abolish punishment

Abolish Punishment – Rejecting Carceral Ideology & Embracing Radical Compassion – by anonymous via anarchist library

via nika dubrovsky tweet [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punch-up-kick-down-distro-abolish-punishment]:

@davidgraeber articulates this idea as follows: the law and how it is enforced shape our collective reasoning for why it is we do or do not do certain things. One is taught that one should avoid reckless driving, for a simple example, not because it puts fellow people on the road in danger, but rather to avoid punishment in the form of a fine or potential jail time. One ceases to consider the consequences of their actions in terms of the wellbeing of the people around them, but rather in terms of legality and their susceptibility to punishment.

similar to 10-day-care-center\ness and money et al

david graeber et al

[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punch-up-kick-down-distro-abolish-punishment]

notes/quotes from linked abolish punishment:

to me.. abolish.. any form of m\a\p

Punishment

*Human beings are meaning-seeking creatures. We long for narrative structure. As a response to the **disempowering conditions of today’s world, we often cling to a dichotomy of Good versus Evil. Filled with righteous indignation, burdened by economic stress, haunted by existential uncertainty, and emboldened by cognitive biases and social conditioning, we react by searching for somewhere to place the blame for these feelings. The only power that seems within reach comes from inflicting pain on those we think deserve it. “Being alive in a knife-edge moment like this, being forced to be complicit in it while our so-called leaders fail so miserably to act, unavoidably generates all kinds of morbid symptoms. Inevitably, people reach for narratives to make sense of this reality.”⁶

*i think this is whalespeak.. i think if we were legit free.. meaning/structure et al.. would be irrelevant s

**i think we can list just about anything as leading up to ness and because of this ness.. but to me.. there are just 2 missing pieces.. causing us all to khan filling the gaps law ness

*Modern conditions create moral panic and foster a social dynamic that blames systemic social problems on individual moral failings. This path leads us towards a belief that other people are a threat; that cooperation is impossible and we must therefore seek out and punish some existential threat or enemy. **This general blaming structure is a phenomenon prevalent all along the socio-political spectrum: identifying a target for our discontentedness and deriving a sense of identity, purpose, and superiority by punishing these scapegoats.

*conditions since forever create almaas holes law et al.. hari present in society law et al..

**any form of us & them ness.. since forever.. need to get back/to thurman interconnectedness law et al

When we engage in acts of punishment against people with whom we could potentially have solidarity, we are being irresponsible with our righteous outrage. Taking out disgust at systemic violence and social injustice on people who are also victims of those oppressive forces (particularly those who are in our same oppressed class and with whom we have some political affinity) is a “reproduction of the dominator within the dominated.”

rather.. when we engage in any form of m\a\p we are perpetuating sea world

Intro to Abolition

The subject of this work is not abolition per se, but applying an abolitionist framework – a recognition that policing, surveillance, incarceration, and coercion are not adequate responses to “bad” behavior and perpetuate an unjust system of colonial violence and capitalist exploitation – to a broader analysis of punishment as a social practice. Therefore, a basic understanding of abolition as a frame of reference is essential to this work.

moten abolition law et al

Simply put, abolitionists claim that the way to “solve crime” is to address the underlying conditions that create crime.

yet.. nothing to date has gotten to the root of problem

legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..

ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance

ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. perpetuating survival triage.. for (blank)’s sake..

note: on survival ness: survival is a means to survive things as they are.. so to me.. not a legit alt.. it’s triage.. perpetuating survival triage.. so a temp band aide per se.. that will /can help now.. but only for short term.. because it still doesn’t get to the root of the problem.. so it won’t offer/lead-to legit change/life/freedom.. et al.. so.. to me.. it’s still a cancerous distraction to the dance

We cannot rely on the “law” to provide justice, or to make the world a more just place, because the law is fundamentally formed in the interest of the ruling class. Even the demand to “hold the police accountable” by “jailing killer cops” relies on carceral ideology. We cannot repeat the logics of policing in our critiques of that logic. When we promote anyone’s incarceration, says Pilar Maschi, “we legitimize the prison industrial complex. And who is it that gets impacted by that? … Who has to pay the price? Always our people, always poor people, people of color, black people.”

rather.. any form of m\a\p creates/perpetuates unrest /chains/violence.. for all

khan filling the gaps law et al

Imprisonment, for anyone, is not justice. *Justice relies on the collective creation of conditions which allow everyone to thrive, and cooperative decision making under those conditions, not retribution imposed on those deemed deserving. Abolitionists argue that we cannot make minor reforms or tweaks to an inherently oppressive structure and expect radically different outcomes. We cannot rely on carceral ideology and individualized punishment to bring about revolutionary change. **In bringing to light the root causes of harmful behavior and the role punishment plays in our social relationships, it is in the interest of abolitionists to reject these logics outright and work towards their dismantling.

*if still ie: decision making, et al.. not legit free.. the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..

**to me.. dismantling ness is a form of re ness.. aka: a cancerous distraction .. that will keep us perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. perpetuating survival triage.. for (blank)’s sake..

