Since the George Floyd protests I've learned a lot about the arguments of prison abolition, and found them quite persuasive. I have a couple questions though that I was hoping I could find answers to here, as they relate to dialectical materialism which doesn't seem to come up that much when looking into abolition online.

I've been reading through elementary principles of philosophy, and while doing so I had the realization materialism applied to one of the common prison abolitionist arguments: that the idea that some people are "naturally" bad (thus un-rehabilitatible and must be removed from society), is untrue and has been used historically to dehumanize people in the past, often those with disabilities. My current understanding of materialism would follow that the material conditions surrounding someone significantly impacts their ideas and, therefore, behaviors. So a materialist and abolitionist would find common ground saying that if everyone's basic needs were met (and if the proletariat owned the means of production, for the materialist), then anti-social behaviors would essentially go away. Is this a correct interpretation? And if so, does that mean a marxist-leninist would be in favor of prison abolition (in a society with no imperialist threat and after sufficient time to ensure everyone was in fact having their needs met)?

  • ReadFanon [any, any]
    ·
    3 days ago

    Glad it was useful!

    There's part of me that still wants to insist that population literally wouldn't exist, mostly rooted in general skepticism around psychiatry's current understanding of nuero-atypical people (given its very poor historical track record), but I ultimately don't know. You adding "or unwilling" makes me significantly more comfortable agreeing it'll likely always be a non-zero population being discussed here, though.

    Yeah it's a big discussion to be had about this. I guess I have the advantage of having some personal insight as my dad had zero empathy. That's not hyperbole in any way. It took a very long time for me to realise that human relationships were all instrumentalised to him and that all I represented to him was yet-another instrument. For him, his conditions as a child were very much ones that created this as a response in him or which did not allow for him to develop a sense of empathy and a way of relating to others beyond a very undeveloped "What can I get out of them or how can I use them to advance my own agenda?" paradigm. I'm not 100% certain that he has zero capacity or willingness to be able to change this but I know for all of his life, up until the point I went no-contact at least, there was no observable progress on this and he was extremely harmful to the people around him. So idk if you could call him a product of a developmental sort of criminogenic conditions or whether it was a mix of nature and nurture there but tbh it's really not something that I want to speculate on because it's difficult to talk about my experience of who he was/potentially still is.

    At the end of the day, I was subject to very similar conditions as his, ones that could be understood as criminogenic, due to me being on the receiving end of an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse so I react very strongly against the abdication of personal responsibility inherent to the notion that your prior conditions are the only factor responsible for criminal behaviour because then that means my primary perpetrator of childhood abuse is given a free pass since he is not recognised as an agent in this but merely as a vessel for the abuse in his own upbringing which he had no choice but to transmit onto me and others in my family.

    On the other hand, clearly this is a personal issue so maybe I'm overly invested in it.

    Like, I suspect crimes that occur following someone discovering they've been cheated on will likely go away over time, as I feel like constructs like sex, gender, and monogamy will wither away.

    English is shit x2

    Crimes of "passion" is a cursed term but it's the prevailing one so I'm using what's at hand. Crimes of "passion" refers to things that are done in the heat of the moment, such as road rage. While crimes relating to intimate partners is very often related to crimes of passion, it can also just be when someone acts in an "irrational" way in the moment without any romance being in the equation. It's the opposite of a premeditated crime and it's different to a crime of opportunity, like stealing some cash that has been left sitting on a restaurant table.

    incarceral system

    English is shit x2, part two

    *Carceral system
    It's one of those flammable/inflammable or disposed/indisposed situations. Carceral means relating to imprisonment. Naturally, if you're imprisoned then you should be "carcerated", but no you're "incarcerated" instead. What a sorry excuse for a language.