What would happen to the bourgeoisie in a newly formed socialist society?

I mean, what do you think ought to be done?

I would submit that those who are deemed likely to attempt a counter-revolution should be imprisoned, namely: hostile generals, party leaders, religious fundamentalist leaders, ect of that nature. The general bourgeoisie would have already had their political and economic capital destroyed and seized respectively so they would cease to be bourgeoisie. The only ones that should be met with violence (at least morally defensively) are those who resist the changing of property rights with force themselves. Of course there would be no real governing authority to prevent the less moral and more angry proletarians form burning their immediate oppressors at the steak but I decry such behavior and would hope that cooler heads would prevail.

Well the ones who aren't killed during the revolution would (or at least should) be kept under a VERY close eye or imprisoned. While I think most on the far left follow the idea that prisons should be abolished, they could definitely be put to good use for possible counter-revolutionaries. It sounds quite hypocritical of us to deny someone the right to live a free life like everyone else in a socialist society, but risking the freedom of many for the freedom of a few who we have good reason to suspect is not worth it in my opinion.

The most reactionary segments of the population—e.g., the former bourgeoisie (petite and grand alike), capitalist ideologues, certain military generals, etc.—will obviously have to be closely monitored by the people. However, unless they take up arms against the revolution, or conspire to do so, they should be left to assimilate into the new order. Counter-revolutionary activity will likely be dealt with according to the severity of the offense.

DSN wrote:While I think most on the far left follow the idea that prisons should be abolished

I realize that this is a separate topic, but I've never understood why some people believe a time will eventually arise when abolishing prisons would be reasonable choice for society to make. Socioeconomic factors certainly account for many of the petty crimes observed in society, but it's ridiculous to think it can explain all criminal offenses. Even in the most benign settings, psychopaths can and will emerge.

Celtiberian wrote:I realize that this is a separate topic, but I've never understood why some people believe a time will eventually arise when abolishing prisons would be reasonable choice for society to make. Socioeconomic factors certainly account for many of the petty crimes observed in society, but it's ridiculous to think it can explain all criminal offenses. Even in the most benign settings, psychopaths can and will emerge.

It is not even psychopaths we need concern ourselves with. Genuine sociopaths are always a small minority. General friction resulting from the complexities of human interaction is more than enough to inspire deviancy. There is no such thing as a perfect society. Even under communism some degree of aberrant behavior should be expected. It is absolutely utopian to think otherwise.

Celtiberian wrote:I realize that this is a separate topic, but I've never understood why some people believe a time will eventually arise when abolishing prisons would be reasonable choice for society to make. Socioeconomic factors certainly account for many of the petty crimes observed in society, but it's ridiculous to think it can explain all criminal offenses. Even in the most benign settings, psychopaths can and will emerge.

Well this isn't from my mouth, but the general idea is that prisons are a class system tool. Personally I think prisons are a shitty environment that don't do anyone any real good; they're a breeding ground for gangs and either reinforce the criminal template in people's minds or end up smashing people's minds to pieces. A lot of anarchists are, in my opinion, ridiculously idealistic when it comes to crime and punishment, suggesting that giving criminals the choice to be "rehabilitated"/"re-educated" or to be exiled will play out perfectly. I think that people who pose a threat to society such as murderers and rapists should have their freedoms limited only as much as is required to protect people from them. I don't follow the notion that every criminal can be rehabilitated, as that would imply that all criminals are insane and completely unaware of what they do. However, I also reject the idea that every criminal should be punished purely for the sake of "getting what they deserve" -- many rapists (especially paedophile rapists) aren't capable of understanding that what they do is harmful, so to throw a bunch of bricks at them often screws with their minds even more.

Back to the point though, I don't think anyone is suggesting that crime won't exist at all under socialism.

DSN wrote:Personally I think prisons are a shitty environment that don't do anyone any real good; they're a breeding ground for gangs and either reinforce the criminal template in people's minds or end up smashing people's minds to pieces.

I agree, insofar as relatively minor crimes (e.g., theft, affray, drug possession) and even somewhat more severe crimes (e.g., manslaughter) are concerned. However, I don't view prisons as institutions designed for the rehabilitation of criminals. On the contrary, they are establishments designed for the purpose of punishing individuals who have broken the law and deterring criminal behavior in society. That many released inmates go on to repeat their offenses doesn't necessarily suggest that the institution isn't functioning appropriately, but rather underscores how deeply ingrained an unlawful mindset can be once cultivated in an individual. Nevertheless, many petty criminals can be rehabilitated and society should invest resources toward that end. Perhaps prisons are not ideal constructs for performing such a task, and different institutions should be designed for that class of criminal.

