89
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by WhyEssEff@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net

what's the end goal here Zohran. 'Socialism' (actually social democracy) but with a roving gang of armed and organized fascists that we just ignore? are we just going to kick the issue of systemic racism down the road because it's "woke 1" to even talk about, until it becomes a powder keg again? this is the actual internal DSA white chauvinism contradiction that MSM are clawing to find but they won't use it as a real wedge because it'd increase the salience of Defund again

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] junebug2@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

You plainly have no practical or theoretical understanding of prison abolition or the movement around it. i don’t care what crimes a person committed, if you have the state power and facilities to build a prison you have the power and facilities to build adult schools and train social workers. You seem to be convinced that there’s some magically bad crime that would make me turn on a dime and say, “oh, of course, those people should be tortured forever.” i am not a Christian, sorry. If someone is a drunk driver or a multiple murderer or even a sex criminal, they should face consequences like never having a license again or having to meet with a social worker regularly. There is no amount of badness you can do that will make you deserve torture. If you don’t have the state apparatus for it, some people will need to be shot. If you do have the state apparatus, why would you build torture camps?!

i will, in the interest of politeness, not mention the degree to which the ‘horror’ or obscenity of certain crimes is used to whip people into anti-black and anti-queer lynch mobs. Also i get that you were cutting and pasting my quotes, but i did say and did mean that the police are less than useless in solving crime. Please listen to anyone talk about trying to get a restraining order for an abusive ex or what cops do during school shootings. The police solve ‘crimes’ that are constructed as lower status. The biggest amount of theft by value is wage theft, but cops never arrest bosses. Drugs are only illegal if you’re in the wrong combination of income bracket and skin color. Corrupt thugs selectively enforcing the law while the biggest thieves and most prolific sex criminals give them marching orders is not justice, it’s a racket. i object to conflating the torture racket with any notion of public order.

If you have any interest in self-education or examining your latent pro-cop brain worms, i recommend the following prison abolition/ queer theory text: https://annas-archive.gl/md5/56342d6e9d03a37cf829fbc8cb384d35

[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

. i don’t care what crimes a person committed, if you have the state power and facilities to build a prison you have the power and facilities to build adult schools and train social workers

I mean this as a genuine point of clarification: if someone is currently a danger to the community and uninterested in cooperating, do we not need to temporarily confine them for the purpose of rehabilitation? If we do, is that not a prison?

Obviously this is not an endorsement of torturing the person, i.e. inflicting any manner of suffering on them to punish them.

[-] junebug2@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

There will be situations in which force or enforcement would be necessary for social order. i’m not idealistically opposed to prisons or confinement as a concept, i am opposed to the existing institution of the Prison, with its own experts and episteme in the “West”. i think it’s impossible to avoid a social situation where there would never be a need for force to restore order. All traces of the currently existing institution would have to be carefully and scientifically excised before that new structure is built. i think that’s the core of prison abolition: this is a capitalist industry and also the boot tramping down on all outsiders and disposables in society. For many of the most marginalized in the Imperial Core, the bleeding edge of systemic violence is the carceral state. For many queer theorists (that is, not Marxists), this level of violence grants prison abolition a central role in struggle. i believe land back and prison abolition movements are non-Marxists who have nevertheless developed a theory and practice during the Western Left’s post-91 wilderness days. i think basically all queer advocates would be best served by forming a group or a faction within the structure and platform of a worker’s party. Nevertheless, we should make some effort to understand their terms and developments.

To directly answer your question, confinement of a struggling threat to the community might involve a prison, but it shouldn’t involve any ‘Prison’. i’m not trying to be arbitrary or capricious about that. The current standards are violently inhumane. For acceptable treatments of ‘inmates’, for the relationship between ‘inmates’, between ‘inmates’ and ‘guards’, and between ‘inmates’ and the people detaining them. It would be impossible for me to articulate exactly what developments would be made in constructing a New (Soviet) Social Worker, but i see it as an area where there’s a lot to be done. Current methods of agriculture are monstrously wasteful and climate destructive, and a new industry would need to be formed from the ground up, between the reality of communities on the ground and the people designing state policy. Similarly, medical workers, education workers, and local government workers would need to form a new system of keeping public order. In a state where, say, fixed costs for the average person are very low, the current US system of fines for municipal violations would be less effective. Does that mean increasing the fines, or finding a new method of punishment? It’s easier to do the former, because the policy and enforcement mechanism already exists.

