Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[FireIceTalon]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2...80295.html

I'm not one to give any respect to bourgeois politics or the actions of its oppressive state apparatus, but props to the citizens of Maryland for doing this. Now, if only they could get rid of LIP w/o possibility of parole.

[shoju]

This happened in the town I live in.

This man raped, and suffocated, and destroyed a 6 month old baby.
AND THEN he laid the dead baby in bed next to her mother.

And then tried to argue that he was too drunk to realize that what he was doing was going to kill the baby.
Sorry, Brievek, and this guy can rot in hell. The sooner the better.

[FireIceTalon]

^^A horrible story indeed. My heart goes out to her family.

That being said, I still cannot support the death penalty in the big picture (even if guys like the one you posted probably deserve it) under a capitalist system - it is the same thing as murder except it is sanctioned by the state. It is a expensive, outdated, draconian law...and furthermore it is a very poor deterrent for crime (since almost all crime is a product of the material conditions and highly stressful environment of capitalism, and will occur so long as social and economic inequalities persist). Under a more humane social organization of society my opinion could very well change, I don't know. We should spend more time attacking problems that create criminal behavior in the first place, instead of focusing on punishing people for what they have done. Another problem with the death penalty is that the very justice system itself is greatly flawed, and heavily rigged against working class people, minorities, or other groups of people who are viewed as "undesirable" or "inferior" from a capitalist culture perspective, so they are overwhelmingly more likely to be charged and convicted than a capitalist or police officer is (even though capitalists and the bourgeois politicians that serve them commit crimes against humanity every single day). Of course, there are exceptions like the guy in your article - right now, I find it inconvenient that I'm an atheist because there is no hell for me to wish him to go to. And yes, Brievek is scum too - total fascist/zionist/chauvinistic murdering piece of shit.

[shoju]

The problem with the cost of the death penalty has more to do with how it is implemented, than the task of actually carrying out said horror.

I'm not one who advocates the death penalty in all circumstances. I don't think that the person executed in Ohio previous to this guy necessarily needed to be put to death. But I cannot advocate to completely remove it as a penalty either. I think we need to be more judicious in who we execute. Not every murderer needs to be executed.

But there are some, where the death penalty is a fitting end.

And I agree, we should put more time and effort into making sure that we tackle the problems that create monsters.

But, if we abolish the death penalty, I cannot in good conscious even begin to agree with you that we should remove Life without parole. Brievik will never be rehabilitated. He will never change his world views. He will never be a functioning member of a society that is accepting of those he feels have spoiled his culture. Manson is just as crazy now as he was when he had his little cult of people. These people have not shown the ability to rejoin society and be a functioning member of it.

Removing the ability to incarcerate them for life, and at the same time, remove the ability to execute them is just not a reasonable solution to the problem. At least, not with the way things are currently. Maybe, after a decade plus of time spent working to rehabilitate our justice system, and our mental health system, we can look at changing things. But at this point, it's just not a feasible solution.

[kandrathe]

I'd opt for something that serves as more of a deterrent than 3 square meals per day, workout room and all day cable tv. Some crimes are so heinous that we'd be crazy to ever risk allowing the offender back into our society. Yet, we routinely do, and we see high amounts of recidivism -- mostly because we have nearly zero investment in their rehabilitation. Even so, I think there are people who are too crazy or too socially malevolent to ever be set free. What to do, what to do?

Why do people commit serious crimes? Some are extremely mentally ill. I would actually posit that most rapists, pederasts, murderers, etc. are in some way insane. Can we repair them, and is it worth it? Whether it be nurture or nature, some people rationally choose to commit crimes and should be punished for their actions. Take OJ. Even though he was acquitted of murder (probably a jealous rage), he ended up where he inevitably belonged after continued sociopathic behaviors. Most upstanding citizens don't end up in legal troubles every couple years.

In principle, I'm against any government having the power to kill people, since it has been misused in the past, and it will be misused in the future. When the crime is extremely terrible, and the guilt is incontrovertible, then it may be the most expedient way to eliminate the danger to our society. But, we've made our system very expensive since we convict too many wrong people by mistake. Shoju said, "Maybe, after a decade plus of time spent working to rehabilitate our justice system, and our mental health system, we can look at changing things." But, it is because it is so borked that we need to NOT kill people. We are undoubtably killing some people who are innocent of the crimes for which they've been convicted.

What we need is something humane, that requires daily labor, and discipline (in the best sense of that word). We may never let them back into society, but we can help them to make their lives during incarceration worthwhile. That might be the best type of rehabilitation; to give them vocational skills, and a sense of pride in what they are doing. Whatever they earn can be used to pay for their upkeep, and to compensate the victims for loss. But, we've all seen "The Shawshank Redemption", so yes, without proper oversights, checks and balances, any system of power can be corrupted.

[eppie]

I'd opt for something that serves as more of a deterrent than 3 square meals per day, workout room and all day cable tv. Some crimes are so heinous that we'd be crazy to ever risk allowing the offender back into our society. Yet, we routinely do, and we see high amounts of recidivism -- mostly because we have nearly zero investment in their rehabilitation. Even so, I think there are people who are too crazy or too socially malevolent to ever be set free. What to do, what to do?

Why do people commit serious crimes? Some are extremely mentally ill. I would actually posit that most rapists, pederasts, murderers, etc. are in some way insane. Can we repair them, and is it worth it? Whether it be nurture or nature, some people rationally choose to commit crimes and should be punished for their actions. Take OJ. Even though he was acquitted of murder (probably a jealous rage), he ended up where he inevitably belonged after continued sociopathic behaviors. Most upstanding citizens don't end up in legal troubles every couple years.

