP type movements to happen and the left is doing the opposite.
Because that is what seperates us from them perhaps? Here in the UK we have laws allowing freedom of speech but it is a criminal offence to incite racial or religious hatred. Everybody is free to say that they don't like or agree with people of a certain race, religion or sexuality but when you whip up a mob or inspire people to violence it is a crime. There is a thin line that must be walked if we are to keep fascists at bay...we must all live under the sword of Damocles as such...we must all keep our eyes out and try to respond to the worries and needs of society...you cannot deter people from fascism though violence. You make martyrs of them if you do.


alot Neo-nazis and racists, will pass on their ideology to their children and so on.

Just like my dad educated me about communism because of his beliefs from the past.

So to eradicate the problem, nazis/racists who spread their propaganda should be locked away, do we really want to take the rist of rehabilitating someone and then trusting them to totally forget about the past.

But that is a problem of education. Unless we make education thorough and as free of bias as is humanly possible then of course we will find bigots with bigoted children, christians with christian children and so on. The ideal is to present children with all the arguments that we can...both for and against ideas...and then try to highlight the stupidity of prejudice and superstition.

Also you cannot kill ideas by killing those who harbour them. You cannot see into the minds of a popualtion and weedle out those who harbour prejudiced and bigoted views. Sure you can lock up and kill the active members but that won't stop the next generation popping up unless you deal with the issues that lead these people to hold these views. As people with free minds that reason in many different way we are all potential fascists and this won't be removed by simply locking up the fascists of 2005. Dead idealogies have a habit of popping up when the circumstances that are to their benefit arise. Authoritarian gouvernments arise when they have the breeding ground for their views...not before and not after.


Surely grouping Neo Nazis togeather wouldn't work out well. A culture would develop between them and they would try and escape/kill/form there own state possibly if they hed enough support
If prisons are correctly run then it is highly unlikely that enough would manage to escape and threaten the established society outside. If you don't believe me then try getting together the biggest group of friends you can find, arming yourself to the teeth and then either break into prison or bring down the gouvernment. I assure you that both will be nigh on impossible. Nazis in jail are like rapists and murders in jail...I sincerely doubt they are organised, united and free enough to communicate to one another and plan a revolution.


If we were to take this literally, the death penalty only hurts the murderer, raping the child of a pedophile would hurt the child.
This is a far too simple view of the matter. Criminals can have family and friends too (although not always). Also as I have pointed out in my arguments above the criminal suffers for a set amount of time and then they're dead...how does that bring back a loved one? It just multiplies the suffering of the original crime. A corpse does not care here or their after the execution but I struggle to see how the family of the murdered can value the basic desire for revenge over the suffering of the criminal's family. It may be harder to see a criminal in jail but I'd prefer to see that then have to know that another family was going through the same kind of suffering over a loss that I had been through.


There is a difference though; the french are a large population, the fascists are not. If I murder an innocent frenchman, of course all of the people in france are goung to be outraged and the man's group or organization will gain appeal - but this is not the case with fascists. If I kill a fascist, the only people who will be bothered by it are other fascists. Everyday citizens who hear that some skinhead got shot to death are probably not going to take up arms and fight alongside them. The only people who will be outraged are his other fascists associates, who will also hopefully be killed in due time.

But you cannot always say that would-be tyrants will be in the extreme minority and be small enough to be dealt with. The supporters of Saddam Hussein and other terrorist groups in Iraq have proved that they are far more resiliant then we in the West gave them credit for and they also seem to be either greater in number or better organised then we credit them for too. People may not take up arms for a dead skinhead but we shouldn't stereotype here. A dead fascist may not seem very Fascist like...they may appear no different to the average person in the street and that is where the problem lies. People may not believe that this person was as bad as you say and may in fact see you as a greater threat/enemy. In that case they will be more prepared to stop you then they would the person you executed.




Torture is NEVER accpetable, it's sick.

Again, you people are prone to making this claim spontaneously without any justification for it. Why is it sick?
I believe I've attempted to go beyond a gut reaction to the idea and show that your idea of torture can have no stablilising effect on society, in fact quite the opposite. Torture is the tool of authoritarianism and no authoritarian society lasts forever. Just check in the history books if you don't believe me. What we should seek is peace that is stable and agreeable to the vast majority of reasonable people.


These are fascists. They are not people; they are violent entities that need to be systematically eliminated and wrought with fear.
As an existentialist I could not disagree with you more. You are in bad faith if you believe that when we strip things back to the basics you are any different to them. People are free and as such they freely choose fascism, you freely do not. To portray them as monsters is to perform a feat of self-deception. You are not a fascist is not the same as chair not being a table. We are not objects but rather beings torn between what we have chosen to be and what we are free to chose to aim for. You strike me as falling into the same category as the soldier who would reply 'I was only following orders' when asked why they carried out an attrocity as if it justified that act. They are not just a monster and you are not just an executioner...both roles are chosen...you cannot avoid responsiblity for the act of execution.

_-_-_-_-_-

Some interesting web sites

Death penalty info (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)
More on the possible economics (http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html)
Pro-death penalty (Boo!) :) (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/)

[Xvall]

as xvall i hate fascists but i wouldnt waste my time tortureing them. it will never bring back the people they killed or give back the freedom they took by opressing people.

No, it wouldn't; but it would feel very good and send a message to the fascists.


A dead fascist may not seem very Fascist like...they may appear no different to the average person in the street and that is where the problem lies. People may not believe that this person was as bad as you say and may in fact see you as a greater threat/enemy. In that case they will be more prepared to stop you then they would the person you executed

Under the circumstances I mentioned, we would make it very clear that the person is a fascists. We wouldn't make them look innocent during the torture footage. If they're prepared to stop us for doing away with fascists then they need to be done away with as well.


Torture in the tool of authoritarianism and no authoritarian society lasts forever.

Torture isn't necessarily authoritarian. It can be done by anyone; I could be a primitivist with no alligiances to any legislative body or government and still do it.


Just check in the history books if you don't believe me.

Yeah; killing people is also historically used by authoritarian governments. I suppose you are against that in all it's forms as well?


What we should seek is peace that is stable and agreeable to the vast majority of reasonable people.

Fascists are not part of this "peace"; and to get this "peace" you speak of will probably require a long campaign of violent upheaval - there will be numerous deaths.


As an existentialist I could not disagree with you more. You are in bad faith if you believe that when we strip things back to the basics you are any different to them.

This was never about being any "different" than them. I don't care what people think of me. This is about systematically eliminating all fascists and spreading the message to everyone else that those who follow in their footsteps will be brutally slaughtered.


To portray them as monsters is to perform a feat of self-deception.

I'm not trying to "portary" anyone as anything. I don't give a shit about morals. Fascists pose a significant threat to me and everything I believe in and as such I want them done away with in the harshest manner possible.


You are not a fascist in the way that a chair is not a table. We are not objects but rather beings torn between what we have chosen to be and what we are free to chose to aim for.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.


You strike me as falling into the same category as the soldier who would reply 'I was only following orders' when asked why they carried out an attrocity as if it justified that act.

No, I'm not. This isn't even about anyone else's views. Maybe if my main statement was "we should torture fascists because (person) said we should", this argument would be valid - but it is not. I'm not the type of person who would do that. I'm the type of person who would carry out the alleged "atrocity" even if my commanding officer told me otherwise, because I hate fascists and want them done away with in the most brutal manner possible.


They are not just a monster and you are not just an executioner...both roles are chosen...you cannot avoid responsiblity for the act of execution.

Never said I would avoid responsibility. I'm outright promoting it - I'm not trying to "disguise" it under anything else. They may not be monsters but they are threats and for that I want them all dead, or worse.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:08 PM

as xvall i hate fascists but i wouldnt waste my time tortureing them. it will never bring back the people they killed or give back the freedom they took by opressing people.

No, it wouldn't; but it would feel very good and send a message to the fascists.


i agree but i think putting a bullet in their head would do the same thing. you see they wouldnt think "maybe they will just torture me and then let me go". its more like, "fuck they are gonna come here and shoot me and theres no if and or but's about it". i can get pleasure out of other things and make better use of my time than tortureing fascists. so id rather use one bullet and take them out, and spend the rest of my productive non-work time making luxuries instead of torturing them.

[Xvall]

Most people would probably prefer a bullet to the head than torture. If they think we might let them go, it make milling them after torture all the more horrifying. Maybe torture isn't a luxury for you, but it might be for me.

[Trissy]

Under the circumstances I mentioned, we would make it very clear that the person is a fascists. We wouldn't make them look innocent during the torture footage.
When do citizens completely believe that they are told by their leaders? I do not believe everything that Tony Blair or George Bush say and I'm confident that only a limited percentage of a very brain-washed society would believe everything that their leaders tell them. When people present all the evidence for a proposition and none of the evidence against it then their audience become somewhat suspicious of their intentions. You may not deliberately make them look innocent but that is far from saying that you've persuaded your whole audience that they are guilty. The audience will ultimately make up their own mind and you can only have a limited amount of influence.


If they're prepared to stop us for doing away with fascists then they need to be done away with as well.

This sounds very much like the kind of arguments that could be put forward by those who were behind the crushing of the Tiananmen Square protests and the Hungarian uprising in 1956.