The use of secret police and distant prisons in the USSR is worthy of careful study in the West. While arguments from reactionaries impose a sort of forced defensive mentality vis a vis the purges, it’s worth noting that in a number of ways the Soviets faced an uncomfortable and unfamiliar problem, and responded by reproducing the institutions that the previous state had used. i am not going to argue that NKVD was worse than or as a bad as the Okhrana, but states are institutions with a certain viewpoint and inertia. Of course it would be cheaper and more efficient to convert prisons in the USA and Europe into holding pens for reactionaries, even temporarily. If you do that though, you are implicitly keeping solitary confinement and execution chambers. i think giving into that temptation, and trying to mold tools designed to bring out the worst of humanity to some other end, is a mistake. The Stanford Prison Experiment has been retracted because the lead psychologist basically told the participants to act out stereotypically. While it’s not a study of untainted human society, it’s still noticeable that the lead researcher expected certain results, and all the participants knew what stereotypes he meant.

USAmerican culture is utterly, top to bottom obsessed with the criminal and the outlaw. Every channel on TV has a cop drama, people say the names of the FBI Most Wanted like celebrities, every local newspaper runs a blotter reporting every crime, the news tracks every car chase obsessively, and so on and so forth. Cultural notions about the ubiquity of violent crime and how people ought to be punished for it will need to be erased and replaced. If you ask any USAmerican, no matter how much of a commie, to imagine a prison, they are going to think of guard towers, barbed wire, bad food, and the looming threat of sexual assault. There is a world of difference between needing to deal with interpersonal violence and needing a complex kick back system of private prison labor teams and the election campaigns for the judges and attorneys that fill them. Are prisons in Cuba inherently wrong or dangerous? i would say no, but Cuba spent decades intentionally reckoning with the cultural legacy of colonialism. That examination and removal of the biases and practices we consider ‘ordinary’ needs to happen or else we will merely reproduce the institutions of bourgeois society.

[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago

What I'm getting from this is that you aren't, in a common person's use of these terms, supporting abolishing prisons, but that you are supporting abolishing "Prisons," which is sort of an abstract category that relates to some of the historical approaches to confinement and torture but is much more specific than the general use of the word prison in common language, and beyond that I guess also that the literal physical prisons are architecturally designed in ways that are overly conducive to abuse, but that there should still literally be physical prisons where people are kept for as long as we can't feasibly trust them not to cause certain types of meaningful harm to the community.

Am I missing something as relates to my original question?

[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

abolition is about dismantling the current system because it's irredeemable and corrupt by design.

there's some tiny percentage of people who will do horrible things regardless and we'll always have something for them that "sounds like a prison" if you're paying no attention to the differences or purposes of the systems.

[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm just speaking in terms of common English because I don't have a degree in critical theory. I do not view two places being prisons as making them equivalent, just as two places being states does not make them equivalent, they just have certain specific features in common that both make them fit that definition.

If someone said, for instance, that I don't support the ultimate destruction of "the state" in common language but rather a more specific and abstract definition of the "State" inherited from Marx referring to the apparatus that mediates class antagonisms, but that if one uses "state" to simply mean "government" then yes, I think there should always be a government, my reply would be "yes, that is correct". I can speak at length about how my desired government would be different from the existing one, but by their definition it would still be a "state" and that's fine.