In principle, I'm against any government having the power to kill people, since it has been misused in the past, and it will be misused in the future. When the crime is extremely terrible, and the guilt is incontrovertible, then it may be the most expedient way to eliminate the danger to our society. But, we've made our system very expensive since we convict too many wrong people by mistake. Shoju said, "Maybe, after a decade plus of time spent working to rehabilitate our justice system, and our mental health system, we can look at changing things." But, it is because it is so borked that we need to NOT kill people. We are undoubtably killing some people who are innocent of the crimes for which they've been convicted.

What we need is something humane, that requires daily labor, and discipline (in the best sense of that word). We may never let them back into society, but we can help them to make their lives during incarceration worthwhile. That might be the best type of rehabilitation; to give them vocational skills, and a sense of pride in what they are doing. Whatever they earn can be used to pay for their upkeep, and to compensate the victims for loss. But, we've all seen "The Shawshank Redemption", so yes, without proper oversights, checks and balances, any system of power can be corrupted.

I agree with you on this topic that has been discussed here so many times already.
Of course the guy that meat mentioned doesn't deserve anything else as the death penalty if we are 100% sure he did it.
He might have done it in a drunken state, but it is too dangerous to just let him go. Also, if he truly is such a nice person, he for sure can't even live with himself.
SO you have clearly people who deserve the death penalty, but could be rehabilitated and those who couldn't. You have those who deserve being rehabilitated and those who don't deserve.
etc. etc. very complicated.

Then there is the thing that the countries that have death penalty are also those countries with corrupt, not-functioning or class or race based justice systems and that is where the big issue is.
No only do you have the fact that in most cases you can't be 100% sure the guy really committed the crime (even if he admitted it) but you also have the fact that people have more chance of being sentenced to death based on their wealth, race or religion and that is just wrong.

[shoju]

@Eppie: I'm Shoju, not meat.

Most of the information that I have found based on people who were wrongly executed, or pardoned from Death Row, are convictions that are 20+ years old, when DNA / fingerprinting / etc.. weren't as advanced as they are today. Was there a time, and a place where things were done poorly? Absolutely. Do I think that we are moving past that? Absolutely.

Now mind you, I'm not championing for the death penalty to stay in it's current form. Even as it current is done, it's not even close to working the way that it was intended, and it does need overhauled.

But I believe that there is a time and place for the Death Penalty.

Of course we can cite times, and places where it was used poorly, and improperly. And I'm sure that there will be times where yet again, it will be used wrong, and abused.

But, like a lot of things, I just don't feel that because something bad happened, or that there was a failure in the system is a reason to scrap a system. The judicial and corrections systems are horridly flawed, and have at times proven to be the worst of the worst in terms of use, and abuse. But we don't scrap them. We look to improve them. We look to make the necessary changes to make them function better.

I think the Death Penalty should be paired down in scope. I think that it should be reserved for only the most heinous cases, and i think that we should really look to tighten the definition of what fits that ideology.

If Mr. Holmes is found to be of sound mind, I think he's a candidate, just like Brievik, just like the baby raping murderer.

I think putting someone to death who isn't of sound mind is a problem. I think that putting someone to death in some instances is just as big of a crime as what they committed. But there are times, when I think it's just what needs to happen.

And I have to disagree with the ideology, that you can't be 100% sure the person "really" committed the crime. Look at the three I mentioned. There is no doubt. There is no debate. They did it. The evidence, the confession, the post trial behavior, it's all 100% consistent. Because a family doesn't believe that their loved one did it is irrelevant.

The mother of my oldest's family are the classic example of this. She has never been wrong. She has never been guilty.
She left her husband, and moved her drug dealer in.
She went missing for long periods of time.
She was arrested with the drugs on her, and a "crack manufacturing facility" in her home.
She stole from them, and her children. (Yes. She stole the cash her family gave her children for christmas)
She was arrested again, passed out, testing positive for the drugs, which she had on her.
She went to prison
She got out
She went back to doing the same pattern (sans children)
She went back to prison
She went to Rehab
She relapsed
She went to Rehab
She relapsed
She went to Rehab
She relapsed
She got out
She stayed clean
things started coming up missing
she started going missing
her boyfriend came home to a house full of people all stoned out of their mind.
She's now on the run.

This whole time, her parents and grandparents have enabled her, by living in denial that there was a problem. The saga has been so devastating that is has fractured her family. She is just not a topic they talk about anymore, because one sister committed suicide over the devastation is had on her family, the other sister wishes she would just OD, her parents say it's not her fault, her grandparents keep bailing her out, her aunt's and uncles want nothing to do with her.

Denial, is a powerful thing. There is no denying what she did. But her family swears it's been a string of bad decisions on who to hang out with. It's not her. it's not their daughter.

[FireIceTalon]

If the justice system, being an essential part of the state (which is an organ of class dictatorship), as well as a reflection and self-justifying instrument of an class system (which capitalism undoubtedly is), then the entire justice system itself is equally flawed by default and therefore any attempt to "improve" it is futile, and only strengthens or enhances the social relationships within prevailing social order. I have about as much desire to do that as I want to drown when I go swimming. You say it isn't working as intended, Shoju, but given the material analysis, I beg to differ - it is working almost EXACTLY as intended. The whole thing fails miserably, and needs to be scrapped. And I don't just mean the justice system. Bernstein Reformism is essentially utopian, and a load of crap.

