In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
We say prison abolition because prisons are disgusting reactionary cesspools and counterproductive. That doesn't mean we don't want reeducation camps and other institutions that will replace prisons for cases as you are concerned about.
This is why prison abolition is a poor framework for the conversation. The absurdity of saying "we don't want prisons, but custodial penal institutions are OK" is an automatic discussion derailer. Any bad faith participants in the conversation will tear into that and not let go. Good faith participants who aren't already on board with you will be confused, and even if you explain what you mean the confusion will only switch to why you labeled it "abolition" in the first place.
It's much more productive to start with "prison as an absolute last resort," and then describe how your "prison" would be far better than prisons are today.
The concept of prison must be purged from peoples minds. The best approach is to have both "radicals" going all the way with their language and also people like you who are more cuddling in their language.
Why? Some people -- at least temporarily -- need to be separated from society, or have their access to society limited. However nicely we dress that up, that's imprisonment. That's not a concept that needs to be eliminated.
because a prison is a reactionary backwards horrible thing. like the police it has to be abolished. this is not about finding an euphemism to replace the word, the point is that the whole modern conception of the prison is rotten to the core, it has to be dismantled and replaced with something different. if you want to call this "something different" a "prison" that's ok but it's only confusing cause the whole point is that the new thing is not a prison. reeducation camps are not prisons, separating someone dangerous from the rest of society is not what defines a prison. what defines prisons is their class control objective, inhumane treatment of prisoners, punitive objective, unjust sentencing, domination of the inmates by chuds, etc.
This is not going to get ordinary people on board, and we need ordinary people if we want to get anything done.
Tell an ordinary person that a reeducation camp isn't a prison and they'll say: "Can you leave? Is that where you put criminals? Yeah, that's a prison."
Well as i said, I think "ordinary" people need to hear both things.
I see the appeal of that communication strategy, but it has the potential to confuse the issue, too.
Comparing work to chattel slavery is also a poor framework that automatically derails any productive conversation, yes.
Using the term "abolition" as an end goal for chattel slavery was appropriate because you shouldn't be able to own people, you shouldn't be able to buy and sell their children, and you shouldn't be able to beat, rape, or kill them whenever you like. There's no conceivable scenario where you can argue any of that is good. There are conceivable scenarios where the best remedy is to separate dangerous people from society, i.e., imprison them.
Prisons are not just "separating dangerous people from society." That is identical to calling chattel slavery "working for a living." You are taking a possible characteristic of prisons, and magnifying it to be the defining characteristic.
Prisons, particularly in the American context, are inseparable from the enslavement and torture of a lower class deemed "criminal." If you want to create a qualitatively different system which only "separates dangerous people from society", that is prison abolition.
If prisons "separated dangerous people from society", we would not see drug users behind bars, while bankers and war criminals walk free. It is a tool of class warfare that must be abolished.
If you are going to capitulate to the ruling class ideology, why be anti-capitalist? It is "the most efficient tool to distribute good and services; a rising tide which lifts all ships." That is a good thing, right?
I'm doing the exact opposite. The defining characteristic of prisons is separating people from society. There are brutal prisons that do that, but there are also reasonably humane prisons that do that. The concept of "prison" isn't defined by brutality, it's defined by not allowing people to leave.
You're right that in the modern American context "prison" is synonymous with "brutality," but that specific context is by no means the extent of the concept.
Well no, it's not. Say you want to change nothing about the American criminal legal system besides prisons. Your proposal is to tear down the prisons we currently have, but you rebuild them so that each prison cell is a decent apartment, and you closely monitor the guards to ensure they don't just abuse prisoners however they like. That's a qualitatively different system -- it would be far less brutal than what we currently have -- but everyone would tell you it's still a prison (especially the folks inside of it) because the defining characteristic of prisons is not allowing people to leave.
Abolition means abolition. It doesn't mean reform.
If prisons do X + Y, the defining characteristic of prisons can still be X. Prisons do separate dangerous people from society; that's just not all they do.
The most dangerous people in the world are not "imprisoned." That is not their purpose. They are a tool of capitalist class war.