However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, there exists no evidence that sociopaths can be taught to feel empathy. These individuals likely lack the cognitive faculties which enable such emotions to be experienced. Consequently, they present a constant danger to society. And even if it somehow could be argued that, say, serial killers, child molesters, or serial rapists could be rehabilitated, that doesn't logically imply that they should be. Not to rehash this debate, but the manner by which society chooses to punish criminals is entirely subjective. You believe that psychopaths should be sufficiently isolated from society so as to prevent the possibility of them harming innocent people again. I believe that once someone has destroyed the life of an innocent person they have forfeited their own right to live. Neither of our views on this issue can be said to be objectively "right" or "wrong."

Back to the point though, I don't think anyone is suggesting that crime won't exist at all under socialism.

No one on this forum, perhaps. But I have witnessed people make such claims in the past.

Celtiberian wrote:I agree, insofar as relatively minor crimes (e.g., theft, affray, drug possession) and even somewhat more severe crimes (e.g., manslaughter) are concerned. However, I don't view prisons as institutions designed for the rehabilitation of criminals. On the contrary, they are establishments designed for the purpose of punishing individuals who have broken the law and deterring criminal behavior in society. That many released inmates go on to repeat their offenses doesn't necessarily suggest that the institution isn't functioning appropriately, but rather underscores how deeply ingrained an unlawful mindset can be once cultivated in an individual. Nevertheless, many petty criminals can be rehabilitated and society should invest resources toward that end. Perhaps prisons are not ideal constructs for performing such a task, and different institutions should be designed for that class of criminal.

Agreed.

And even if it somehow could be argued that, say, serial killers, child molesters, or serial rapists could be rehabilitated, that doesn't logically imply that they should be.

Well, to rehabilitate someone would imply that they have a serious enough problem in the first place. Psychologists have noticed that a large number of rapists do not understand their own actions and somehow interpret their targets' actions wrongly, thinking that they were sending hints and literally "asking for it". I was watching a NAMBLA documentary which interviewed one paedophile who seemed to have this absurd idea that practically every young boy he came into contact with was subtly flirting with him. Sounds crazy to us, but my point is that I don't see the logic in punishing a person for something they can't understand fully. If a blind and deaf person were to accidentally stab a person, I wouldn't see it as fair to have that person put to death for what they did. Obviously those are two completely different situations, but what I mean is that to me it seems as though these people often genuinely do not understand that what they are doing is harmful. On the other hand, a rapist who does it for the power it gives them with full understanding of their victim's feelings is certainly guilty. People like this I don't think can be rehabilitated, so yes, it would be pointless trying to do it. I think we'll agree to disagree on what actions should be taken against such people though.

DSN wrote:Psychologists have noticed that a large number of rapists do not understand their own actions and somehow interpret their targets' actions wrongly, thinking that they were sending hints and literally "asking for it". I was watching a NAMBLA documentary which interviewed one paedophile who seemed to have this absurd idea that practically every young boy he came into contact with was subtly flirting with him. Sounds crazy to us, but my point is that I don't see the logic in punishing a person for something they can't understand fully.

The problem with that theory is that there's no way to verify whether or not these pedophiles are being honest in what they describe to psychologists. (Surely serial killers could also claim that they felt their lives were being threatened by the individuals they murdered, but who would really believe such an outlandish story?) Moreover, even if they truly believe that their child victims are "flirting" with them, they also understand that society has established unambiguous laws indicating that any sexual contact between adults and children is unacceptable. The fact that not all child molesters act on their impulses implies that there may be a degree of conscious choice that these criminals make; or perhaps the impulse is just innately stronger in certain offenders. Regardless of the specific source of the behavior and how it may vary between individuals, the fact they have destroyed the life of a child is enough for me to support harsh penalties being imposed on them.

Sociopaths are very much sane individuals who understand the bounds of accepted morality. With the exception of perhaps a minority of individuals suffering from severe mental disorders, most criminals are aware of their transgressions.

Rev Scare wrote:Sociopaths are very much sane individuals who understand the bounds of accepted morality. With the exception of perhaps a minority of individuals suffering from severe mental disorders, most criminals are aware of their transgressions.

I completely agree, they have rational thought and know what is right and wrong, they just don't have as much incentive to follow those rules. That doesn't absolve them or responsibility for their actions. They are just as punishable, and possibly more dangerous than non-sociopaths.