[shoju]

So, in your communist dreams, what do you do with the criminals? The murderers, the Thieves, the Corrupt, The Abusers, etc...? I mean, if the justice system is part of the state, which is an organ of class dictatorship, then what would communism do?

I mean, I'd point to the obvious things, and say that USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba have "EXCELLENT" (insert air quotes and eye roll here) Track records of human rights ideologies like what you are championing, but you'll just point out that even thought they claim to be communist, they aren't "Really" communist.

So really, what would you do? What would you do with a guy like Brievik? A guy who firmly believes that those who aren't pure heritage of his homeland should be killed, what would you do with a guy like Holmes? Certainly, even in Communism, there are going to be people who are capable of doing unspeakable things.

Unless of course, in your communism, it's all perfect, and there is no crime, and there are no thieves, and there are no broken laws.

[FireIceTalon]

I mean, I'd point to the obvious things, and say that USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba have "EXCELLENT" (insert air quotes and eye roll here) Track records of human rights ideologies like what you are championing, but you'll just point out that even thought they claim to be communist, they aren't "Really" communist.

Sigh, this troll-based argument again. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since we are living in a nation where we have a president who is pushing policies of austerity, war and counter-terrorism, and rewarding private capital while shitting all over the working class; and the people are calling it "socialism" or "Marxism". The mind-fuckery of this is indescribable to me. Really shows how intellectually inept, backwards, and gullible the American public is. It is pretty depressing really.

And yes, I will say they (the countries you listed) aren't communist, because to say otherwise is historically inaccurate. As I stated above, people will throw labels ON ANYTHING without knowing what they actually mean. This isn't my opinion, it is a fact: Communism, by defintion, is a classless/stateless society where the means of production is communally owned by all. Last I checked, the countries you named all had class systems, and of course, as a result, they all had states. By definition, it would be impossible for them to be communist. And no, this isn't "my" definition of communist, its THE ONLY definition of communism, which was conceived long before I was even a thought. Just because you accept the slanderous, bourgeois and intellectually dishonest definition of communism, as promoted by our bourgeois media, the ideological state apparatus, and our banking-system of primary (and secondary also) of education doesn't make it so. I can sit here and call myself a proud American, but if I start burning US flags and bibles, would you say by definition that I am still a proud American? I could give a shit what a person or country labels themselves as - only the material conditions matter. Hitler called himself anti-capitalist, but his actions did wonders to oppress the German working class, and did a relatively good job furthering the interests of German capitalists (even if the Nazi Party ultimately seized economic power for itself to achieve its Bonaparte-like, imperialist ambitions which proved destructive for German capitalism), and he was also very openly anti-communist. In fact, the initial mission of the Nazi Party (and fascism in general) was to prevent communism from being realized, by suppressing the working class from taking revolutionary action and the Enabling Act of 1933, which banned the SPD.

As a matter of fact, the USSR, N.Korea, Cuba and China are just state-capitalist regimes with heavy handed bureaucracies wrapped in a red flag, nothing more. They, like liberal democracies, do a wonderful job of fitting the bill of using capitalist Great Man theories of history and cult of personalities to justify their privileged position - it has nothing to do with communism, or really even Marxism for that matter. Just because the state has a higher degree of control over production, distribution of resources, or even the overall daily lives of its citizens doesn't make it any less capitalist than the liberal capitalism of the West. It's a false dichotomy that the Western propaganda machine has brilliantly presented as "socialism vs. capitalism" to millions of intellectually brain-dead Americans, who eat it up like candy because thinking critically (especially in a dialectical manner) is a foreign concept to most of them. At the end of the day, Cold War politics is all about capitalism vs. capitalism, despite the rhetoric of both the former SU and the U.S., the degree of state control is not what matters here (it matters in other ways but not to what we are discussing here). The competition for global dominance of international markets by the mega industrial super-powers is what the Cold War was all about, not capitalism vs. communism. If capitalism exists anywhere in the world, that means socialism has not yet come to pass, and therefore cannot exist until capitalism is defeated entirely. FACT. So we can add the material atrocities of those nations to capitalisms crimes against humanity list.

Contrary to what you were taught in your high school history class, the whole Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country" was NOT debunked by bourgeois historians or media pundits as we are so often told, but rather it was debunked by a large number of Marxists following The Second International who criticized the Bolsheviks well before Stalin even came to power. Not that they didn't necessarily support the Bolshevik Revolution (some did, some did not), but were critical of some of its policies that resulted after the Revolution whether they supported it or not, as well as skepticism towards some of the theories within Leninism (in particular Vanguardism and Democratic Centralism). Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit more on what Marxism really is (and isn't) and why there are multiple tendencies within it (as you seem to think there is one encompassing theory in it - which is a vulgar distortion of Marxism) instead of just blindly accepting something you read in a text book, or something you saw on CNN, FAUX, MSNBC or the Huffington Post...and maybe read a little more history in general.

This isn't about ideologies, this is about an material analysis of the WORKINGS of the capitalist system, which your ahistorical idealism and 'appeal to emotion' politics does not provide and therefore isn't very useful for scientifically understanding the system in which we live; you seem to be more interested in arguing about ideological semantics (yawn) than about the material realities of the justice system under capitalism. Most criminal behavior is a result of social and economic inequalities that exist as a result of property relationships, and the so-called "crazies" you speak of are a vast minority - the prison population of the United States consists overwhelmingly of non-violent offenders (most of them drug related offenses). Of course, the US media parades the violent crime the most, because 1.) we live in a capitalist culture that loves and glorifies violence and the objectification of women, because thats what SELLS and is thus profitable, both in a monetary context and for ratings, and 2.) because the media is controlled by a handful of capitalists who want to impose their faulty and cynical view of human nature onto the rest of us, as justification for the continuance and re-enforcement of their capitalist dystopia. It is they who determine what is knowledge, common sense, and not only what is discussed and reported, but the very language and context that is acceptable to discuss it. "The ruling ideas of every epoch have ever been the ideas of its ruling class".

