Is it a contradiction for me to believe in laws and in some form of incarceration?

Question

Is it a contradiction for me to believe in laws and in some form of incarceration?

So I beilive in anarchro-syndicalism and ideally would want a replica of what happened in Revoluionary Cataliona. The C.N.T had its own Milita group that was responsible for sending off the "bad people" to paying labor camps or rehabilitation centers. To me that seems fair and very anarchist like. It give the criminal sustainability hence they will avid the police conspericy against the poor, the mental/emotional probblem will be cured(hopefully) and everything seems great. Now, I know what I'll get fr this. Insults or whatever. Someone will probably be more caught up in telling me why prisons are bad more then the alternative. Or the alternative would be something inhuman like the victim gets to pick what the attacker deserves.(which ironically is could be pretty much no different if not worse then the current prison system) I don't know. So far rehabilitation centers and paying labor camps sound pretty moral and justifiable.

asked Jan 19, 2014 by Gritz Hill (90 points)

commented Jan 19, 2014 by dot (53.1k points)
edited Jan 19, 2014 by dot

a)umm, they can and usually do. I don't get your point.
b)I don't get why you have a problem with me stating a fact that most anarchists know about. You can say Stza Crack isn't an anarchist because he used the same wording. I'm obviously not for this, but it exists.
c)?
d)?
e)okay i'll admit i didn't think of that.
g)mind showing me where I implied that?
h)Umm never said that. It's a little obvious as to how the concept of a victim picking the fate of the being extremely unfair.
    1)What if there was a mistake? So a man raped women and for punishment an innocent man who looks like the man who raped her gets his balls cut off. Meanwhile the rapist is lierking in the streets unpunished.
   2) what if they want the person to be incarcerated?
   3) how can people determine if the "victim is lying or not? What if generally people don't like the victim and ignore his/her requests?

well if there's a direct democracy, people would vote on what's in or not in society. They would also say what is and isn't appropriate no?

Fuck Marxism and Leninism! I'd never be anything remotely close to that.

commented Jan 19, 2014 by Gritz Hill (90 points)

a) A lot of people have "mental/emotional problems" and yet are not inspired to commit crimes due to them; a lot of people commit crimes for reasons besides "mental/emotional problems"
b) A lot of people call themselves anarchists and this doesn't necessarily mean anything. The issue isn't a "conspiracy against the poor", the issue is the existence of police, period.
c) What is "morality"?
d) What are "bad people"?
f) You skipped F.
g) Implying that incarceration/labor camps is "the [best] solution".
h)
- 1) What you're describing here isn't a problem with the execution of revenge, it's a problem with discerning whether an event happened in the first place. This will be a problem in literally any system.
- 2) Too bad?
- 3) Again, how is this in any way different compared to the current legal system or the idea of utilizing labor camps? You're confusing two completely different things; the methods you use to discern the truth of a situation can be very disconnected from the methods you use to act on that discernment.

And at the very end, I find it presumptive that you conclude that voting through "direct democracy" would necessarily exist in an anarchist future and that it would be used as some form of moral compass.

commented Jan 19, 2014 by Rice Boy (8.7k points)

a)I know. I'm saying that it consist of emotional and mental problems to commit crimes. Everybody has problems that deal with emotions. some simple some extreme.
b) it's the main issue though. I was making an assumption since that is what every anarchist talks about when the police debate is raised. (other then ancaps, but i don't know any personally)
c) that's up to people to decide. If you believe in anarchy you have some sort of morals. Unless you just want to smash the state because destroying is fun. But then why not just kill everyone around you while you're at it?
d)again that's up to the society to decide. No matter what the majority will have an image of a bad person. Even in a pure anarchist society with no direct democracy that will exist.
f)well other then psychopaths yes.
g) where did i say a solution for all groups? I'm mainly talking about what is commonly perceived as major crimes. I never once said this applies to everything.
h)
1)An innocent man goes to e rehab center for being accused of being a rapist After running tests to see if he is cured and telling them one million times he didn't do anything. And with lie detectors proving it, after maybe a week or less he is home free. In the victim get's to decide sinerieo , the guy who did nothing wrong, endures and extreme amount of pain, never has kids, might not have the courage to ever ask out a girl, and will live a miserable life of loneliness and questioning whether he is a man. Which one sounds better to you?
2)So the victim is limited to choose what happens to the supposed attacker then? Seems kinda contradictory.
3) back to the balls getting cut off. If the victim lies , the innocent guy goes to a rehabilitation center and comes back in a week. If the victim lies and chooses the fate, the guy looses his balls. And in the current system, the guy just goes to jail for like 20 years. Let's see, 1 week, 20 years or getting your balls cut off. idk sounds like a hard decision.

