89
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2026
89 points (96.8% liked)
chat
8645 readers
369 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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
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.