As for a justice system in a communist society, there are lots of theories and opinions on how it would work, if there is one at all. Generally though, because a communist society is classless (and therefore stateless) the social and economic inequalities that we see now would cease to exist. Does this mean all crime would disappear? All is a pretty strong word. Nevertheless, humans would not be living under the alienation and estrangement that they do now, because no one is being exploited or oppressed anymore - so I would venture to say most of it would. It is probably impossible to eliminate criminal behavior ENTIRELY, but there are certainly differences in how it would be dealt with in comparison to how it is now. There probably would be the occasional person that was unfit to live in society or not be a danger to those around him/her. However, it would be entirely up to the people, and not some state acting in the interests of a ruling class as under capitalism, onto how such people should be dealt with, and what punishment, if any, is fitting for a particular crime. In general though, the goal for any socialist should be to rehabilitate and not to punish if at all possible - afterall the whole reason of being socialist is because we favor humanity. I might actually be more in favor of the death penalty in a communist society than I am now, because under communism people who commit a horrid crime like the ones mentioned in this thread would have no excuse then. I can't say for sure, but it seems logical to me. But people like Breviek, who are very reactionary, and very anti-human, would likely be little more than a mere memory. The behavior, thoughts, and nature of people in general under socialism would be much different than it would be under capitalism - because they are two entirely different social orders...just as those who lived under slave or feudal society had a very different conception of the world they lived in that those under capitalism do. So it is doubtful that people like good ol' Brev would exist to begin with - the material conditions that produce people like him would be long gone. Everything in a socialist society, from the family structure all the way to the entire culture would look and function radically different than it under capitalism, because they have two entirely different social relationships. As I've stated many times, human nature is a complex social construct of our thoughts and views, and our actions. It isn't innate, and it isn't static either - its a reflection (not a cause) of the material world in which we live and ultimately changes as those conditions change. The whole purpose of Marxism is not to sit here and predict what socialism will look like and how it will function (though socialists do this all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that) - the purpose of Marxism is to understand how to bring about socialism as a possible (but not necessarily inevitable) alternative to the current social order BY UNDERSTANDING the current social order. No system of analysis (Marxist or otherwise) can use itself to say a particular future is preordained or what it will look like (this would be overly deterministic), nor should it be used as such. The laws of history are very complex and there are an overwhelming amount of factors that go into how class relationships will play out, but by understanding things as they were in the past and currently are, we can use it to say which futures are possible (but once again, not inevitable) and which are not, and try to come up with solutions that make that future possible.

[kandrathe]

So, in your communist dreams, what do you do with the criminals?

Gulag.




"As for a justice system in a communist society, there are lots of theories and opinions on how it would work, if there is one at all. Generally though, because a communist society is classless (and therefore stateless) the social and economic inequalities that we see now would cease to exist. Does this mean all crime would disappear? All is a pretty strong word. Nevertheless, humans would not be living under the alienation and estrangement that they do now, because no one is being exploited or oppressed anymore - so I would venture to say most of it would."

So, you were in essence correct; "in your his communist dreams" -- there will exist a place where we all run around naked and pick fruit from the trees, and no one ever gets jealous or angry. Communism removes all motivation for crime. Communism removes all mental illness.

Communism is magic.

[FireIceTalon]

^^Nice troll post, with strawmans aplenty. Anyways, communism aint magical. Afterall, the magic (the so-called invisible hand, right? Who controls the invisible hand anyways, Santee Clawz or the Toof Fairy? Or is it God himself? Oh wait, I know, the ghost of Adam Smith!) of the free-market will solve all the problems in the end It isn't Marxism that is the religion, as you once accused it of being, but rather it is CAPITALISM that has turned out to be the religion, and The Wall Street Journal and the Economist are its bibles. Commodity Fetishism is the new 'Christianity' for Americans. Capitalism is indeed very magical - it magically puts all the wealth and power into the pockets of a few property-owning parasites (even though it was the workers labor who created said wealth, but hey, you aren't supposed to know that part!) and then shouts "Freedom!!", "Equality of opportunity for all!!", "the wealth will trickle down!", and "Democracy!!", "work hard and you will get ahead!" (even though capitalists in general, do, well, no work, since the army of wage slaves does it all for them while they sit back and collect the profits and make the rules). Then, when capitalism falls on its ass, and these things it claims to be are proven as falsehoods, and the workers put two and two together, capitalism's big brother, Fascism shows up with the big stick to save his lil bro.

In short - Capitalism is the biggest sham ever known to humankind, surpassing even traditional religious doctrines.

[kandrathe]

We can fight over who gets to use the communal toothbrush first.

[FireIceTalon]

No need to, since everyone would have their own toothbrush just as they do now.

Actually, there are probably communities NOW, under capitalism, that do have a "communal" toothbrush sadly, or more likely, no toothbrush at all. Since capitalism is the maximization of profits and expansion of markets - entirely indifferent to, if not completely hostile towards, human needs. You crack such jokes as if you are like "hey look at me, I'm bashing communism neener neener neener", but the joke is on capitalism only since that is the system we live under.