Torture isn't necessarily authoritarian. It can be done by anyone; I could be a primitivist with no alligiances to any legislative body or government and still do it.

Oh I don't deny that it can be used be people who aren't agents of an authoritarian gouvernment. I freely admit that I can torture any person or animal that I can subdue for my own sadistic pleasure. I just cannot see that stability that could arise from such actions. What I'm arguing is that the torture that you are advocating is indistinguishable from that employed by any authoritarian form of government, even if it is performed in a Communist society, and hence it should be avoided.


Yeah; killing people is also historically used by authoritarian governments. I suppose you are against that in all it's forms as well?
I'm against killing people or in fact most actions if it is superfluous and serves no or little reasonable purpose for humanity as a whole. I could burn down every forest, destroy every computer, TV, DVD, VHS player, telephone, and deafen and blind the whole of the human race if I wanted to prevent the spread of fascism but that does not entail that it would be reasonable to do so. I cannot say that I would rule out killing, what I can say is that I can reason against killing in the manner that you describe. I see no reason for it to be carried out in that manner.


Fascists are not part of this "peace"; and to get this "peace" you speak of will probably require a long campaign of violent upheaval - there will be numerous deaths.

I never once said I would try to establish a peaceful society in the manner of a utopian pacifist. All I said was that I would seek to do so with the least amount of bloodshed and death. Is that a crime? I see what I described as being more peaceful then yours even if it is not entirely peaceful. It is said of the Romans that they made a desert and called it peace. That is what I seek to avoid. A relatively successful peace can be established without lots of bloodshed in my humble view.


This was never about being any "different" than them. I don't care what people think of me. This is about systematically eliminating all fascists and spreading the message to everyone else that those who follow in their footsteps will be brutally slaughtered.

You're system will only work if either a fascist is different to a non-fascist in the same way as a table is different to a desk or you are omnipotent. If we are all free to either be or become fascists (as the case seems) then it appears that you are in little position to stop fascism through slaughter ultimately. Unless you can read peoples' minds and monitor their conversations then it seems that even though they may tell you they are not fascists, they could easily be so and just waiting for the right time to strike. Perhaps we could read peoples' minds? Perhaps we could monitor them 24/7? Perhaps we could discover a Fascist gene and eradicate it? If any of these were carried out then who would be authoritarian now? Why stop here...why not get rid of blacks, and Muslims and queers, etc, etc.


I'm not trying to "portary" anyone as anything. I don't give a shit about morals. Fascists pose a significant threat to me and everything I believe in and as such I want them done away with in the harshest manner possible.
At this moment in time I doubt that Fascists pose any real threat to any major first world governent. They neither have the popular support to win an election or to overthrow a democratically elected government through a revolution. As long as people carefully monitor such situations, try to eradicate the social conditions that give rise to Fascist support and educate the young as to potetential terrors of Fascism why do we need to go further? Your arguments sound like those given by people who supported McCarthyism in the US. Paranoia gets us nowhere.


I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I would advise you look into Sartre but I doubt that'd help so I'll express it as simpley as I can. You and I do not have determining natures but rather only natures that only influence our actions. As a human I may have a nature that means I am influenced to want to breed and carry on the species but I can chose not to for whatever reason. This is not the same as a single cell or an animal. This is aslo not the same as everyday objects which are what they are. A table is always a table, it cannot become a chair or a footballer or a Sun. As a human who is free however I can be a waiter or a revolutionary or a coward or a fascist, etc, etc. The future is always open to me to become something new through my choices. By saying a fascist is not a person you denied that a fascist had both a facticity and an ability to transcend that facticity which is bad faith. A fascist is as free to make something else of themselves as you and I are. It is simply a matter of choice and influences. I could try to break this down further but I'd need a lot of time and it genereally produces nausea as a gut reaction in many out and out Marxists.


No, I'm not. This isn't even about anyone else's views. Maybe if my main statement was "we should torture fascists because (person) said we should", this argument would be valid - but it is not. I'm not the type of person who would do that. I'm the type of person who would carry out the alleged "atrocity" even if my commanding officer told me otherwise, because I hate fascists and want them done away with in the most brutal manner possible.
Yes but you're argument that fascists are not people falls into the category of bad faith as described above unless you can prove that all fascists are mentally ill. The fact that most of Germany was fascist during WWII seems to go against that hypothesis unless they were all suffering temporary mass insanity (which seems rather hopeful).


Never said I would avoid responsibility. I'm outright promoting it - I'm not trying to "disguise" it under anything else. They may not be monsters but they are threats and for that I want them all dead, or worse.
Which is very worrying. 'He who fights monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monter'...

[DisIllusion]

Well said comrade Trissy. I think that torture is more than a little sadistical, and whenever you can find pleasure or justification in somebody else's pain, it's not exactly the best place you can be.

[coda]

ha! I've a sadistic streak, too, much like Xvalls, but against baby killers, those utterly defenseless who don't have a fighting chance. I won't even mention the thoughts of torture I can dream up for them.

Good links, Trissy.

hey people, don't forget to look at the execution databank on the pro-death penality website, specifically the murderous account of the 18 DAY old baby who was shot in the stomach 12 times after the sympathetic murderer shot and paralyzed the mother and made her watch before finishing her off too. Nice, people in the world, eh? We should generously extend to that type all the services that are required.

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm how come every1 is against the death penalty but some r fine to like Stalin, mao,che guevara etc where the death penalty where used alot?

[DisIllusion]

hmm how come every1 is against the death penalty but some r fine to like Stalin, mao,che guevara etc where the death penalty where used alot?

Nobody said they supported Stalin, or Mao's use of systematic killing. As for Che, the killing of the remaining members of the Batista regime wasn't really his choice, it was more up to Fidel Castro. And you can't really say anything about the death penalty about Che, after all, the C.I.A executed him without a fair trial or any trial at all to be exact.

So much for the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

[redstar2000]

The question of capital punishment in a communist society is being discussed in these two threads...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43222

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43440

It seems to be a question that arouses very passionate feelings...so be prepared. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Xvall]

When do citizens completely believe that they are told by their leaders? I do not believe everything that Tony Blair or George Bush say and I'm confident that only a limited percentage of a very brain-washed society would believe everything that their leaders tell them. When people present all the evidence for a proposition and none of the evidence against it then their audience become somewhat suspicious of their intentions. You may not deliberately make them look innocent but that is far from saying that you've persuaded your whole audience that they are guilty. The audience will ultimately make up their own mind and you can only have a limited amount of influence.


Entirely true, but my main purpose wouldn't be to convince an "audience" of anything. It would be to torture fascists and let other fascists now that if caught, they might suffer the same fate. I could care less if the public disagrees with the methods.


This sounds very much like the kind of arguments that could be put forward by those who were behind the crushing of the Tiananmen Square protests and the Hungarian uprising in 1956.

Call it what you will. If someone gets in the way of hunting down a fascists, they need to die.


What I'm arguing is that the torture that you are advocating is indistinguishable from that employed by any authoritarian form of government, even if it is performed in a Communist society, and hence it should be avoided.

Entirely true. People would probably think I was a horrible, cruel, evil person if I did something like that. Keep in mind that this isn't something that would be feasably possible to enact as a standard protocol - I'm just saying that I would do it.


I see no reason for it to be carried out in that manner.

Understood. See above.


I never once said I would try to establish a peaceful society in the manner of a utopian pacifist. All I said was that I would seek to do so with the least amount of bloodshed and death. Is that a crime?

Know, we just have different perceptions of what is an acceptable or "productive" method of dealing with the problem.


I see what I described as being more peaceful then yours even if it is not entirely peaceful.

It certainly is more peaceful than my methods, yes.


You're system will only work if either a fascist is different to a non-fascist in the same way as a table is different to a desk or you are omnipotent. If we are all free to either be or become fascists (as the case seems) then it appears that you are in little position to stop fascism through slaughter ultimately.

You are absolutely right. Fascism can always exist. Even if I managed to somehow kill every fascist on the planet, more would probably come along. My hope is that by treating them horrificly these types of people would stray away from fascism, or at the very least keep their views on the matter completely private.


Perhaps we could read peoples' minds? Perhaps we could monitor them 24/7? Perhaps we could discover a Fascist gene and eradicate it? If any of these were carried out then who would be authoritarian now? Why stop here...why not get rid of blacks, and Muslims and queers, etc, etc.

Not my intention, as if a person is a fascist privately it is of no threat to anyone and of no concern. The target I am speaking of are fascists who publicly express their aims.


At this moment in time I doubt that Fascists pose any real threat to any major first world governent.

Of course not, but they do to the citizens, and I don’t see how we would suffer from their eradication.


They neither have the popular support to win an election or to overthrow a democratically elected government through a revolution.

And if they’re dead, they never will.


By saying a fascist is not a person you denied that a fascist had both a facticity and an ability to transcend that facticity which is bad faith. A fascist is as free to make something else of themselves as you and I are.

I don’t believe in “free will”. If a fascist can change, then well, I hope they do it before any proposal like mine is ever implemented.


Yes but you're argument that fascists are not people falls into the category of bad faith as described above unless you can prove that all fascists are mentally ill.