So you don't know what anarhcro-syndicalism is then? or any forms of social anarchy? I have this undying feeling you are an anarchist without objectives. In which case, the first i've ever had a conversation with.

commented Jan 20, 2014 by Gritz Hill (90 points)

a) You're saying "I know" and then repeating yourself. When you say "it consists of emotional and mental problems to commit crimes", I feel like you're implying that only people with "emotional and mental problems" (whatever those are) commit "crimes" (whatever those are) - when, in reality, this is not the case.
b) You're saying "that is what every anarchist talks about" to an anarchist who is not talking about that. I am telling you that there is no police conspiracy against the poor. What there is is a system that, by its very nature, enforces an oppressive existence upon a wide range of people. The police are tools of that system, not some kind of corrupt conspirator.
c) "If you believe in anarchy you have some sort of morals" - I disagree, depending on what you call morals. If you believe that abstract concepts like "good" and "evil" and "justice" are useful and can be a basis for decision-making, then I attest that I'm against morality.
f) Why are "psychopaths" exempt from this goal of "rehabilitation"? And why do you imagine that the goal of any anarchist society is to enforce a singular code of behavior on a populace?
g) So you're still saying that labor camps are the solution to "major crimes", which is still a wide generalization (or a label so vague that it's useless, maybe).
h)
- 1) Lie detectors are unreliable to the point that they're not even admissible as evidence in the current American legal system. Gender is not necessarily connected to genitalia. And once again, this is not a problem with the method of inflicting consequences - this is a problem with the method of assessing whether a transgression has taken place.
- 2) Not really. I don't understand how it's contradictory to say that the concept of conflict-resolution or revenge perhaps ought to be driven primarily by the wishes of whoever was the target of transgression, but not with total disregard for its effect on others.
- 3) For some reason, you're assuming that extreme retaliatory violence would be something that happens easily or carelessly. You're also assuming that, in the event of being sent to a "rehabilitation center" under false pretenses, someone would be able to easily clear up the mistake and get out within a week - which, honestly, makes no sense to me. How is this any different from a prison and what makes you think it would be easier to clear up false-pretense imprisonment in a labor camp compared to false-pretense imprisonment in modern society?

I don't know why you assume that there is only one potential form for anarchy to take in some idealized anarchist future. As it turns out, anarcho-syndicalism is only one form of anarchism. I have no interest in formulating a new society based on town hall voting to determine proper morality and codes of law.

commented Jan 20, 2014 by Rice Boy (8.7k points)

2 Answers

lawrence · Answer 1 · 2014-01-19T22:19:57+0000

A replica of what happened in Catalunya during the revolution? I'm not sure you even know what happened if you assert that the CNT militias were "responsible for sending off the 'bad people' to paying labor camps." First, the militias were off fighting the Nationalists at the front; it was the "control patrols" that were enforcing revolutionary order in the rear. Second, who were these "bad people"? Why did the CNT think they were "bad"? Please clarify. Third, there were no "paying labor camps" run by the CNT.

Sending people ("bad" or not) to labor camps is not very anarchist at all, sorry to say. Okay, I'm actually not sorry to say that. It was bad enough that there was an anarchist Minister of Justice and that there was at least one anarchist prison warden. Anarchists should never be involved in the incarceration of anyone.

To say that today's prison system involves victims (of what?) picking "what the attacker deserves" flies in the face of actual experience. You seem confused, but I'll give you the benefit of one doubt. Please explain more precisely what you mean. "Insults or whatever" provisionally suspended.

answered Jan 19, 2014 by lawrence (570 points)

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/prison-labor-camps-during-spanish-revolution-your-opinions-05102011

where i got that. Though if you read my comment on what dot posted, I am no longer in favor of that. The bad people where the racists, fascists, Catholics, some even communists and violent people who caused maham in the streets. I herd that the C.N.T militias were responsible for rehabilitating these people. Or killing them in self defense.

Right, I was exaggerating. But still in my mind just as bad if not worse.

1)What if there was a mistake? So a man raped women and for punishment an innocent man who looks like the man who raped her gets his balls cut off. Meanwhile the rapist is lierking in the streets unpunished.
2) what if they want the person to be incarcerated?
3) how can people determine if the "victim is lying or not? What if generally people don't like the victim and ignore his/her requests?

commented Jan 19, 2014 by Gritz Hill (90 points)

Dude, you're confused, and your confusion is not helping anyone address whatever points you're trying to make. There are way too many assumptions embedded in your assertions to be able to dissect what you're trying to say.