[shoju]

It's not a troll based argument. It's a serious point.

The USSR claimed they were communist. They claimed it. No one else.
Cuba Claimed to be communist. Castro said it. No one else.
I'm not 100% sure on China. They have been labeled Communist. I've not tried to bother researching it.
Nor North Korea for that matter.

So fine, We'll get rid of China and North Korea. That leaves Cuba and USSR. they called it communism. We didn't. They said they were.

So "If there is one at all".

You mean Communism will remove the human idea to covet someone else's "stuff"? Because "Stuff" isn't just material stuff. Let's deal with the easiest to point out.

I'm married. I have a beautiful wife.
You want to sleep with my wife.
And she decides to sleep with you.
And I catch you sleeping with my wife.
And in a stupid rage, I kill you both.

What happens to me?

You are so obsessed with the idea that Communism (the "REAL" Communism) wipes out all of the materialist based inequalities in the world.

but it doesn't remove jealousy.
It doesn't remove adultery.
It doesn't remove people who will steal. My Son's mother could ask her grandparents for ANYTHING. They would give her money to go buy drugs if it meant that she would not steal from someone. She has anything and everything she could ever want. She just had to ask.
2 months ago, instead of asking them for money, she stole their 50" LCD TV out of the basement, and got high.

What do you do with Drug Dealers? Will you go Brave New World, and hand out drugs with their weekly pay?
These are serious questions. This isn't "ahistorical idealism and 'appeal to emotion' politics "

These are real questions that you seem to have a problem with. The minute that anything is questioned, you treat it as a troll type thing.

If I wanted to troll you, I wouldn't have taken such great pains to make sure that I was engaging in a real conversation. I would have said something like:

So, in your ridiculous communist Notions,
Or
So, in your batshit stupid ideology,
Or
Do you actually believe that this is even remotely sane to believe?

No. Go back and read my post.
So, in your communist dreams, what do you do with the criminals? The murderers, the Thieves, the Corrupt, The Abusers, etc...? I mean, if the justice system is part of the state, which is an organ of class dictatorship, then what would communism do?

You're the professed communist here. Not me. I'm a liberal, with some moderate, and even conservative leaning ideologies. I'm asking what you would do. No snarky shit. No rudeness. Unless you are somehow taking my "Communist dreams" statement out of context. It's a dream, since it hasn't been done, and enacted in a situation that has proved successful.

I mean, I'd point to the obvious things, and say that USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba have "EXCELLENT" (insert air quotes and eye roll here) Track records of human rights ideologies like what you are championing, but you'll just point out that even thought they claim to be communist, they aren't "Really" communist.

I then go on to point out the places that say they were communist, and point out their shittastic humans rights records, and reference, your previous assertions that they weren't "really communist".

Unless of course, in your communism, it's all perfect, and there is no crime, and there are no thieves, and there are no broken laws.
I get a little snarky here, sure. I admit it. Because like I just pointed out, getting rid of the "Personal Private Property", and the rest of the things you detest so much, does not remove all forms of crime.

And I stand by my previous assertion, that Communism is a great theory on paper. You just won't see it ever happen the way it looks on paper. Humans have a long and storied history of not being able to live in a society that espouses the ideology. Call it Human Nature, Call it the Original Sin, whatever you want. Humans have a penchant to destroy, and be hierarchical, lord over those who they think are weaker. That's what my Bourgeois Capitalist Education taught me. And I agree. After lots of thought, I agree.

The closest we'll ever get to communism as a theory is probably socialism. Past that, and it really starts to fall apart.

[FireIceTalon]

The USSR claimed they were communist. They claimed it. No one else.
Cuba Claimed to be communist. Castro said it. No one else.

Very very untrue (and you know this), the U.S. and plenty of Western countries have called The USSR and Cuba as communist - which is intellectually dishonest since the term 'communist country' is an oxymoron, much in the same way the expression 'true lies' is. And in fact, to my knowledge, neither Lenin nor Castro ever said that their respective nations were communist, but even if they did, this still doesn't mean shit. Just cause a country calls itself something doesn't mean it is what it calls itself. The Nazi's called themselves a 'socialist' party, but they were anything but socialist. Labels do not matter man, only material conditions do.

Castro might be a communist, he might want to build socialism, but Cuba is not (and cannot be) a communist country since capitalism is still the prevailing social order. The Cuban Revolution wasn't even a actual proletarian revolution, it was actually a 'National Liberatiion' movement (something most Marxists do not support anyway, though some do). Castro's goal was NOT the overthrow of capitalism, but simply the liberation of the Cuban people from the US sponsored dictator Batista, and the preservation of Cuban culture being altered or destroyed by Western imperialism. And indeed, the Cuban people have prospered much better under Castro than they did Batista - this is a COLD, HARD fact whether you acknowledge it or not, and the statistical data and evidence support this (for instance if we look at the literacy rate of Cubans during Batista and Castro, 60% and 99.8%, respectively). This isn't to say everything Castro has done is great - in many ways his national liberation movement can be seen as reactionary to some extent since national liberation movements tend to preserve or restore a particular culture or nationalism, rather than destroy a class dictatorship (though his did this to some extent, though it obviously still has class distinctions). Do you see the difference here? What I described here is a material analysis (though undoubtedly comrades with a greater knowledge of the history of the Cuban Revolution would be able to provide you with a better and more comprehensive analysis than myself) of the Cuban Revolution, as opposed to an idealist "Castro is bloody tyrant, he killed millions of people that damn communist, blah blah blah!!!", which doesn't explain or help us understand anything.