If fascists were mentally ill, then I wouldn’t want them dead, as their beliefs would be beyond their control – however, fascists, as far as I can tell, are just mounds of flesh like everyone else, and vindictive and threatening ones at that, and as such I want them all gone and I want everyone to know that if they become one, they're going to be gone too.

[coda]

Here ya go, Xvall. From Woody Guthrie --Last verse, "So, Long It's been good to know you"


So it won't be long till the fascists are gone
And all of their likes are finished and done
We'll throw the clods of dirt in their face
And walk away from that lonesome place

[Xvall]

Thanks. I'm afraid I haven't heard the song, though.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:41 AM

hmm how come every1 is against the death penalty but some r fine to like Stalin, mao,che guevara etc where the death penalty where used alot?

Nobody said they supported Stalin, or Mao's use of systematic killing. As for Che, the killing of the remaining members of the Batista regime wasn't really his choice, it was more up to Fidel Castro. And you can't really say anything about the death penalty about Che, after all, the C.I.A executed him without a fair trial or any trial at all to be exact.

So much for the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Very well put, it wasn't Che who has the ability to authorize the death penalty, as he was minister of labor and a foreign diplomat for most of his time in the regime.

[Trissy]

Sorry for not replying to this quickly but I had to write a thrilling essay on the American father of Pragmatism Charles S.Peirce. This is probably the only chance I'll get to reply before I need to rush out my last essay of the year on Herr Wittgenstein...


Entirely true, but my main purpose wouldn't be to convince an "audience" of anything. It would be to torture fascists and let other fascists now that if caught, they might suffer the same fate. I could care less if the public disagrees with the methods.

Well that's fine but assuming that this action is being carried out under some vaguely humanitarian desire to make society and life better for the human race in general I can't see how it would achieve it's desired goal. Even if you "make it very clear that the person is a fascist" and you "wouldn't make them look innocent during the torture footage" the problem arises because not least of all your" main purpose wouldn't be to convince an "audience" of anything". If you run a society and just torture someone you say is a fascist on TV then while fascists will be force underground there is a proportion of people who find torture abhorrent will see you as a sadistic despot, others will fear your group and begin to loathe you, and people who have mildly sympathy for the cause of fascism will be pushed further towards supporting them. The longer this goes on the less stable your rule would become and the more volatile society would become. Any spark could set things off and lead to finding yourself meeting the same end as Mussolini or Ceausescu. I'd hate to sound like I'm viewing this issue purely from a Machiavellian standpoint but if you want a stable society then you either need to appease the desires of that society somewhat or you need to have a powerful, ruthless and brutal regime that is extremely skilled with propoganda and brainwashing. The development of history means that we live in an age where clear torture produces negative responses in many people and it'd take a hell of a lot of work to reverse this and start a different trend. Even if that were possible it's not clear that this would also produce a peaceful and happy populace.


If someone gets in the way of hunting down a fascists, they need to die.
Yes but this is misleading because of the way the word 'need' has two vastly different functions in the English language. Problems arise because we often willfully interchange the two. One implies necessity for example fire needs the presence of oxygen. This isn't the case because society has lived with fascists in various forms. The other use is a lot weaker and roughly means want or requirement. 'I need ice-cream/sex/a fag,etc.' It doesn't seem a requirement for a communist society to torture fascists on television because there are many other means open that are less violent. This just leaves the 'desire' to kill fascists. If that's what you want then fine...it's not my position but I'm highly unlikely to change your views. But saying they need to die gives the false impression they HAVE to die in the same way that a cause has to precede its effect. It's not anything like a causal or logical necessity, it's a desire to kill plain and simple.


You are absolutely right. Fascism can always exist. Even if I managed to somehow kill every fascist on the planet, more would probably come along. My hope is that by treating them horrificly these types of people would stray away from fascism, or at the very least keep their views on the matter completely private.
Yes but this just can't work forever it just encourages short-term brutality. The history books are full of such brutality and it hasn't put a stop or limited anything in the long run. Catholics burnt and tortured horrifically heretics, homosexuals, jew and muslims, the Nazis did a similar thing to jews, homosexuals, communists and even now we have States doing god knows what to people they find undesirable. Have any of these groups been permanently kept at a low number? Even if they go underground and decrease in number somewhat they will survive in some form and probably increase in number sooner or later. All you can do is monitor the circumstances that they thrive in and try to minimise them peacefully and through reason. Being brutal just degrades oneself no matter what excuses we tell ourselves in order to sleep at night. Only people entrenched in an fixed ideology can do that. Hell if a ruthless far right Catholic theocracy suddenly arose in the UK would I stop holding left-wing views, being an atheist or gay? No...heck I might keep my mouth shut for a while but unless people can permanently change the rationale of a society then you'll never get things permanently 'under control'. There is no overwhelming reason not to be gay, catholic, jewish, fascist, communist and so alas we'll always see an equalibrium of things we like and dislike.


Not my intention, as if a person is a fascist privately it is of no threat to anyone and of no concern. The target I am speaking of are fascists who publicly express their aims.
Yes but following on from what I said above this just cannot be done. The internet is a prime example of how underground groups can utilise modern technology to communicate and spread any message they have to the outside world. Some people I agree are happy to live their lives in private but there will always be some who wish to have and achieve more. History is packed full of struggles over this and I see no way of stopping the changing of the tides in this respect.


I don’t see how we would suffer from their eradication
We have both agreed it would never ever amount to total eradication. I acknowledge that the feeling of guilt is the impression of social conscience in our minds which can be a hinderence but I also recognise that it plays a role in social evolution. If you believe that torture and execution is benificial then fine...I just believe that they are potentially dangerous ideas...we don't usually see them in our social lives for a reason...if we want to accept them then it's hard to see where such a road would end. Society to me seems about striking a benificial equalibrium between extremes. Torture and execution strike me as being opposite to the extreme utopian views held by hippies.


And if they’re dead, they never will.
If religious people are dead then they can't. If violent criminals are they can't. If non-violent criminals are they can't. If liberals are they can't. If gays are they can't. The list can go on and on. Death is permanent, we get that. The more important question is where do you draw the line and for what reasons?


fascists, as far as I can tell, are just mounds of flesh like everyone else, and vindictive and threatening ones at that, and as such I want them all gone and I want everyone to know that if they become one, they're going to be gone too.
...and the whole thread of my argument has been that threats and brutality achieve very little. You're responding to fascist threats with anti-fascists threats...where exactly is the great difference here? If there are humans still alive in a thousand years time then I believe they're still be stupid and flawed enough to be facing the exact same problems that we face now. Maybe I am niave but I think violence should be the last possible resort. Very few violent people live long lives of complete comfort. If we're fairly 'rational' (whatever that means) and prepare for all very likely and moderately likely possibilities then maybe we'll live a little longer and more comfortabley then our forefathers at best.


So it won't be long till the fascists are gone
And all of their likes are finished and done
We'll throw the clods of dirt in their face
And walk away from that lonesome place
Replace the word 'fascist' with whatever group you like based on ethnicity, politics, age, sexuality, religion, health, etc. What you can guarentee is that it won't be the last you'll see of 'their kind' unless you happen to be one of the last 5 or so humans alive. Fear begets hatred and hatred begets fear. As both fear and hatred beget violence then it's hard to see an entirely violent or peaceful way out.

[Doshka]

Ok sorry but this is insane. Xvall, am I to understand that you do not view torture as sick at all, and that death to you is an understandable consequence to any you happen to disagree with? Because if that is true, than you are sinking down to the level of these fascists, and you are playing a dangerous game. Who draws the line? When does torture become alright to implement and when is it illegal? And who decides? The people in power right now? your mom? maybe jesus? The tools you use will be turned against you and your people when systems change. Are you willing to be tortured? I doubt it.

By making these retarded claims you are justifying torture houses like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and others. Not justifying it in terms of who it attacks, but by questioning the legality or morality of torture you are supporting the methods they use. What about innocent prisoners? What about when you're mistaken? If you do not believe that we are all born with some degree of freedom and some irrevocable rights attached to our identity as humans than you are going to need to tell us who decides. Who decides who is less human than who, and who deserves torture and who does not. And on what basis? This whole argument is insane. It should not be discussed. Especially not by people claiming to be a part of movements for the liberation of the people. what will you liberate them for Xvall? You will be taking them to a reality that is just as bad as what we have now.

In short, you sound like the type of person that would join Moa's child soldiers, the ones that gave their parents in, or Stalin's supporter. May I point out that neither country has remained communist, or, arguably, ever was. We should not be striving to create a police state governed by terror and fear, such as the one you are suggesting. A country for the people should be loved by the people. What are you thinking? You sound exactly like Hitler, and his "sub-human" terminology. Your hate for fascists is making you one.

[Xvall]

Ok sorry but this is insane. Xvall, am I to understand that you do not view torture as sick at all, and that death to you is an understandable consequence to any you happen to disagree with?

No. This applies to anyone who poses a clear and dangerous threat to me and what I stand for, such as militant fascists. This doesn't just apply to anyone whom I disagree with.


Who draws the line?

There are no lines.


When does torture become alright to implement and when is it illegal? And who decides?

