If, Buddha-willing, we get another shot at this shit and get the chance to try and enact a dictatorship of the proletariat, what do comrades here think we should actually do regarding prison systems, e.g. for political enemies? What do we think of reeducation camps? How should they be organised?
Ok, so it's after the Revolution, things are relatively stable, there are Truth and Reconciliation committees in full swing, and we don't need to shoot people due to simple expedience anymore.
But we will have a lot of people, of all classes, who are actively hostile to the system. Some of these will be political activists, some violent terrorists, some people with former power.
People who are doing none of these things beyond quiet bitching with friends over dinner who are against us do not need to be gulag'd. Our secret police keeping tabs and ongoing political education will work, though we'll need a full century to root out the most systemic and organised brainworms.
A Stasi organisation doesn't need to oppress openly or do the weird shuffling peoples wardrobe shit, it just needs to watch, and make very clear that there is a line of dissent that cannot be crossed. It's much easier if dissent is displayed openly but quietly rather than driven completely underground.
As for the others
Re-education camps need not be places of forced labour or tired political brainwashing or punishment. These are simply places where we have removed those who cannot participate in the new society. As such, they will take several forms, from places trying to reform and re-intergrate pre-revolution violent offenders to places to see if Jeff Bezos can receive a soul transplant. These places should be remote enough that only minimal guard work is needed.
As the society becomes more stable, more of these people can be re-introduced based on their long term threat level and their degree of assessed reform. Some of course, may never be released.
As for the specifics, they vary from camp to camp. I note that a lot of people here support forced labour, and I think that's a bad thing, outside of having the prisoners collectively involve themselves in the operation and maintenance of the institution. A workers council, supervised by a committee of trained party officials rather than the guards should administer this. Party officials should engage in the same labour the prisoners do to build solidarity, while remaining at a professional distance
That said, labour should be encouraged. External projects run under their own Soviets should be introduced, and the prisoners invited to join. Work available should closely match the skill set of the prisoner base, if, as in the case of billionaires, there is no skill set, open training courses should be offered based on a survey of topics that are socially useful and which the prisoners are interested in. In addition, Workers should be able to suggest their own labour projects, subject to approval. These Soviets should be encouraged to co-operate, and even compete where useful, in order for them to provide a social alternative to gang formation. They should be gently dissuaded from adopting charismatic leaders rather than more collective organisation, though of course some members will be more active than others.
Of course, all conversation will be monitored, but wherever possible non-disruptive dissent should not be punished as not to drive it underground and allow us to gauge the pace of reform.
Education and propaganda classes will be offered, of course, as will a fully stocked library. News bulletins of the outside world should come in regularly, with a positive but critical tone, and discussion encouraged. Cadre should be available to monitor and answer questions, but should not critique thought, letting the prisoners do so. Group and individual therapy sessions with party psychologists and, sometimes, cadre should be the only compulsory sessions, and these should only touch on politics if the prisoners broach it first.
Disruption and violence will be dealt with by progressive removal of places to cause it, until guarded Psych sessions and theory classes are the only options on their social calendar. Prisoners will get their own room which they can leave freely to a small common area, but with violent prisoners a guard may need to be stationed there. This will also reduce the likelihood of a mass revolt since the prisoners associate in smaller units. Where possible, critique of prisoner disruption should come from the prisoners themselves, organically during group sessions. It might be necessary to "salt" the prisoner population with party members to kickstart the process.
None of this will reform everybody, and for some extra measures will need to be taken, but I think it's a decent start.
deleted by creator
Yes, I agree, the Soviets were heavy handed due to the Civil War and later due to political infighting and Nazi infiltration. Gulags are bad and these are also bad.
Which is why I stated these post-revolutionary institutions are only for those who are direct dangers, not just people grumbling idly online. And also that there be no retribution, coercion, or forced indoctrination in them, and free movement and labour choice within them. We're talking about the surviving billionaires, police, "Dark Enlightenment" intellectuals, and proud boys here.
For the vast majority of ordinary people in society material experience, subtle media hegemony with controlled dissent, and a good deal of spying will be enough. The process of Social Engineering I'm afraid will take decades, and a lot of experiments and failures but that's beyond the scope of the question, which is what do we do with those who can't live in the early days of a better nation.
Alot of great suggestions and thoughts here.
It seems like the 'things are relatively stable' does a decent amount of heavy-lifting here though. What do we expect the ex-cops, members of the military, and the large numbers of reactionary, armed boug and petty boug to do?
Agree on the need for a century to achieve it. It really is the construction of a new type of society and therefore a new type of human being. Reminds me of alot of Che's ideas. Also unfortunately a particularly asshole moment from Trotsky when he was in cadiz and saw two men in a street-fight, and his reflection was 'it will take a lot of time and effort to create the new socialist man' lmao.
It does do a lot of the heavy lifting. Because "Successful Revolution" is very different to "Stable Socialist Construction" in needs. And if we don't want to get ourselves killed or couped, or fuck up and start piling up the skulls; we need to recognise that.
In any revolutionary situation where we have a chance we'll have at least a third of the military and probably a third of the PBs, since as a class they're generally opportunistic. Yeah, there'll be a bloody revolution, a sharp, hopefully short Terror, and if we're very very lucky a simmering insurrection rather than an all out Civil War. Lots of good people and lots of ordinary people who didn't want any of it will die before and after. too many people up against the wall, too many people in nasty temporary prisons where we figure out what the hell to do with them and if they are a threat.
But thems the breaks.
Yh they are different. The latter presupposes the former though, and I guess the former can entail the latter depending on what we mean by 'successful'. One potential issue and contradiction we might face is whether or not it is even feasible to have a revolution or a modicum of stabilization under a socialist democratic dictorship without a pretty extreme level of violence and coercion, in which case we need the military. In that event I'm afraid of repeating alot of the mistakes of the stalinist period.
I'm suppose the petit boug proportion relies on what proportion are closer to middle-class working class as opposed to genuine petty petty boug, i.e. whose interests they take themselves align more with, and how many of the later go through genuine radicalization and heroic class betrayal (not a huge number). The military proportion is an question I really have no idea how to answer or judge your proportion you answer with. I'm not familiar enough with the sociology or material circumstances of military members as group.