But if you want to know why countries that are called 'communist' tend to be more authoritarian, the answer is because of capitalism, and that a global proletarian revolution has not yet materialized since they have, also due to capitalism and due to the extreme sectarianism of the left, been unable to form themselves into a revolutionary force. Part of Marxism is understanding why this is the case using a historical material analysis, and how it can be changed. When revolutions are isolated, as was the case in the USSR and Cuba for instance, it is easy for capitalism to attack it and crush it from all sides. From a socialist perspective, if you have spent years (perhaps even decades) trying to build socialism but are surrounded by a global, hostile capitalist world...this presents a dilemma - 1. you either let imperialist nations invade your borders and restore capitalism in full, or 2. You try to hold on to the socialist progress you have made, but under these conditions of isolation, resource scarcity, and only being limited to resources you already have and resources given to you by nations that support your revolution, you face a perversion of socialism and fall into authoritarianism, because the odds are so stacked against you....then it makes for great bourgeois propaganda who point out and say "see, socialism doesn't work" (a useless non-materialist analysis, since all revolutions have their own unique circumstances), even though it was the capitalist nations that MADE it not work, because they do not want it to work. It's like saying a single, working-class mother who is working 3 jobs to feed her children and make ends meet is just lazy and not working hard enough to better her situation, thats the capitalist mentality and rationale - destroy the lives of others and then victim blame. Fucking a, I HATE this system. With a passion....it really is an effort for me to make these posts honestly w/o my blood beginning to boil. Anyways...

Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a organization of society that works only in small populations - its actually quite the oppposite. It DOESN'T work in small populations (which is why the whole 'socialism in one country' philosophy of Stalin was bound to fail). Capitalism is a global system, and therefore socialism, its anti-thesis will need to be also for it to work. Simple geopolitics here.

You mean Communism will remove the human idea to covet someone else's "stuff"? Because "Stuff" isn't just material stuff. Let's deal with the easiest to point out.

I'm married. I have a beautiful wife.
You want to sleep with my wife.
And she decides to sleep with you.
And I catch you sleeping with my wife.
And in a stupid rage, I kill you both.

What happens to me?

The problem with this is that you assume relationships between people will stay the same under communism as they are now - this is highly presumptuous, and very deterministic! No Marxist would dare make such a bold prediction, yet you do it freely - this is typical of telological idealists who believe human nature is some fixed intrinsic concept that assumes people are ALWAYS the same (hint: they are not, and demonstrably so). Marriage between 1 man and 1 women is a bourgeois concept, and was originally done for property purposes (and in most cases still is). You assume polyamorous relationships will not exist, which under communism is a very strong possibility that they would since monogamous relationships are a product bourgeois society. Even under capitalism, polyamorous relationships while still very stigmatized, are becoming more common - though such a relationship isn't beneficial since most industrialized western societies recognize marriage between two people, usually 1 man 1 women, and the economic and social benefits are much greater (which is why marriage, ultimately, is tied to private property). If your wife wants to sleep with me (or anyone else) she has a right to do so without fear of you killing her. She is NOT your fucking property (nor are you hers), as you seem to imply. Does this make it right for her to do? Not necessarily, but neither do you have the right to physically harm her or the person she slept with. In a communist society, if you guys decide ahead of time to have a monogamous relationship, that is your preference that you are entitled to, but if she cheats on you, you cannot kill her, just as you cannot do so now. And vice versa. The only difference is, in a communist society, it will be the community, instead of a state, that decides your fate if you did such a thing. Most socialists tend to be more forgiving than capitalists, because we have a less cynical view towards human nature, so you may actually be punished less harshly than you would under capitalism. But who knows for sure, it would probably depend on the particular community you lived in, as well as the particular nature and circumstances of the situation.

You are so obsessed with the idea that Communism (the "REAL" Communism) wipes out all of the materialist based inequalities in the world.

but it doesn't remove jealousy.
It doesn't remove adultery.

Nor does it claim to. But again, you presume relationships will be the same as they are now, which is idealistic, and faulty logic. And again, adultery is a bourgeois concept - since marriage implies you are one anothers property (though usually the woman belongs to the man since patriarchal relationships predate capitalism even, but continued well into it). Not that I am against marriage if you two want to have a monogamous relationship, do your thing. But what applies to you doesn't necessarily apply to others. If I want to have a relationship with 2, 3, or more women (or men), whose to say I cant, in a communist society? In a capitalist society, I may still be able to do it, but not without being scoffed at, discriminated against, stared at, or judged by others that view my life style as "fringe", "undesirable", or too far outside what is acceptable in our culture, etc.....and that is the whole point I am making here in a critique of capitalist social relationships. The reason I can safely assume things will be so different under communism is due to a material analysis of past systems - people in different social organizations of society, be it tribal society, slavery, feudalism, or capitalism all had very different class structures (or lack thereof in the case of tribal/hunter gatherer society), technology, culture, institutions; and thus their views, behavior, and thought processes, as well as their entire conception of the world around them and how they interacted with it were very different from one another. There is absolutely no reason NOT to believe that the nature, behavior, mentality and outlook of people in a communist organization of society will differ radically than under capitalism, or any other given social organization.

It doesn't remove people who will steal. My Son's mother could ask her grandparents for ANYTHING. They would give her money to go buy drugs if it meant that she would not steal from someone. She has anything and everything she could ever want. She just had to ask.
2 months ago, instead of asking them for money, she stole their 50" LCD TV out of the basement, and got high.