It doesn't matter if it's acceptable or not. People will do what they want. One imagines that if someone had the means of torturing a person, there wouldn't be much that you could do to stop them. It's like killing. I generally don't approve of killing or like it - the world would be a much better place if people didn't kill. But it doesn't matter if we all agree that killing is good, or that killing is bad, because people will do it anyways - as long as the rest of the world doesn't seem to refrain from doing it - I see no reason to refrain myself.


Are you willing to be tortured? I doubt it.

No - but there are people in this world who would do it, regardless of whether I think it's right or not. Holding back only weakens myself.


By making these retarded claims

:rolleyes:


you are justifying torture houses like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and others.

No. I'm not. That's like saying that because I approve of the excecution of the Tsars I approve of the excecution of the Jews. After all; killing is killing, right? One would assume, then, that advocating violent revolution is in turn justifying the violent upbringing of Nazi Germany and the United States?


Not justifying it in terms of who it attacks, but by questioning the legality or morality of torture you are supporting the methods they use.

Equally erronous claim; this line of "questiong/consider = support" though reminds me of the Imperial American "with us or against us" rhetoric. Morality is not an issue of me - it shouldn't be an issue of anyone who isn't bound to a religious doctrine.


What about innocent prisoners? What about when you're mistaken?

I think I'll know very well if someone is a militiant fascist. It is highly unlikely that I'll be mistaken and garrote some defenseless person - I'd be sure to make pretty positive that I am garroting some defenseless fascist.


If you do not believe that we are all born with some degree of freedom and some irrevocable rights attached to our identity as humans than you are going to need to tell us who decides.

No one decides. The world is a very fucked up and confusing place that perpetually changes. Believing that we are born with anything other than our physical bodies is absurd. As soon as you're conscious of your surroundings you need to start being prepared to terminate the life of any other organism if it poses a threat to your own.


Who decides who is less human than who, and who deserves torture and who does not.

No one but the individual, I suppose. Again - does it matter? People will torture and kill as they see fit - holding a meeting about it and coming to some universal conclusion will, at best, simply make it illegal. It's obvious that I think fascists deserve torture, and it's obvious that you don't. Neither of us or going to chance the other's mind on this issue.


And on what basis? This whole argument is insane. It should not be discussed.

Should we make these discussion illegal? Kill the people who talk about them? Torture them? Why shouldn't it be discussed?


Especially not by people claiming to be a part of movements for the liberation of the people. what will you liberate them for Xvall? You will be taking them to a reality that is just as bad as what we have now.

I will only be taking them to that horrible reality if they are fascists, in which case I believe that they genuinely need to die in the most painful way possible.


In short, you sound like the type of person that would join Moa's child soldiers, the ones that gave their parents in, or Stalin's supporter. May I point out that neither country has remained communist, or, arguably, ever was. We should not be striving to create a police state governed by terror and fear, such as the one you are suggesting. A country for the people should be loved by the people. What are you thinking? You sound exactly like Hitler, and his "sub-human" terminology. Your hate for fascists is making you one.

Oh well.

[Xvall]

Well that's fine but assuming that this action is being carried out under some vaguely humanitarian desire to make society and life better for the human race in general I can't see how it would achieve it's desired goal.

I don't think I've ever claimed this to be humanitarian. I dislike fascists and what I would do would probably be considered by most to be murderous and oppresive.


If you run a society and just torture someone you say is a fascist on TV then while fascists will be force underground there is a proportion of people who find torture abhorrent will see you as a sadistic despot, others will fear your group and begin to loathe you, and people who have mildly sympathy for the cause of fascism will be pushed further towards supporting them.

I would hope that wouldn't happen; though if it did, I would hate these new fascist supporters just as much as there predecessors.


The longer this goes on the less stable your rule would become and the more volatile society would become.

Rule? No one said that I would have to be in a position of power to quarentine, torture, and kill fascists. Please throw the notions of government stability out, on this one, as I never intended this to be some worldwide act implemented by a ruling body. The government would be fine, though I might be regarded as a horrible person.


Yes but this is misleading because of the way the word 'need' has two vastly different functions in the English language.

Entirely true. I should replace "need" with "should, according to my desires".


It's not anything like a causal or logical necessity, it's a desire to kill plain and simple.

Absolutely.


Yes but this just can't work forever it just encourages short-term brutality. The history books are full of such brutality and it hasn't put a stop or limited anything in the long run. Catholics burnt and tortured horrifically heretics, homosexuals, jew and muslims, the Nazis did a similar thing to jews, homosexuals, communists and even now we have States doing god knows what to people they find undesirable. Have any of these groups been permanently kept at a low number?

No, but in spite of how awful these things that they did were, they did work. Indeed, now, being an atheist isn't a problem - but during the spanish inquisition, people shut up about it. There were still athiests and heretics, I'm sure, but they knew that letting that be known could quite possibly result in their torture and excecution. Fascist brutality rendered vast majorities of the population helpless and allowed for the elimination of millions of innocent people, who, by sheer number alone, should have been able to do something to defend themselfs. In the long run, no, these things do not work; but they do have a horrific and terrible effect on people, otherwise they wouldn't be done. Brutality can be very effective. One need only look at what it has done to the Native Americans and their traditions, which are nearly non-existant at this point due to years of horrific abuse and genocide.


Torture and execution strike me as being opposite to the extreme utopian views held by hippies.

True - but I'm definitely not a "hippie".


If religious people are dead then they can't. If violent criminals are they can't. If non-violent criminals are they can't. If liberals are they can't. If gays are they can't. The list can go on and on. Death is permanent, we get that. The more important question is where do you draw the line and for what reasons?

I don't draw lines. Fascists specifically bother me so I want them all to die. If I felt the same way about religious people as I did fascists, I would want the same end - thankfully for them, I don't.


You're responding to fascist threats with anti-fascists threats...where exactly is the great difference here?

There is none. They want me and everything I stand for to be wiped off the earth - I want them and everything they stand for to be wiped of the earth; I'm hoping that my side will win.


If there are humans still alive in a thousand years time then I believe they're still be stupid and flawed enough to be facing the exact same problems that we face now.

Yes. But I'm hoping that if more fascists die soon, I won't have to deal with some of these problems, or at least will have to deal with less of them, now.


Maybe I am niave but I think violence should be the last possible resort.

I don't think you're naive. You just adhere to a different code of conduct than I do.

[Clarksist]

If we were to take this literally, the death penalty only hurts the murderer, raping the child of a pedophile would hurt the child.


Its the idea of revenge, rather than rehabilitation. That's what makes it a very good analogy. If I may say so myself.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:04 AM

If we were to take this literally, the death penalty only hurts the murderer, raping the child of a pedophile would hurt the child.


Its the idea of revenge, rather than rehabilitation. That's what makes it a very good analogy. If I may say so myself.
True, that analogy is more about revenge, but that's not what the death penalty is about is it? How can you make the Nazis who were in charge of the death camps feel the same pain and anguish that their captives did by just killing/torturing them? With rehabilitation , they would have a chance to reform, and if not, would be jailed indefinitely with the death penalty being a last ditch option. Capital punishment hardly ever solves anything, but sometimes it's the only way.

[redchrisfalling]

Who the fuck are we to play god!

Over the last few years dozens of men and women have been exsicuted and then later proved innocent. How can you put a price on that. I don't care how much it costs to keep criminals in jail, if it saves an inocent life i'll pay. And what about rehabilitation, these people can change. 30% of peple exsicuted in the USA are between the ages of 21 and 30. They're still children at that age. I belive that every person has the potential to be a good and contributeing member of society.
Besides the death penalty dose not discourage crime, the murder rate in America continues to rise and riae.

If you still think that we should kill other humans, do me a favour, go kill yourself.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 05:19 PM
Who the fuck are we to play god!

Over the last few years dozens of men and women have been exsicuted and then later proved innocent. How can you put a price on that. I don't care how much it costs to keep criminals in jail, if it saves an inocent life i'll pay. And what about rehabilitation, these people can change. 30% of peple exsicuted in the USA are between the ages of 21 and 30. They're still children at that age. I belive that every person has the potential to be a good and contributeing member of society.
Besides the death penalty dose not discourage crime, the murder rate in America continues to rise and riae.

If you still think that we should kill other humans, do me a favour, go kill yourself.
What about the criminals that are guilty? Would you really want to keep a power hungry, genocidal, fascist like Hitler alive? Sure, it's an ethical thing to keep them alive and to try to rehabilitate them, but is there really that much hope in rehabilitating a fascist who would execute you without any second thought had the tables been turned?

To quote Xvall,

Says who? Who made up this rule? You? God?

If God really did make those rules and really does exist, we wouldn't have fascists to worry about and we'd all be in an utopian Communist society already.

[madmike]

Would you consider the doctors who perform abortions murders? The baby does have a heart beat even though it does not breathe..

I'm for the death penalty. If they are found guilty and it is proven that they committed the crime then put them to death. Why should i pay for some person to sit in jail and just wait to die in there?

Now days the inmates of prisons dont take to kindly to those who child molestors. So you dont really have to worry bout them stayin in there that long.

And as for "playing God" it does say "Eye for an eye".. kill the bastids the same way they killed their victim..

[Body Count]

The STATE doesn't have a right to murder people.

I am against the DP morally, but thats the best logical reason I can give for being against it.

[Xvall]

Who the fuck are we to play god!