I'd sooner say "compassionate prisons" are something qualitatively different than prisons, and should be called something else. Prisons have a clear historical purpose that is not "separating people from society."
Fundamentally, this is a disagreement of terms. Prisons are best defined by their enforcement of class rule, enslavement, and torture from my perspective. They need to be abolished and replaced with qualitatively difference system which address crime and social ills.
There are plenty of people in prison who have committed real crimes, and who are reasonably considered dangerous. That does not mean they separate all dangerous people from society, or that they cater to every small political group's definition of "dangerous." Functionally, anything that separates dangerous people from society -- in any society, controlled by any political group -- will be called a prison.
Prisons (in the modern sense) were intended as a less-brutal replacement for public executions and torture. Their original purpose was much more closely tied to enlightenment thinking than to capitalism. While plenty of enlightenment thinking was pro-capitalist or at least capitalist friendly, quite a bit was not, and the two concepts aren't the same.
Are re-education camps prisons? Are boarding schools prisons? Is boot camp a prison? "Separating 'dangerous' people from 'society'" just seems such a ludicrous definition for a prison that covers basically anything. What is "dangerous", what is considered "part of society"...
I would rather just take a materialist perspective on prisons in my context. They are a system of enslaving and torturing people deemed "criminal," and "criminal" often just means lower class - failing to afford tickets, debts, selling or using drugs, etc. They need to be abolished. Any positive use they served can be incorporated into a new system. Just as you can abolish slavery without abolishing labor.
If you want continue using the word prison for whatever reason, you can still acknowledge that the existing prison system needs to absolutely destroyed, crushed, with every remanent tossed into the dustbin of history. You could make your own "proletarian prison" or "the peoples' prison." At that point, it is just a disagreement of terms.
If you can't leave, and especially if your re-education is aimed at "dangerous" people, then yes.
You can leave, and they're not aimed at dangerous people, so no.
We're fundamentally on the same page here -- I'm just using the term prison because that's what the term means. It's hard enough to convince people to radically remake how we handle criminal behavior without re-defining words to boot.
What does "dangerous" mean? My high school justified compulsory attendance because they did not kids getting mixed up with gangs. If kids skipped school, their parents were threatened with prison. Schools absolutely consider non-white students "dangerous." Are they prisons?
I disagree. No one would reach the conclusion that prisons "separate dangerous people from society" when analyzing the material conditions of prisons. Defying reality because the idea some people have of prisons is counter-productive. You are alienating the millions of people who have been imprisoned on drug charges, missed tickets, or false charges to appease a bourgeois understanding of prisons.
There are people in my life define Capitalism as “the most efficient tool to distribute good and services; a rising tide which lifts all ships.” Should I advocate a better Capitalism to appease them? Or should I educate people about the reality of Capitalism?
You can dissect any definition with questions like this.
It's hard to argue that schools are prisons when children are able to leave, and when you're acknowledging that there are prison prisons people can be sent to.
There's a difference between using a heavily-propagandized definition and using a practical definition.
And in some cases, it is important to dissect. When you are trying to define an institution which imprisons people for riding a train without a ticket, then I think it's important to dissect your use of the word "dangerous." I would not consider them dangerous.
Sorry, I forgot to add that schools have entire police forces, and have apprehended kids who've skipped and brought them back. I still would not consider schools prisons because of the definition I provided above.
Yes. I do not consider your definition of prison to be practical. It is a propagandized definition.
I agree that person is not dangerous. As I've pointed out, the fact that non-dangerous people are in prison does not keep "dangerous people" from being a defining characteristic of prisons.
All prisons must have X, so something that includes X + Y can be a prison even though it doesn't exclusively include X.
That's closer to a prison, but as the school isn't trying to separate dangerous people from society -- you can get expelled for starting fights, and school isn't anywhere near as separated from society as prisons -- it's still quite a bit different.
My definition is the bare bones of what prisons do in practice. It's the core concept, it's the essential elements. There are prisons that do not wage class warfare (see the Soviet penal system, for example), therefore that is not an essential element of the definition.