Why does your son's mother get high in the first place? Probably because it feels good and takes her away from reality for a bit, which means there is probably something in life that does NOT make her feel good. Most people who do drugs do so because of the daily stresses of living under capitalism, financial or security issues, working long hard hours, or any number of other factors. Then they become co-dependent on the drug, physically. I do the same thing, except with video games, to help me escape the stress and harsh reality of living under capitalism - even if it takes me away only temporarily and I have to wake up the next day and face it all over again. No one is gonna steal your personal property in a communist society man - if somebody wants something, they can have someone who is capable within the community produce it for them, and they produce something that other person needs with an equal labor value in return. And if someone did happen to steal a personal item of yours, well, like with anything else, it would be up to the community to decide what to do.

What do you do with Drug Dealers? Will you go Brave New World, and hand out drugs with their weekly pay?
These are serious questions. This isn't "ahistorical idealism and 'appeal to emotion' politics "

These are real questions that you seem to have a problem with. The minute that anything is questioned, you treat it as a troll type thing.

Drugs very likely would be legalized, so there would be no need to "sell" them (in the context of which you are referring to). Interestingly enough, drug use is very likely to be reduced greatly since communism will be a much less stressful environment than capitalism. Shit, even under capitalism, the legalization of drugs in some states has already reduced the usage compared to nations where they are still criminalized. If people don't have to live from paycheck to paycheck anymore, they can work the jobs they want to (so long as they are capable), produce the goods THEY want to produce instead of some boss wants them to, have access to quality medical care and education without worrying about finances or discrimination, believe me....the amount of drug usage AND selling is going to be way down from what it is now. I am quite confident that many drugs (except those vital for medical purposes obviously) would eventually not even be produced anymore, or very little since there would be such little demand for them, and there is no longer a profit motive from selling them illegally as they are in many places now. Of course, these are just my thoughts, some other comrades may disagree.

And I stand by my previous assertion, that Communism is a great theory on paper. You just won't see it ever happen the way it looks on paper.

Presumptuous. There was a time when people said we would never walk on the moon either. If you could go back to the middle ages in a time machine and bring them here, they'd fucking shit themselves at how different our world is from the one they came from. Hell even someone from 50 years ago would shit themselves now probably.

Humans have a long and storied history of not being able to live in a society that espouses the ideology. Call it Human Nature, Call it the Original Sin, whatever you want. Humans have a penchant to destroy, and be hierarchical, lord over those who they think are weaker. That's what my Bourgeois Capitalist Education taught me. And I agree. After lots of thought, I agree.

And they taught you wrong (probably on purpose). Humans have a penchant to destroy, be hierarchical, lord over those who they view as weaker AS A RESULT OF LIVING IN CLASS BASED SOCIETIES. There is overwhelming archeological evidence that hunter/gatherer societies were very highly egalitarian in structure, and there was no state. Humans in fact, in these societies were very cooperative with one another, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to live and evolve for over 100,000 years - they were actually a form of 'primitive communism' if you will. If we were the savages that idiots like Hobbes and todays bourgeois philosophers make us out to be, we would have never made it out of the trees. But here we are. Enlightenment philosophers were progressive and perhaps even brilliant thinkers for their time, but now, they are just outdated, backwards, and plain silly to me.

Class based societies have existed for only a very tiny portion of our existence, somewhere between 5-10,000 years, and capitalism has only existed for the blink of an eye (about 250-350 years give or take). The whole notion that humans are destructive and selfish is based on a cynical view of human nature used as propaganda to justify one groups oppression of another, under capitalism we here it under such absurd statements that "capitalism is the natural order of things". It is ANYTHING BUT the natural order of things, or it would have existed since the beginning of human evolution, but it has not. Not even close. The whole human nature argument that capitalists use to justify their privileged position is easily disproved by using a material analysis of both our history and pre-history. It is actually capitalism, not communism, that is a betrayal of our nature, and the first 100-150,000 years of human evolution, which was essentially classless, is pretty solid evidence of this.

Humans are actually very rational, adaptive creatures that can adjust to a variety of environments. The reason class socities developed to begin with was a change in the mode of production and technology. In tribal/hunter-gatherer societies, people labored and produced what they needed to survive, and that was it - it didn't result in a surplus of goods because there were no bosses that existed that we had to produce a surplus of goods for, which they would extract as a profit for themselves. The change in technology and the mode of production came during The Agricultural Revolution, when surpluses of goods started being produced - and it was this where classes began to form because a stronger few found they could horde the surplus resources for themselves, and exploit those who were weaker. This was the first development of the first class based societies (slavery) which culminated in the formation of large empires like the Roman Republic - the accumulation of goods and wealth required the formation of a centralized power - the state - to protect the interests of the ruling class, and thus began the history of class struggles - all of which have either resulted in the common ruin of the involved conflicting classes by economic and social decay, or by the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class by the ruled class. Hunter/gatherer and tribal societies lacked a state, because there were no classes, thus no state was needed. Only the proletarian has the ability to put an end to all class struggle, and build a society based on common ownership to the means of production, where goods are produced based on human need, and not for profit and exploitation. Capitalism will ultimately meet the same fate as prior class systems have - it will either be destroyed by a revolutionary working class who then create a new, more just and humane society that sees its own class interests met, or it will result in some form of barbarism or other economic and social catastrophe for the human race. As Marxists, we want to ensure the former takes place, and prevent the latter from happening.