We shouldn't even be talking about "playing god", as that would entail some belief in it's existance to begin with, which, last time I checked, most of us didn't do.


Over the last few years dozens of men and women have been exsicuted and then later proved innocent. How can you put a price on that. I don't care how much it costs to keep criminals in jail, if it saves an inocent life i'll pay.

I agree with you entirely in this hue. Understand that my comment pertained specifically to fascists, in which case I think a trial is just out of the question.


If you still think that we should kill other humans, do me a favour, go kill yourself.

I plan on it, eventually, so don't worry.

[Xvall]

Why should i pay for some person to sit in jail and just wait to die in there?

Well, the entire prison system has problems. In an ideal society, hopefully the point of prison wouldn't be for the person to just sit there (Because really, what does that accomplish?) and will focus on some aspects of rehabilitation.

[bombeverything]

Would you consider the doctors who perform abortions murders? The baby does have a heart beat even though it does not breathe..

No, a baby is only really fully human when it leaves the mothers body. Prior to that it is a fetus. Are you a pro-lifer?


I'm for the death penalty. If they are found guilty and it is proven that they committed the crime then put them to death. Why should i pay for some person to sit in jail and just wait to die in there?

Well that is the nature and stupidity of the legal system itself. Why should the state have the right to execute people? Governments kill more people than all mass murderers, non-state terrorists put together -- yet they go free according to this logic. What does killing someone who killed someone else achieve? Absolutely nothing.


And as for "playing God" it does say "Eye for an eye".. kill the bastids the same way they killed their victim..

What do you mean "it does say"? The Bible is full of contradictions. If you remember it also says "turn the other cheek".

[Xvall]

More importantly, we shouldn't be basing anything on what the "the bible" says.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Who the fuck are we to play god!

you have a big imagination, god :lol:


Over the last few years dozens of men and women have been exsicuted and then later proved innocent. How can you put a price on that

the problem with this arguement is that we communists dont advocate the capitalist judicial or prison system. we obviously realize that most of those put in prison and death row are their for class/related reasons.


I don't care how much it costs to keep criminals in jail, if it saves an inocent life i'll pay

there are no prisons in communism. and there wont be people to fill them anyways. we wont punish because of class, because it doesnt exist anymore. the only people being executed would be violent criminals, rapists, etc. it would most likely be required that hard evidence (dna, etc.) be needed to actually give the death sentence to that person.


And what about rehabilitation, these people can change

thats for you to prove. in the mean time we need to take care of violent killers.


Besides the death penalty dose not discourage crime, the murder rate in America continues to rise and riae.

again. i dont think most of us are talking about the death "penalty" today in capitalism. i advocate the death sentence in classless society however, to protect people. its not a deturent. because we are killing people who steal tv's. because people no longer need to steal. i advocate the execution of proven violent criminals and rapists. its not "punishment" its a protective measure.


If you still think that we should kill other humans, do me a favour, go kill yourself.

alright. you can have fun with serial killers, hitlerites, and rapists in your land. we wont.

[redchrisfalling]

[QUOTE]DisIllusion Posted on Dec 23 2005, 06:41 PM

What about the criminals that are guilty? Would you really want to keep a power hungry, genocidal, fascist like Hitler alive? Sure, it's an ethical thing to keep them alive and to try to rehabilitate them, but is there really that much hope in rehabilitating a fascist who would execute you without any second thought had the tables been turned?

O.K. what kind of communist are you. Any amount of inocent life lost out weights the benefits of killing one or two Hitlers. And these people CAN be rehabilitated. I admit at times I question my stance on exsicution but then i stop and think, "what kind of people get killed(usually) Political prisioners, and the poor. These are the people I am trying to save, i will never support a system which will prematurely end any of those lives. I hate to quote myself and/or sound like a broken record but WHO THE FUCK ARE WE TO PLAY GOD!

[violencia.Proletariat]

Any amount of inocent life lost out weights the benefits of killing one or two Hitlers

what are you talking about? are you trying to say that there would be more mistakes that lead to innocent people being executed in communism? :lol:
if you havent figured it out, we wont be using the capitalist justice system.


And these people CAN be rehabilitated

prove it.


what kind of people get killed(usually) Political prisioners, and the poor

most of those who support the death penalty here are discussing its use in COMMUNIST society, not the present day anti-proletariat justice system. there are no more poor people in communism, there are no prisons, therfore neither of those peopel could be executed.


WHO THE FUCK ARE WE TO PLAY GOD

your talking to a board filled with ATHEISTS. this little phrase of yours doesnt have the same effect as it would on christianright.com

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:03 PM
[QUOTE]DisIllusion Posted on Dec 23 2005, 06:41 PM

What about the criminals that are guilty? Would you really want to keep a power hungry, genocidal, fascist like Hitler alive? Sure, it's an ethical thing to keep them alive and to try to rehabilitate them, but is there really that much hope in rehabilitating a fascist who would execute you without any second thought had the tables been turned?

O.K. what kind of communist are you. Any amount of inocent life lost out weights the benefits of killing one or two Hitlers. And these people CAN be rehabilitated. I admit at times I question my stance on exsicution but then i stop and think, "what kind of people get killed(usually) Political prisioners, and the poor. These are the people I am trying to save, i will never support a system which will prematurely end any of those lives. I hate to quote myself and/or sound like a broken record but WHO THE FUCK ARE WE TO PLAY GOD!
First off, don't bring my personal beliefs into judging "what kind of Communist I am".

I wouldn't say that everybody can be rehabilitated, I mean look, Hitler fucking shot himself rather than risk capture. He was that hardline about his beliefs, I don't know about you, but I figure rehabilitating somebody who is willing to die for their twisted beliefs would be pretty hard.

As for the "Eye for an eye" thing, if we took an eye for an eye on everything in our life, we'd all be blind.

[redchrisfalling]

I don't care if you are all athiests, i'm an agnostic.(yes there is a difference) I am not bringing into question the exsistence of god with my little "catch phrase" but anyone who hasent lived in a hole there entire life knows gods perscived role, powers, etc... It's like saying, "be more like Strakaunof", or "that action was alot like Macbeth." If you would pull your colective heads out of your blind devotion to antiestablishment and look at the context it might make more sense.
As for proveing that people can be rehabilitated, try volenteering at one of the many shortstaffed halfway houses and rehab centers in Vancouver I watch the scum of society turn into thriveing artists over the corse of a few weeks. And Yes i think a communist system would still wrongfully exsicute people, escpecaly the kind which is widely suported on this web site(stalinist) And as for you Disillusion I will bring your personal belifes into what kind of communist you are because there is a huge conection and interdependency between the two. you cant build a solid structre on a rotten base.

[violencia.Proletariat]

As for proveing that people can be rehabilitated, try volenteering at one of the many shortstaffed halfway houses and rehab centers in Vancouver I watch the scum of society turn into thriveing artists over the corse of a few weeks

what were their crimes? serial murders? rape? or drugs use, because petty "criminals" in capitalist society are not who we are talking about. we are talking about fucked up people who cant be helped.


And Yes i think a communist system would still wrongfully exsicute people

statistically yes its possible. there would need to be hard evidence (dna, etc) to recieve the death sentence. this makes it unlikely that the person did not do it.


escpecaly the kind which is widely suported on this web site(stalinist)

you seem to have your idealogy mixed up. there are very few stalinist here and for the most part they arent very accepted.


I will bring your personal belifes into what kind of communist you are because there is a huge conection and interdependency between the two. you cant build a solid structre on a rotten base.

are you calling atheists rotten?

[redchrisfalling]

What were there crimes? Stupidity, murder, rape and everything inbetween. And i am not calling atheists rotten im calling anyone who dosent value human life rotten.

[violencia.Proletariat]

murder, rape

aside from class related murder, there isnt a proven "rehabilitation" for murderers or rapists. so i will accept it once its developed. but its not yet.


im calling anyone who dosent value human life rotten.

hmmm lets see her. i value certain human lives more than others. i value the average proletarian much more than a nazi, reactionary preacher or politicians.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:44 PM
I don't care if you are all athiests, i'm an agnostic.(yes there is a difference) I am not bringing into question the exsistence of god with my little "catch phrase" but anyone who hasent lived in a hole there entire life knows gods perscived role, powers, etc... It's like saying, "be more like Strakaunof", or "that action was alot like Macbeth." If you would pull your colective heads out of your blind devotion to antiestablishment and look at the context it might make more sense.
As for proveing that people can be rehabilitated, try volenteering at one of the many shortstaffed halfway houses and rehab centers in Vancouver I watch the scum of society turn into thriveing artists over the corse of a few weeks. And Yes i think a communist system would still wrongfully exsicute people, escpecaly the kind which is widely suported on this web site(stalinist) And as for you Disillusion I will bring your personal belifes into what kind of communist you are because there is a huge conection and interdependency between the two. you cant build a solid structre on a rotten base.
Didn't I say I supported rehabilitation a couple posts ago? (Scroll up)
You do have a point when you say that even a Communist system would still (accidentally?) execute innocent people, but what government doesn't? I'm sure America accidentally executes many innocent people as well every year. No justice system is completely perfect.

I do value human life; when I made the comment about Hitler, I was talking about how hardline he was that he killed himself and how difficult it would be to rehabilitate somebody like that. I never called for his execution.

I'm not Stalinist and this site isn't Stalinist. What have I ever said made you think that I was being a 'Stalinist'? There was a National Bolshevik who signed up a while ago and was banned after 6 posts or something.

[Trissy]

Sorry for the lack of response on my part. Finally I've got some free time to get around to this.


Rule? No one said that I would have to be in a position of power to quarantine, torture, and kill fascists. Please throw the notions of government stability out, on this one, as I never intended this to be some worldwide act implemented by a ruling body. The government would be fine, though I might be regarded as a horrible person.
Well I apologise for the fact that we got our wires crossed on this one. As this thread started off as a discussion of the death penalty and its use in and before a Communist society I took your comments as following on from this and specifically advocating the use of the death penalty and torture in these circumstances.

If you're merely stating what you'd do personally then we don't really need to worry too much because if you were to ever act out such situations then you'd in all likelihood be arrested as a vigilante. Curiously enough if those in charge of the society happened to agree with you about torturing and executing potential threats then you may find yourself in hot water even if they were Marxists.


No, but in spite of how awful these things that they did were, they did work. Indeed, now, being an atheist isn't a problem - but during the Spanish inquisition, people shut up about it. There were still atheists and heretics, I'm sure, but they knew that letting that be known could quite possibly result in their torture and execution. [...] In the long run, no, these things do not work; but they do have a horrific and terrible effect on people, otherwise they wouldn't be done. Brutality can be very effective
But why would we aim for short term gains? I admit that brutality, no matter how superfluous, can bring us untold riches in the short term. The problem is that these are frequently lost soon after they've been gained. I'm sure Goring had lost his desire for 'his' works of art when he bit his cyanide capsule.

What I'm continuing to argue is that we rarely ever aim at short term gain especially if we're in a reasonable frame of mind. If I aim at a comfortable life then I want it to be comfortable for the majority of my life not have a few hedonistic days of great pleasure. Likewise the SI and the Nazi's were not aiming at short term gains they produced...one aimed at producing an eternal pure Christian empire and the other a 1000 year Reich...both as you point out were complete failures in their own eyes. What I've tried to argue is that they did not fail by chance, they were not just unlucky. I believe rather that their failures were necessarily brought about by the very methods they employed. Similarly you may achieve what you want in the short term by driving fascists into the shadows but it's likely that in the long term it'll be a failure because you cannot remove something in the long term unless you address the causes. That's the hard part because it seems that mankind will need thousands of years to remove all of the causes of fascism from the surface of this planet. Addressing and repressing the effects can only ever be a short term solution and a bloody one at that.

The problem is that 'short term' and 'long term' are extremely vague and relative. The actions you support may work in the short term, which I do not deny, where we disagree I think is what this exactly amounts to.


I don't draw lines. Fascists specifically bother me so I want them all to die. If I felt the same way about religious people as I did fascists, I would want the same end - thankfully for them, I don't. [...] They want me and everything I stand for to be wiped off the earth - I want them and everything they stand for to be wiped of the earth; I'm hoping that my side will win
You may not draw lines explicitly but others will read them as being implicit in the position you hold and to be fair I don't think they'd be necessarily wrong to do so. If we all believed 'I shall kill all those who disagree with me and pose a threat' it is hard to see how society can last and in fact it sounds spookily close to Hobbes' vision of 'The Right of Nature' as held in the State of Nature (where no society exists). To the individual what it is for something to constitute a threat to their life depends upon their particular prejudices, beliefs and level of paranoia. Hence religious and political extremists (those paranoid folk who have perhaps committed the greatest acts of brutality due to their prejudices) would be prepared to sacrifice millions on the altar of their own security and comfort.

That is why I (and others) mentioned lines because although you may not be advocating any particular position to others, other people will feel justified in holding a view like yours for the reasons you offer. "What is good enough for him is good enough for me". If such a view as yours is held and acted upon by a significant amount of people then society as we know it would be at risk of disappearing beneath a wave of brutality and violence.


Yes. But I'm hoping that if more fascists die soon, I won't have to deal with some of these problems, or at least will have to deal with less of them, now.

But if you ever acted upon these beliefs and turned your words into reality then you'd be unlikely to achieve your hopes in any way, shape or form unless our current societies undergo a sudden radical change in a way that favours you. As a vigilante you'd be caught sooner or later and probably be imprisoned. I have a gut feeling that you'd be more likely to come across fascists in the uneducated holding-centres we currently call prisons.


What about the criminals that are guilty? Would you really want to keep a power hungry, genocidal, fascist like Hitler alive? Sure, it's an ethical thing to keep them alive and to try to rehabilitate them, but is there really that much hope in rehabilitating a fascist who would execute you without any second thought had the tables been turned?
Yes I would want to keep such a person alive. Why? Well it's certainly not because I'm a fascists or because I somehow sympathise with him. It'd be because to execute him without a second thought 'knowing' that he was guilty would be to do exactly what he would do if 'the tables are turned'. People like Hitler executed people because he thought they were guilty of something even if was a ridiculous 'crime' such as 'not being fit enough to live'. By keeping him alive as a prisoner with no chance of release and with plenty of time to ponder over the very point of his pathetic existence whilst in basic conditions that he has no control over then I believe he has ample enough punishment. If such a man doesn't want to be captured and would prefer to kill himself rather than be captured then why grant him his wish? If people don't believe in life after death then why remove him from existence so easily into nothingness? Such an easy way out of existence doesn't seem fitting for such a man and this seems the best way to distribute justice in a way that doesn't reduce me to his level. The further I can distance myself from the actions of such men whilst distributing a form of justice the better.


however the "death penalty" in communism shouldn’t be call that. its not a "penalty" for what you did. its not "punishment" its to stop you from doing what you did again. therefore it should be called a violent attack(death, rape, etc) prevention system. while it isn’t "preventing" all violent attacks, its stopping an individual who has done it in the past from doing it again.

i advocate the death sentence in classless society however, to protect people. its not a deterrent. [...] its not "punishment" its a protective measure.
- - - - -

there are no prisons in communism. and there wont be people to fill them anyways. we wont punish because of class, because it doesn’t exist anymore.
:lol: Ha! I think Shakespeare put it better than I could ever do when he wrote "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."

Your arguments to me seem far from consistent and partly because of a selective use of semantics in the argument. If we're allowing a 'violent attack prevention system' by merely changing words and altering definitions ever so slightly then why can’t we allow prisons by doing exactly the same thing but calling them 'violent attack prevention happy rooms' or the such like? This is because the acts themselves haven't changed in the slightest. The means are staying the same and all that we have is a changing of words to fit the slight change in ends aimed at. This would occur because the transition from a pre-Communist society to a Communist society alters the ends we aim at.

If on the other hand you're not just playing around with words but making some kind of ethical or rational argument that allows the death penalty but prevents prison then it seems hard to deny that you open yourself up to people presenting ethical or rational arguments for keeping people in prisons but not killing them. If what we're after is security in a Communist society and if there are many ways to skin a cat then execution has rival possibilities that do not just magically disappear because a Communist society has arisen.

[redchrisfalling]

Comrades, this issue will not be resolved within the limits of this thread so... lets agree to disagree. I respect how extremely passionate you are about your belifes and hate of facism. While I am optamistic about rehabilitation and value ALL human life (yes, facists included they are half human) too dearly to risk accidental and ireversable deaths. I have enjoyed debateing with you and hope one day we will be on the same page(whichever one it ends up beign)

P.S. I do encourage you to go down to a halfway house, for even one, day and talk to the people, it will open your eyes.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:01 PM
Comrades, this issue will not be resolved within the limits of this thread so... lets agree to disagree. I respect how extremely passionate you are about your belifes and hate of facism. While I am optamistic about rehabilitation and value ALL human life (yes, facists included they are half human) too dearly to risk accidental and ireversable deaths. I have enjoyed debateing with you and hope one day we will be on the same page(whichever one it ends up beign)

P.S. I do encourage you to go down to a halfway house, for even one, day and talk to the people, it will open your eyes.
You're right RedChrisFalling. We all love each other. ^_^ As long as we respect every comrade's opinion.

I will look for a halfway house around my city, it's a good idea.

[DeathtoPrejudice]

Argueing for or against the death penalty is just like argueing for or against abortion. There is so much material to support or attack each side, but no definitive answer to whether it's ok or not.

I remain on the fence with the death penalty, as i do abortion. The closest i can come to agree with either, is by going case by case, circumstantially.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 27 2005, 01:43 AM
I support the death penalty for rapists and murderers. I would not want to spend money keeping these scumbags alive in some resort when the money could be spent much better somwhere else.
Um... not true. Most death row inmates spend about ten years on death row; some more than twenty! And, the cost of housing a death row inmate is far greater than that of a person with a life inprisonment without parole.

Here's a helpful link:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

I believe that the deth penalty is unethical, immoral, and plain evil. It does'nt detter crime, and it does'nt help. I think the person should have to suffer with what they did for the rest of their lives. Executions should only be done in the most extreme cases instead of throwing it around like it's nothing. Peace.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:34 AM




lets get this straight! im not sure under what circumstances this thread was started. but i have been argueing for the death penalty in A COMMUNIST SOCIETY. not capitalism! obviously executions in capitalism are class influenced so i oppose most of them.


