Whats the opposite of authoritarian methods...

[drain.you]

Whats the opposite of authoritarian methods against crime and in the name of security?
We know about curfews, torture and the stuff the SS got up to but what is an alternative to this?
To me if seems on a scale of, not doing anything or doing too much. Whats the ideal stance on how to deal with crime and security from a leftist perspective?

[Paradox]

In relation to a communist society, I would say things such as property related crimes, ie theft, would be pretty much a non-issue. I mean, it's not theft when everyone can take freely from what is produced. In other words, theft is unnecessary, as everyone has access.

Security? Not too sure on that issue. I had speculated and discussed briefly with friends the idea of unarmed citizen patrols which would be rotated, so different people perform the duties. In other words, it's not like an occupation, like cops or anything like that. These would be more for use like during the revolution though, like with the citizens's militias, to protect against reactionary attacks.

As far as like drug-related "crimes," or like murder, I would say rehab is the way to go. In extreme cases -as with outright reactionaries who kill, or rape- execution.

[drain.you]

When talking about security I meant more of this 'terrorist threat', which though blown out of proportion, does exist. You know the detaining suspects and stuff thats been going on, thats towards the authoritarian style obviously, but whats an alternative?

Is it always a case of, if you want security you must give up freedoms?

[Hegemonicretribution]

The whole reason that the left seeks to establish communism, is so that they can alter as far as possible, the material conditions that give rise to problems in society.

There can be no crimes, as this implies a sovereign body involved in judgement and retribution, but there can conceivably still be unsavoury actions.

"Possession is 9/10ths of the law"...not any more it won't be. Property related crime can not exist, nor can crime related to anything that concerns no one but consenting individuals. (Drugs, etc)

Almost all crime outside of this is still motive orrientated, mostly to do with acquisition of wealth by the assailant, so again this will largely become a non-issue.

For cases where an individual seeks to cause harm to another for the act itself (be it rape, murder, assault etc) I think that a liberal approach (not the authoritarian versions suggested) would be to treat them medically. If someone has a desire to cause harm, solely because they want to cause harm, then they are mentally ill. If they have reasons for it, or are in control of their faculties, yet still wish to commit such an act then I think medical prison is still the answer.

[RNK]

In terms of large-scale Security.. I would say the most important aspect would be to NOT do what the US has done, which is to deal with the symptoms and not the problem itself.

[Revolution 9]

I believe that the Anarchists (at least Kropotkin in his writings) advocate a simple "rehabilitation" of crime, as they see that all crime is simply when someone suffers social greiviance. Of course, this could only work (if it could work at all) in a Communistic society, because then class differences wouldn't be a cause of murder/rape/robbery/etc..

Personally, I would like to see a combination of rehab like this and a proletarian militia used to execute mass murders, rapists, and the like.

[black magick hustla]

In a communist society, crime would definitely diminish, because there won't be need to steal, especially in a place where very valuable commodities would almost become nonexistant.

However, we cannot know how are"serious" crimes going to be dealt with in a communist society. It will vary in different places, considering there won't be a bureaucratic mechanism to establish universal laws.

The Iraquois had a very interesting communal system, and they dealt with very little crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Iroquois

[Revolution 9]

Marmot, you must remember that the Iroquois had a very primitive economy, while a future post-capitalist Communist economy will be very advanced.

However, I do agree with you that crime will diminish. There will no longer be anything of value to steal.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Street [email protected] 5 2006, 12:04 AM
Marmot, you must remember that the Iroquois had a very primitive economy, while a future post-capitalist Communist economy will be very advanced.

However, I do agree with you that crime will diminish. There will no longer be anything of value to steal.
It was just an example though.

But, I still find it impossible that in a future society where the capitalist relations are abolished we are going to be able to sustain the current consumerist lifestyles in the first world.

Remember that if everyone has the same "thing", it stops being valuable.

[Revolution 9]

Originally posted by Marmot+Mar 5 2006, 12:14 AM--> (Marmot @ Mar 5 2006, 12:14 AM)
Street [email protected] 5 2006, 12:04 AM
Marmot, you must remember that the Iroquois had a very primitive economy, while a future post-capitalist Communist economy will be very advanced.

However, I do agree with you that crime will diminish. There will no longer be anything of value to steal.
It was just an example though.

But, I still find it impossible that in a future society where the capitalist relations are abolished we are going to be able to sustain the current consumerist lifestyles in the first world.

Remember that if everyone has the same "thing", it stops being valuable. [/b]
I wasn't advocating consumerism, lol. :P

What I'm saying is that the Iroquois history of economics would be a bad idea to base modern Communist economics.

I would prefer to use the Makhnovtchina or Revolutionary (Anarchist) Spain of the 30s as examples. :)

[More Fire for the People]

The opposite of repression of the criminal is the repression of the crime. Communists seek to eliminate the material basis that creates true crimes.

[obliterate_the_state]

Anarchists wish to abolish private capital as well as hierarchy, which is equally responsible for crime. For instance, rape is not as much a sexual crime as an act of intimidation and control over an individual. Rape and murder often have the same motivation- persons comitting the act have been abused by authority and this is how they feel as though they get authority back. This is the same for batterers and violent acts not as extreme. We have no authority over ourselves. We have forgotten how to think for ourselves. We are not responsible.

Think about all of the stress in your life right now: Electricity. Gas. Water. Rent. Work. Taxes. Police. Bush. War. Monogamy. Mainstream America. Racism. Sexism. Pop music.

People wouldn't snap so easily if they weren't always under pressure to consume despite the fact that they aren't getting the full fruits of their labor.

[bombeverything]

Libertarian methods :D. As others have already pointed out, most crime is property related and would disappear with the abolition of capitalism. However, this is not to suggest that anti-social behaviour will dissapear completely in a free society. As a result, anarchists generally perceive the need for social systems of mediation and arbitration to resolve any disputes in a voluntary manner, replacing the judicial functions of courts. This is a practical and viable alternative to the creation of a new state.

I hope that helps.