I too, had a bourgeois education (and to a great extent still do) like most here probably did, and it took me some 15-20 years to figure out that virtually almost everything I was taught in my primary education, outside of math and maybe a couple science classes, was a lie, a misconception, or a half-truth designed to indoctrinate me with capitalist ideology. In college, there is still plenty of bourgeois indoctrination going on (not quite as bad as when I was in high school, since college encourages critical thinking a bit more, but definitely still there), but at least now my bullshit detectors go off when it happens, whereas in high school and before we were just fed information and told to accept it as truth, and we more or less did. As a result, most people have a very poor or limited conception of how the world really works, and a very ahistorical understanding of human interaction in general. Marxism is the most stupendous, logical, and so far, the highest form of analysis for understanding the material world in which we live. It is a very different perspective and way of looking at the world to be sure, and it is a more complex one as well. I've only been a Marxist for roughly two years and I am still overwhelmed at how complex it can be to understand and apply its methods to events sometimes, yet at the same time it is incredibly logical and as a system of thought it makes perfect sense to me, with its materialist conception of history and dialectical way of thinking.

The closest we'll ever get to communism as a theory is probably socialism. Past that, and it really starts to fall apart.

Did you see this in your crystal ball as well? Not sure what you mean here anyway, since most Marxists use the terms socialism and communism interchangeably and not sure where you got the idea that they are different. I guess for Marxist-Leninists there is a distinction between the two. I however, am not a Marxist-Leninist.

[Taem]

I feel like this topic has been beat to death here at the lounge already, but it's interesting nonetheless to hear a Marxists' point of view on the subject. A fresh injection on old ideas? Still, I find I have nothing more to add that I haven't already said before on this topic. I doubt my opinion has changed much on this subject. Well, that's not entirely true; since the Innocence Project has freed countless falsely accused victims, and since the cost of Capital Punishment is often the same if not more than keeping a prisoner in prison for life, I've found my opinion on the subject has changed. I think there is no need for the death penalty any more, and that the most fitting punishment would be for a murderer to get mental help to come reach a state where he/she felt responsible for what they did, and have to spend the rest of their lives with that guilt behind bars. I could honestly think of nothing more fitting; and if they proved to actually be innocent, then they have a chance to get free. The death penalty laughs in the face of reason when our system is suppose to be rehabilitative, but it is nothing of the sort. Anyways, yada, yada.... non-violent drug offenders 40-60%... legalize drugs to solve majority of problems and have enough money to get the real criminals the psychological help they need to reenter society in a mentally fit way... yada yada. Like I said, we've had this discussion 100x before.

[eppie]

@Eppie: I'm Shoju, not meat.

Damn, sorry about that, I wasn't paying enough attention.

I also theoretically think there should be a death penalty. But practically I think it is very difficult to implement correctly, and it doesn't solve a lot of things.
It is not a deterrent, it isn't cheap, and I share kandrathe's thoughts on that a state should not be allowed to do this to its citizens. Eventhough socially it might in many cases actually be the best thing to do......but who's to decide that?

[shoju]

It's ok

It's not a deterrent. I don't think the death penalty will ever be a deterrent. It's not even a deterrent in countries who execute more than the US.

It's not cheap, because of the implementation. We use it as a addendum to the current system, and the current system isn't cheap. Adding more cost on top of that isn't helping. Allowing people to sit on Death Row for 20+ years isn't helping. This can be changed.

Who is to decide that? Well, the obvious answer in the US, is a jury of your peers. But as we've seen, things happen. people are wrongfully convicted. It happens. Which is why I feel that it should only be an option in situations where guilt or innocence is of no question, and the crime is a downright depraved thing.

I don't share the opinions of some. I don't have a problem with a government holding the power to execute. But I don't hold the fear that our government is turning into some monster either. I think that there are some intensely questionable politicians that end up elected, but I have yet to see it happen en mass enough that we are at the point where we are going to become some uber conservative religious theocracy driven representative republic thing that takes steps backwards from where we are currently.

I'm more interested in ending Selective Service and the Draft than I am the Death Penalty. To me, I have more of a problem with the country holding the power to draft people into the military and send them off to die for a cause that may or may not be right, than I do executed a man who went on a mass murder spree, or raped and killed an infant, or whatever.

It's all about the prioritization that people have for things. Fixing the judicial system, and it's flaws is just not as "big of a deal" (it's still a wish/hope/desire, but not as high on the list) as other things.

Maybe it's my own naivety, Maybe it's my belief that 300 million people will in the end have enough people to balance each other out. Maybe it's my belief that we are headed to a better time politically, and ideologically.

Maybe my opinion on the Death Penatly will change the way that my opinion on Gun Control has. Maybe it wont.

[shoju]

And FiT. No, I'm not wrong.

Castro was the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Cuba from 1961 to 2011. That's not the west labeling him. That's his political party. His choice. His label.

The USSR was ruled by a one party system, The Communist Party, of which Stalin was the General Secretary. He was even heralded as the "genius of the new world, the wisest man of the epoch, the great leader of communism."

Again. Not the west. That quote was from the Russian Political Newspaper, the Pravda.

Hate to be the one to give you the bad news, but it's not the west, It was themselves.

And I was right about China's government claiming to be Communist. they are the Communist Party of China
Also about North Korea. Kim Yong-Bom and Pak Hon-Yong founded the Communist Party of Korea in 1925, and then in 1945 the North Korea Bureau of the Communist Party of Korea came to be.

Again. Not Western Labeling. That's what they chose to call themselves.