It does'nt detter crime

and thats not its purpose in communism


it does'nt help

sure it does. lets say you have a rapist. you execute them. thats one rapist gone forever.


I think the person should have to suffer with what they did for the rest of their lives

in your hierarchical fascist prisons? no thanks! we wish to stop REACTIONARY ACTIONS. not promote them!


Executions should only be done in the most extreme cases instead of throwing it around like it's nothing

but it should be "no big deal". i hope for a time when slinging fascists against a wall and shooting them is a normal occurance.

[RebelOutcast]

i hope for a time when slinging fascists against a wall and shooting them is a normal occurance.
In my opinion that makes you no better than the nazis murdering their "Untermenschen" or Army officers murdering deserters. Fascists deserve the highest contempt, however respect should be shown for all human life, punishment should not happen without due process otherwise you're no better than them.

Executions do not help solve society's problems, or deter criminals. It actually serves as an incentive (in a perverse sort of way) for them to commit more crimes, If you know you're going to have to pay the ultimate penalty then why not commit more crimes?


i have been argueing for the death penalty in A COMMUNIST SOCIETY. not capitalism!
Murder is murder, whichever way you cut it, the application of economic ideologies should have little effect on the penal systems.


in your hierarchical fascist prisons? no thanks! we wish to stop REACTIONARY ACTIONS. not promote them!
Because sticking the word "Reactionary" into the sentence makes it sound informed and makes sure everyone agrees with you. <_<
I was going to write a bit here about how asinine your statement was but I shall not bother, some how I don&#39;t think you&#39;d pay any attention to it anyway.

[Xvall]

If you&#39;re merely stating what you&#39;d do personally then we don&#39;t really need to worry too much because if you were to ever act out such situations then you&#39;d in all likelihood be arrested as a vigilante.

True enough.


But why would we aim for short term gains? I admit that brutality, no matter how superfluous, can bring us untold riches in the short term. The problem is that these are frequently lost soon after they&#39;ve been gained. I&#39;m sure Goring had lost his desire for &#39;his&#39; works of art when he bit his cyanide capsule.

What I&#39;m continuing to argue is that we rarely ever aim at short term gain especially if we&#39;re in a reasonable frame of mind. If I aim at a comfortable life then I want it to be comfortable for the majority of my life not have a few hedonistic days of great pleasure. Likewise the SI and the Nazi&#39;s were not aiming at short term gains they produced...one aimed at producing an eternal pure Christian empire and the other a 1000 year Reich...both as you point out were complete failures in their own eyes. What I&#39;ve tried to argue is that they did not fail by chance, they were not just unlucky. I believe rather that their failures were necessarily brought about by the very methods they employed. Similarly you may achieve what you want in the short term by driving fascists into the shadows but it&#39;s likely that in the long term it&#39;ll be a failure because you cannot remove something in the long term unless you address the causes. That&#39;s the hard part because it seems that mankind will need thousands of years to remove all of the causes of fascism from the surface of this planet. Addressing and repressing the effects can only ever be a short term solution and a bloody one at that.

The problem is that &#39;short term&#39; and &#39;long term&#39; are extremely vague and relative. The actions you support may work in the short term, which I do not deny, where we disagree I think is what this exactly amounts to.

Oh, I completely understand that. But, as we stated earlier, I was talking about me, and not a public policy.


If such a view as yours is held and acted upon by a significant amount of people then society as we know it would be at risk of disappearing beneath a wave of brutality and violence.

That is entirely true. It is a good thing that people do not follow a similar code of conduct as I do. (Ideologically, of course - I haven&#39;t actually killed anyone.)


But if you ever acted upon these beliefs and turned your words into reality then you&#39;d be unlikely to achieve your hopes in any way, shape or form unless our current societies undergo a sudden radical change in a way that favours you. As a vigilante you&#39;d be caught sooner or later and probably be imprisoned.

Yeah, but during the actual act of murder, I would probably feel pretty good about myself.


I have a gut feeling that you&#39;d be more likely to come across fascists in the uneducated holding-centres we currently call prisons.

Yes. They&#39;re probably running it.


Yes I would want to keep such a person alive. Why? Well it&#39;s certainly not because I&#39;m a fascists or because I somehow sympathise with him. It&#39;d be because to execute him without a second thought &#39;knowing&#39; that he was guilty would be to do exactly what he would do if &#39;the tables are turned&#39;. People like Hitler executed people because he thought they were guilty of something even if was a ridiculous &#39;crime&#39; such as &#39;not being fit enough to live&#39;. By keeping him alive as a prisoner with no chance of release and with plenty of time to ponder over the very point of his pathetic existence whilst in basic conditions that he has no control over then I believe he has ample enough punishment.

Don&#39;t get me wrong. It was not so much about "punishing" them so much as it was getting them out of the way and satisfying me.

[violencia.Proletariat]

In my opinion that makes you no better than the nazis murdering their "Untermenschen" or Army officers murdering deserters.

deserters from a nazi army have nothing to do with what i proposed.


Fascists deserve the highest contempt, however respect should be shown for all human life, punishment should not happen without due process otherwise you&#39;re no better than them.

of course they would get a trial. but their lives will not be "respected". if your a nazi there should be no punishment other than banishment or execution.


Executions do not help solve society&#39;s problems, or deter criminals.

stop spewing this bullshit, please. you cant use your anti-death sentence arguement for capitalist society when discussing the death sentence in communism. the use of the death sentence in communism is not to deter crime. its to stop that particular person from doing what they did EVER AGAIN.


It actually serves as an incentive (in a perverse sort of way) for them to commit more crimes, If you know you&#39;re going to have to pay the ultimate penalty then why not commit more crimes?

this might be shitty logic for capitalism but it doesnt apply to communism. we wont be shooting people for stealing in communism, or shooting cops. we will be executing violent criminals such as murderers and rapists.


I was going to write a bit here about how asinine your statement was but I shall not bother, some how I don&#39;t think you&#39;d pay any attention to it anyway.

yes prove to me how youll make your prison a "country club" with bars and walls. same shit as always. prisons are hell holes. they have no place in communism.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:17 AM
But it should be "no big deal". (I) hope for a time when slinging fascists against a wall and shooting them is a normal occurance.
For one thing, sir, your origional quote of my beliefs did not show up.

Secondly, I don&#39;t apprecite you calling me a fascist, or anyone on this board for that matter. Those who throw insults often have nothing to say :angry: . Fascism is for the weak minded, the ignorant.

Thirdly, although I respect your opinions, all fascists (although I agree with you, their political practices are wrong and vicious) are human. We should protect all human life, for it is precious. You are simply spreding hate, and hate helped fascists slaughter 6 million jews&#33;

Lastly, the death penalty is an idea that keeps down blacks, the downtrodden, and the helpless, sir. So don&#39;t spread the hate.

Peace.

[Ol' Dirty]

Also, here&#39;s a definition of the word "fascism" you love to throw around so much.

1. A movement which believes the state should consist of a dictatorship by the economic elites of the country being governed.

This is basicaly tyrany&#33; You hav just called me a tyrant and I don&#39;t appreciate it.

Peace

[DisIllusion]

but it should be "no big deal". i hope for a time when slinging fascists against a wall and shooting them is a normal occurance.

That doesn&#39;t sound right. People could just accuse their enemies of being a "fascist" just to have them killed off. Similar to early Maoist China, where people were constantly pointing fingers and calling each other "counter-revolutionary" or "reactionary". Besides, this would be a society built on fear, since just showing the littlest bit of fascist behavior would earn you a trip to the firing squad. Some fascists just have to be "deprogrammed", like the Hitler Youth after WWII, they don&#39;t necessarily have to be shot.

[Ol' Dirty]

I agree with DisIllusion. To throw the word fascist around is just a way of demonising the enemy. Although this may be different than what you believe, Dis (Is it okay if I call you that, man?), I believe that insted of just killing people, we should help them see the light side of communism.

Peace

[boosh logic]

Im against the death penalty - surely it&#39;s a bigger punishment for murdering priks to be kept in solitary for an eternity than to be murdered and get off (even thought they normally spend 20+ years on death row)?
Also then if someone turns out innocent then they&#39;re still alive and could (hopefully) be compensated for the mistakes

[violencia.Proletariat]

Secondly, I don&#39;t apprecite you calling me a fascist, or anyone on this board for that matter

when did i do this? i dont recall such a thing.


We should protect all human life, for it is precious.

no we should not protect all human life. those humans who take on reactionary idealogy are a threat to the society we propose to create. we therfore, should not wish to protect these people if they wish to promote counter revolution.

you are playing the liberal card here. was adolf hitlers life "precious"? should we have left him alone because you think every single person deserves because of some moral standard?

why dont you join gandhi left? oh wait he was a hypocrite.


You are simply spreding hate, and hate helped fascists slaughter 6 million jews&#33;

ok? i have a very good reason to "hate" these people. not because of some physical or cultural trait but because they have a dangerous idealogy that is a threat to everyone of us. i do not wish to kill people for no reason. however i will not hesitate to supress a group of people who follow and idealogy which has killed/supressed so many. these people woudl gladly do it again.