It's important to be able to communicate in a way where people who are trying to understand what you're saying can understand what you're saying, even if there will always be concern trolls doing a Young Turks fear mongering routine (who only need to be accounted for in terms of combating them, which being understood by sincere listeners helps with)

[-] junebug2@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago

you’ve basically got what i’m saying. sorry, i got my university minor in critical theory so it’s easy for me to slip into jargon. i also suspect that the New Soviet Social Worker wouldn’t build prison blocks, but something more like a supervised collection of condos (like the stereotype of Scandinavian prisons). That’s just supposition though

[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

You don't need to apologize, it's fine. I am not sure how to communicate this effectively, but if you want to both hold on to the "prison abolition" framing (which is fine) but also be understood by laypeople, it would probably be helpful to your advocacy to lead with the fact that you are using that much more specialized definition of "prison" and that in terms they would use, you do still acknowledge the need for prisons but basically want to replace the whole justice and carceral system with one that still has prisons (by the common definition) but is radically oriented toward rehabilitation and humane treatment. I truly think you'll have an easier time discussing with people and get fewer attacks that feel like mischaracterization (some of which will remain because there are malicious actors, but some stemming just from communication issues).

And if not, that's fine, I'm mostly saying this because I misunderstood you at first and saw a few other people also misunderstand you, despite the fact that I think everyone involved basically agrees.

[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

You seem to be convinced that there’s some magically bad crime that would make me turn on a dime and say, “oh, of course, those people should be tortured forever.”

one thing I am convinced of is that we can invent a non-torturous way of removing someone from society to protect people from them. The fact that a serial killer's rights are restricted and they're not allowed to leave a building doesn't mean our post-abolition institution includes all the other things that are wrong with modern prisons.

[-] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

Is it post-abolition if you're restricting someone's rights and confining them to a building, even if you do so in the most humane possible way?

I would say no. I think it does us no favors to talk in terms of abolition and then describe what is at bottom a very nice prison.

[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

yes, if we dismantle the current system whatever is built after is post-abolition.

if you have a repeat serial offender you have to restrain them, kill them, or let them hurt people. One or two of those are obviously not acceptable, so are you going to have capital punishment or are you going to figure out a way to separate someone from their victim pool in a humane way that doesn't carry the baggage of institutional racism etc?

abolition doesn't mean you never have custody of someone, it means the current carceral system is abolished.

[-] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Calling that "abolition" strikes me as a really poor way to communicate a good idea, especially in an environment where one of the main criticisms of AES states is "this is just a dictatorship with red aesthetics." You immediately have to explain to people that you don't mean abolish abolish, and it will feel like a bait-and-switch. I think a lot of self-described abolitionists would strongly disagree with defining abolition that way, too.

When people talk about abolishing the death penalty, they don't mean making executions fair and humane, they mean no more executions. Same for abolishing slavery: see all the leftist criticism of the 13th amendment's carve out for prisons. We should either mean it or say something more precise.

[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

take it up with people active in the movement.

"'feminism' poorly communicates equality" type analysis

[-] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

You're telling me your idea of prison abolition involves building nicer prisons. You really don't see how that's going to confuse people?

[-] junebug2@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

i agree with this, i think justice for the victims (if any) would necessitate at least moving the perpetrator out of the town/ area where things happened. In a society where housing was a right, something like indefinite house arrest with occasional parole review would be an appropriate ‘strictest’ level of punishment. Every existing prison needs to be torn down though

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago

House arrest requires monitoring. You can't just have every violent criminal on house arrest. That's not a practical goal.

[-] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

There are also the questions of what you do if they leave, and what you do if they leave and commit another serious crime.

[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

there's a lot of logistical problems in preventing people from having the opportunity to re-offend and whatever the solution is we need to not create systems where staff or admin abuse of their wards or of the inmates harming one another freely

[-] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

You seem to be convinced that there’s some magically bad crime that would make me turn on a dime and say, “oh, of course, those people should be tortured forever.”

I haven't said anything like that. I began my last comment by agreeing with every single prison reform you listed. I'm going to disengage now.

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
89 points (96.8% liked)

chat

8645 readers
384 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS