Yes the death penalty is never morally right but I see this as more of a state sanctioned billionaire execution which, in my opinion, are morally justified.
i say execution is acceptable by groups in precarious situations (i.e. not well-established states with legal systems and cops, but we'll come back to that) such as during or shortly after a revolution where you can't securely contain and rehabilitate the monsters who have been abusing peasants or slaves, and there's a real risk of them leaving and mustering an army or otherwise undermining the revolution.
we blanketly oppose the death penalty in for a variety of reasons that have to do with systemic injustices but none of those problems apply to viet nam or billionaires.
I agree, I don't think executions are a morally valid activity for a society to engage in. And in a practical sense, it's much more important that criminals be caught and convicted consistently, and prevented from continuing to hurt others. She should be stripped of her wealth, and under permanent house arrest, and be allowed to continue working and contributing to society... but under the close scrutiny as some who is known to have hurt a lot of people, and would probably do it again if given a chance.
Against the working class? No. Against the bourgeoisie? Yes.
I believe having a belief in this position is a fundamental requirement to be a committed revolutionary. Being part of a revolution means understanding that people are absolutely going to be put to death. You don't have to love that or be bloodthirsty but you do have to believe it is going to be necessary.
I see it as a distinction between criminal justice and war. In criminal justice I believe in rehabilitation and the avoidance of unnecessary cruelty, Johnny the axe murderer is a shit person so he should be kept away from society and hopefully reformed so he can be let out some day and no longer be a threat. Johnny the fascist or Johnny the oligarch on the other hand are not just shit people, they're waging a war against the working class and denazifying then to a permanent end is completely justified.
I see it as a distinction between criminal justice and war.
Do you really consider the war to be over after seizing power in one country?
Socialism itself is a stage of war. Its entire existence is informed by the conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie and that war is only truly over when the bourgeoisie are marginalised worldwide to the point that counterrevolution is impossible.
At some point the war will hopefully be over but there is still a long way to go from the establishment of socialism somewhere to the end of capitalism everywhere.
This is why socialist societies needs to be watchful as they will be under constant attack.
The overthrow of one class by another is inherently violent. If you aren’t willing to engage in this sort of “authoritarianism” then your revolution is over before it even started. Violence is critical to the suppression of the counterrevolution, or more precisely the threat of violence, ranging from imprisonment to execution. This is needed if you want to be anything other than a paper tiger. Reactionaries won’t graciously accept the inch you give them and submit themselves to your moral victory, they’ll take another mile and curb stomp you.
I say I have complicated feelings. I consider myself anti death penalty by default and I do genuinely think state's shouldn't be able to just execute someone who is clearly not a threat and in custody. Someone like her should be stripped of her illegally and immorally acquired wealth and be sentenced to a lifetime of public service work living with the shame of what she's done.
...but also I aint gonna cry too hard about it when they stick her with the needle.
Nah, the state should be able to liquidate the bourgeoisie as a means of class warfare and liquidate corrupt party members to serve an example to those who would betray the socialist project. Liquidation does not necessarily mean death. She ought to have the choice of surrendering her wealth to the state in order to avoid execution, but I doubt bougie ghouls like her would do that. These freaks are so far removed from humanity that they would rather choose death than surrender their wealth.
Death sentences are actually never morally justified, what say you?
Yes the death penalty is never morally right but I see this as more of a state sanctioned billionaire execution which, in my opinion, are morally justified.
I say Vietnam is doing something extremely cool
deleted by creator
i say execution is acceptable by groups in precarious situations (i.e. not well-established states with legal systems and cops, but we'll come back to that) such as during or shortly after a revolution where you can't securely contain and rehabilitate the monsters who have been abusing peasants or slaves, and there's a real risk of them leaving and mustering an army or otherwise undermining the revolution.
we blanketly oppose the death penalty in
for a variety of reasons that have to do with systemic injustices but none of those problems apply to viet nam or billionaires.
the moral argument is a huge gray area, but i find it very hard to feel bad for billionaires
whether or bot you think this is a good thing it's still commendable that the government holds the rich accountable imo
anyway sorry to add on to the dogpile, i know you've gotten a lot of replies
True. The ideal is to never do it. But I'm also not going to weep because it for once is applied to a white color criminal.
Unpopular opinion: no state should be legally allowed to murder people
counterpoint: states should be obligated to murder billionaires.
I agree. That should absolutely be the default assumption. Not only is it immoral, it creates warped incentive structures. Its bad policy
killing the nazis invading you and then going to jail after the war for murder
There is a distinct difference between fighting off an invading force and executing criminals
I agree, I don't think executions are a morally valid activity for a society to engage in. And in a practical sense, it's much more important that criminals be caught and convicted consistently, and prevented from continuing to hurt others. She should be stripped of her wealth, and under permanent house arrest, and be allowed to continue working and contributing to society... but under the close scrutiny as some who is known to have hurt a lot of people, and would probably do it again if given a chance.
Against the working class? No. Against the bourgeoisie? Yes.
I believe having a belief in this position is a fundamental requirement to be a committed revolutionary. Being part of a revolution means understanding that people are absolutely going to be put to death. You don't have to love that or be bloodthirsty but you do have to believe it is going to be necessary.
I see it as a distinction between criminal justice and war. In criminal justice I believe in rehabilitation and the avoidance of unnecessary cruelty, Johnny the axe murderer is a shit person so he should be kept away from society and hopefully reformed so he can be let out some day and no longer be a threat. Johnny the fascist or Johnny the oligarch on the other hand are not just shit people, they're waging a war against the working class and denazifying then to a permanent end is completely justified.
Do you really consider the war to be over after seizing power in one country?
Socialism itself is a stage of war. Its entire existence is informed by the conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie and that war is only truly over when the bourgeoisie are marginalised worldwide to the point that counterrevolution is impossible.
At some point the war will hopefully be over but there is still a long way to go from the establishment of socialism somewhere to the end of capitalism everywhere.
This is why socialist societies needs to be watchful as they will be under constant attack.
The overthrow of one class by another is inherently violent. If you aren’t willing to engage in this sort of “authoritarianism” then your revolution is over before it even started. Violence is critical to the suppression of the counterrevolution, or more precisely the threat of violence, ranging from imprisonment to execution. This is needed if you want to be anything other than a paper tiger. Reactionaries won’t graciously accept the inch you give them and submit themselves to your moral victory, they’ll take another mile and curb stomp you.
Moralism is for liberals. It’s inherently subjective, one’s opinion is influenced by a myriad of factors, and it’s impossible debate.
I say I have complicated feelings. I consider myself anti death penalty by default and I do genuinely think state's shouldn't be able to just execute someone who is clearly not a threat and in custody. Someone like her should be stripped of her illegally and immorally acquired wealth and be sentenced to a lifetime of public service work living with the shame of what she's done.
...but also I aint gonna cry too hard about it when they stick her with the needle.
are you more or less valuable then medicine for the People you want to save from the Death Panalty ?
Billionaires sold their humanity and deserve death in whatever form may come to them
Nah, the state should be able to liquidate the bourgeoisie as a means of class warfare and liquidate corrupt party members to serve an example to those who would betray the socialist project. Liquidation does not necessarily mean death. She ought to have the choice of surrendering her wealth to the state in order to avoid execution, but I doubt bougie ghouls like her would do that. These freaks are so far removed from humanity that they would rather choose death than surrender their wealth.
romanovs tho.