It looks like you're trying to get at anarchist solutions/experiments in dealing with aberrant behavior during a revolutionary situation, but I'm not sure, because you're mixing that with how things are today (even though clearly you have a skewed understanding of the criminal justice system as it's currently -- and imperfectly -- constituted). Your concern with innocent people being punished unjustly by a thoroughly class-biased system of justice surely is not comparable to what existed in revolutionary Catalunya? It's apples and oranges.

"Insults or whatever" still provisionally suspended.

commented Jan 19, 2014 by lawrence (570 points)

I didn't say you like the current system, I said you have a skewed understanding of it (if you really think that victims determine attacker's punishments, for example). That's part of your confusion. So yes, you are wholly mistaken. Further, if you think that class has no bearing on whether innocent people are punished, then I don't think you understand what is meant by "class."

If you think that innocent people weren't caught up in popular justice in revolutionary Catalunya, then you are woefully uninformed. The unleashing of working class revenge against the ruling and owning class meant that all kinds of abuses occurred. From summary executions of anyone who dressed like a bourgeois or a cleric, to the settling of old scores between workers... These things were everyday occurrences, so much so that CNT periodicals lamented them at the time. It seems to me that you're implying that because the CNT-FAI was effectively in charge, that therefore nothing unjust could occur. This is nonsense, and I call ignorance and bullshit.

commented Jan 19, 2014 by lawrence (570 points)

I said I was exaggerating if you think I was comparing the two systems. -_- It has nothing to do with class because in that system the innocent would be punished because someone made a mistake. A poor person can make a mistake, a rich person can make a mistake. Unless of course when you mean "class" you are not referring to the rich, middle and poor. Of course in the current justice system poor innocent people get punished but clearly that's not what I am talking about.

Yes in the year 1936. When nuns and priests were executed. Okay i get that. But from then on rehabilitation centers where set up. Which sure didn't eliminate innocent people getting killed or whatever but I would imagine it lowered that down. I mean if you are wrongfully sent to a rehabilitation center then all you must do is prove to them you don't need to be there.

commented Jan 19, 2014 by Gritz Hill (90 points)

Trigger warning: "insults or whatever" to begin. You're an idiot.

Class has *everything* to do with justice in the current system, whether innocent or guilty. Upper and middle class people get off far more often than poor people do, whether innocent or guilty. The current system is only coincidentally about determining guilt or innocence; it's much more about enforcing class rule. Sometimes rich people get caught, and sometimes they do time, but that is a rarity. I'm not exaggerating.

Nuns, priests, laity, bosses, snitches, pimps, drug dealers, hired thugs, antisocial elements... all were executed at some time or another. I do not lament it, I'm just describing what happened. If the question of innocence or guilt (of what?) is important to you, then what mechanisms do you think the CNT implemented for "proving you don't need to be" in a "rehabilitation center" -- and why not just call it jail?

Sounds to me like you're insisting that the CNT-FAI never did anything questionable, which is certainly an idiotic thing to assert. Read a book.

commented Jan 19, 2014 by lawrence (570 points)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sJJDxcXZbXA/UO2z-0H1guI/AAAAAAAAAC0/fD6Y26KnjOk/s1600/Facepalm.png

THAT"S NOT WHAT I FUCKING MEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'll say this once, and if you're still confused then I'll just let you think this one through. I wasn't talking about the current justice system. examples: "Of course in the current justice system poor innocent people get punished but clearly that's not what I am talking about. also "Conspiracy against the poor" You sorta wasted your time preaching to the choir. I was talking about the stupid victim picks the out come of the attacker theory. Though, I should probably say that's slightly my fault for not making it clear enough.

Yes that happened. They were also sent to rehabilitation centers. And it abolished the conspiracy against the poor. It gave more people a second chance. For the most part, minus the war and anyone being labeled fascists, people lived comfortable lives. Most people considered it to be a Utopian society. And this isn't propaganda or documentaries I'm getting this from. I've literally talked to some of the anarchists who were involved. Of course I don't regard it as Utopian because they enforced violence on anyone who was remotely seen as an enemy of the C.N.T. But I also don't condemn them for it, because really, at that time and the circumstances they were in, a peaceful solution would've been impractical and within less then three months after the revolution, the fascists would have taken over. So at least the fascists had to wait four long years.

What would you say your ideal anarchist society would be if you seem to think Revolutionary Catalonia was a complete failure? What would you want to replace the current justice system?

commented Jan 20, 2014 by Gritz Hill (90 points)

Categories

Is it a contradiction for me to believe in laws and in some form of incarceration?

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to answer this question.

2 Answers

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.