Lastly, the death penalty is an idea that keeps down blacks, the downtrodden, and the helpless, sir. So don&#39;t spread the hate.

again&#33; READ MY GODAMN POSTS&#33; When I speak of the death sentence (not penalty because its not for revenge) I am referring to its use in communism, NOT CAPITALISM. I agree that the "death penalty" is used mainly against proletarians that have gone through unfair trials. I do not support the death sentence under capitalism for obvious reasons. however, in a classless society these factors are gone. the reason for use of the death sentence would be because the individuals who recieve it are a threat to the well being of our society.

[boosh logic]

Oh right so did disillusion mean it in terms of communists killing in a revolution? I thought we were talking about the death penalty in general

[Ol' Dirty]

"(I)n your hierarchical fascist prisons? (N)o thanks&#33; (W)e (Who&#39;s we? Am I not a Communist like you?) wish to stop REACTIONARY ACTIONS, not promote them&#33;"

You called me a fascist right there (unless you&#39;re talking to yourself :huh:)&#33;

Dude, I respect your opinions, but you called me a fascist&#33; I merely want to have a civilized conversation among people who (I thaught) share my ideology.

"no we should not protect all human life. those humans who take on reactionary idealogy are a threat to the society we propose to create. we therfore, should not wish to protect these people if they wish to promote counter revolution."

Dude, capitalize the beginings of your sentences&#33; That&#39;s a grade school mistake, and I&#39;m tired of people making it&#33;


Back to the ethical standpoint of this debate, I believe that execution of people by the government (even in a Communist one) is wrong, becasue it ensures them far too much power. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". Also, I think that Hitler should have been executed; there is a huge difference between a genocidal tyrant and a poor, innocent, deffenseless man or woman who is being accused of being different.

"you are playing the liberal card here. was adolf hitlers life "precious"? should we have left him alone because you think every single person deserves because of some moral standard?"

That&#39;s it&#33; Sir, think about what you&#39;re syaing&#33; In any society, killing is wrong, but exceptable in such instances as genocide, rape, murder, or any othe heinous act&#33; But to kill simply because of ones political convictions is heinous&#33; You are sugesting that we kill every capitalist because they are less educated than we are; that we kill for our beliefs&#33; And you know what sir? That is the crusading, ignorant, vile kind of additude that kills people like us&#33;

It happened in Nazi germany, and it&#39;s happening in America today.

That&#39;s the word.

Peace.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You called me a fascist right there (unless you&#39;re talking to yourself :huh:)&#33;

oh. i wasnt specifically calling you a fascist. what i ment was prisons are totalitarian in nature and should be abolished.


Dude, capitalize the beginings of your sentences&#33; That&#39;s a grade school mistake, and I&#39;m tired of people making it&#33;

its a habit i have when typing on the internet. if it really bothers people that much then ill stop. its not that im not aware that im doing it, its that i just dont care.


Back to the ethical standpoint of this debate, I believe that execution of people by the government (even in a Communist one) is wrong

No such thing as a communist government. It is "wrong" to you because you thinkg all human life is "precious" and I disagree. I also think thats a pretty shitty reason.


becasue it ensures them far too much power

Communism is not run by a government but by the people (former proletariat). Do you think the proletariat shouldnt take control?


Also, I think that Hitler should have been executed; there is a huge difference between a genocidal tyrant and a poor, innocent, deffenseless man or woman who is being accused of being different.

You do understand that a nazi is someone who follows WHAT HITLER STARTED&#33; If you cant make that connection im afraid i shouldnt continue this arguement. Again let me make this clear, here ill help READ THIS PART RIGHT HERE, Im speaking of the death sentence in a communist society, not todays "death penalty" which obviously should be opposed because it is issued for class reasons.


In any society, killing is wrong, but exceptable in such instances as genocide, rape, murder, or any othe heinous act&#33; But to kill simply because of ones political convictions is heinous&#33;

If ones political convictions are that of following and advocating a system of rule that wishes to act such as the one Adolf Hitler ran, then yes they obviously should be dealt with. You see hitler committed genocide, and his followers WANT to do the same. Why should we not take action against these people?


You are sugesting that we kill every capitalist because they are less educated than we are

Since when are we talking about capitalists? This arguement was about fascists.
I do not wish to kill capitalists who will conform to the new society, I do however believe in class repression and elements of the old society will no doubt be dispossed of.


It happened in Nazi germany, and it&#39;s happening in America today.

Haha. Since when have leftists not wanted to kill for their beliefs? What kind of history have you been reading? We havent been handing nazi&#39;s and capitalists flowers in order to convince them of our idealogy. WE HAVE BEEN SHOOTING THEM. Because we HAVE TO. If reactionaries are not taken care of they can/will promote/take part in actions that lead to the destruction of the revolution.

[boosh logic]

But in a revolution in a capitalist society, e.g. Britain, would a revolution be a violent one? I ask this because I don&#39;t think that there would be a possibility of a war occuring to overthrow capitialism, due to the fact that it is not a dictatorship as in Cuba or Russia, it is a &#39;democracy&#39;, where workers feel all is fair because the way the system oppresses them makes them think their &#39;failure&#39; is their fault, not the systems&#39;.

Would this make the death penalty irrelevant in a capitalist society red revolution?

[violencia.Proletariat]

But in a revolution in a capitalist society, e.g. Britain, would a revolution be a violent one?

Of course.


I ask this because I don&#39;t think that there would be a possibility of a war occuring to overthrow capitialism, due to the fact that it is not a dictatorship as in Cuba or Russia

I agree with you up to this point. There would be no "war" because the proletariat has no need to form an army to attack the state. General strikes and factory occupations would topple the government. But there would be violence between the crippeled state and the revolutionary workers. This however would not what you would consider a "war".

[DisIllusion]

Dis (Is it okay if I call you that, man?)

I don&#39;t give a shit. :lol:


Oh right so did disillusion mean it in terms of communists killing in a revolution? I thought we were talking about the death penalty in general

It started out by talking about it in general, but we&#39;re panning out here.


But in a revolution in a capitalist society, e.g. Britain, would a revolution be a violent one?

It depends. Best case scenario would be a total worker revolt, where the bourgeoisie would lay down their power and perhaps go into exile. This has never happened. The "cleanest" one in history would be the Russian Revolution, where the Bolsheviks had a large majority in Petrograd and only had to storm the Winter Palace, where even the guards joined in the Revolution.

History has shown us that the bourgeoisie usually doesn&#39;t want to lay down it&#39;s power without a long bloody fight, as shown in Vietnam and Cuba especially when they are backed up by other countries. Expect a lot of clandestine international intervention; usually from Communist paranoid countries.




Would this make the death penalty irrelevant in a capitalist society red revolution?

Well what do you mean? Exiling prisoners instead of killing them? Deporting fascists?

[Ol' Dirty]

I see your point man. I&#39;m sorry if I offended you. But my opinion is that killing is only a weapon of last resort. In defense, I support it all the way, but killing for a belief, in my opinion, is wrong, and that&#39;s what I was getting at.

Beliefs are important, but they should not make us kill each other. I think that we should
not kill Cpitalists or Fascists for being Cappitalists or Fascists, but kill them for acts of heinousness.

Also, about the capitalism/fascism debate, the two beliefs seem so similar, It&#39;s hard to tell them apart (sometimes one&#39;s always up the others ass so far, its hard to distinguish them&#33; :lol: )

I think that the argument was simply a case of misunderstanding (like many). I hope our beliefs can&#39;t keep us from a revolution&#33;

Peace.

[boosh logic]

Well what do you mean? Exiling prisoners instead of killing them? Deporting fascists?


What I mean is that in my opinion a revolution in e.g. Britain (again) would happen &#39;democratically&#39; - if that makes sense? That a socialist party would have to be elected and make gradual changes as opposed to a violent sweep throughout the nation, to show the proletariat the corruption and gain favour. Killing the leader of the British National Party (or other far-right party&#39;s) - although it would shock, would not really send the right message to right-orientated and extreme fascist people, and would be more likely to encourage opposition than if we exposed the truth and fixed the damage capitalism has done

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:49 PM

Well what do you mean? Exiling prisoners instead of killing them? Deporting fascists?


What I mean is that in my opinion a revolution in e.g. Britain (again) would happen &#39;democratically&#39; - if that makes sense? That a socialist party would have to be elected and make gradual changes as opposed to a violent sweep throughout the nation, to show the proletariat the corruption and gain favour. Killing the leader of the British National Party (or other far-right party&#39;s) - although it would shock, would not really send the right message to right-orientated and extreme fascist people, and would be more likely to encourage opposition than to expose the truth
That&#39;s a reformist belief. Idealistic, since it involves no bloodshed, but usually hard to achieve.

If somehow, by a freak accident, the bourgeois actually let the Socialist/Communist party come to power, they probably wouldn&#39;t be able to do anything in power since Congress/Parliament wouldn&#39;t allow them to do anything.

There are hundreds of other reasons why reformation doesn&#39;t exactly work, but corporate controlled Congress/Parliament is the main reason I can think of.

[boosh logic]

It may be a reformist belief - I see your point - but it isn&#39;t my view on how it should be done, but what I think would be the only way (although hard to achieve) without violence (even harder) in common non-dictatoral (or so it seems) capitalist society
Sorry for all the brackets.