Beyond “law enforcement,” the police, as a social institution, mediate our social relationships. David Graeber articulates this idea as follows: the law and how it is enforced shape our collective reasoning for why it is we do or do not do certain things. One is taught that one should avoid reckless driving, for a simple example, not because it puts fellow people on the road in danger, but rather to avoid punishment in the form of a fine or potential jail time. One ceases to consider the consequences of their actions in terms of the wellbeing of the people around them, but rather in terms of legality and their susceptibility to punishment.

again.. like 10-day-care-center\ness.. any form of m\a\p.. killing us softly with it’s same song

structural violence.. david on structural violence.. spiritual violence.. et al

*In healthy social relationships people know each other well enough that resolving conflict does not require a heavily armed mediator. As a way of making this point, Stephen West paints a **relatable picture: imagine the neighbors are hosting a loud party while you are trying to put your kids to bed.

*or perhaps just realize they’ll never know each other.. (and so mediation ness becomes irrelevant as well).. but that unpredictability is what makes the dance dance.. ie: thurman interconnectedness law et al..

**perhaps ‘relatable’ in sea world.. ie: if legit free.. why ‘trying to put kids to bed ness et al..

How common is it for someone in this situation to be more willing to call the police on their neighbor, who then knock on the neighbor’s door and tell them to turn their music down, than just go over, talk to the neighbor, and resolve the situations themselves?²⁸

Imagine this neighbor, someone living in close proximity to you, is, instead of a stranger, a friend – someone you know, someone who you have a relationship with that you both care about. Calling the police in that situation would seem absurd. In fact, West continuities, in most periods of human history, you would be invited to the party your neighbor is hosting! But in an alienated society where, “social bonds are so hard to achieve…talking to your neighbor is something that has to be outsourced to the police.”

and perhaps in rat park (since everything to date has been in sea world – and so we have no idea what legit free people are like).. . invite/party/bond ness would also be irrelevant s

Abolition calls for a radical reorienting of how our world is structured, and in whose interest. This is an abolitionism as “not so much the abolition of prisons, but the abolition of a society that could have prisons…abolition as the founding of a new society.”⁴ Abolitionist movements must simultaneously reject the oppressive institutions of incarceration and policing while offering new visions of a world where these institutions are obsolete. The project of abolitionists requires a substantive critique of capitalism, colonialism, and class society while articulating how those structures are tied to the violence of prisons and policing.

to me.. these are even all irrelevant s.. to legit free people.. to the dance.. and so.. cancerous distractions

Many will claim that the abolition of prisons and police are unrealistic and utopian, *but there was a time in history when the abolition of slavery seemed just as ridiculous – it was viewed as an undeniable and natural part of our world. Just because something is normalized doesn’t make it morally justifiable or socially inevitable. Just because an ambition is wildly different from our current reality doesn’t make it unattainable. We do not have to accept the occupation of our neighborhoods by armed hostile forces. **We should not naturalize the caging of human beings.

*it still does.. none of us are free.. again.. because nothing to date has gotten to the root of problem

**caging = any form of m\a\p

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

Abolitionists reject the claim that people are greedy and violent by nature, and that the police and carceral institutions are the only thing that keep us from widespread chaos and unadulterated violence. People are cooperative, social, and interested in connection. Abolitionist politics recognizes the need for a revolutionary rearrangement of how our society is structured to incentivize these natural tendencies. We must identify and overcome the puritanical ideologies that are adopted from corrupted, outdated, and oppressive judicial and theological systems which rely on a fixed, formulaic morality. We must reject rules or laws based on coercion or violence, whether they are enforced by the state, or the social mobility of people in our communities.

but to me.. incentives and coercion are same song

what we need are conditions where everyone is legit free to do/be whatever.. and trust that/us

Why Do We Do What We Do?

If one is not “free” in their actions, unable to act from a place of total agency, then punishment as a response to those actions is an absurd notion. It doesn’t make sense to hold someone responsible for something beyond their control. A belief that each person acts as a free moral agent, rather than being fundamentally shaped by their environment and circumstances depoliticizes human behavior and renders punishment appropriate.

yeah this.. ie: khan filling the gaps law et al

but if there’s any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do.. still not legit free

From what your upbringing was like, how your species evolved, whether you got enough sleep last night, what your diet is like, and your economic status – where do we draw the line of blame, of responsibility for behavior? Where in that network is your will actually your own? This is not to provide a scaffolding for abdication of personal decision or accountability to our harmful thoughts or behaviors, but rather to provide a context for ourselves and others, to build a foundation of compassion, rather than blame, understanding rather than guilt.

context: hari rat park law; gershenfeld something else law; a sabbatical ish transition..

“How do we prevent future such events? *What are the causal influences?” If they’re internal to the individual, then we work on mechanisms that address the internal features. If it’s external, we work on addressing the external features. **At no point do we need to point at any piece of the causal chain and say “you there, you’re bad because you did this.”

*any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do.. internal/external

**and this is what we need tech for.. to facil a global detox leap.. because currently.. and since that day.. we are all so intoxicated .. we can’t seem to let go of judge\ment.. ie: pearson unconditional law et al.. so we need tech to do the thing we can’t seem to do ie: tech w/o judgment; nonjudgmental expo labeling; tech as it could be

we need to develop the ability to wield force without ever mistaking power over others for our true objective, which is to collectively create the conditions for the freedom of all.

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

If we want to co-create a better world, it is compassion that will forge the path, not punishment.

to me.. even insisting on compassion.. rad compassion/whatever.. isn’t deep enough for what’s already on each heart to resurface.. we need a means to go that deep.. otherwise we’re still just perpetuating survival triage.. no matter how ‘compassionate’ it may sound

we need a problem deep enough to resonate w/8b today.. via a mechanism simple enough to be accessible/usable to 8b today.. in an ecosystem open enough to set/keep 8b legit free

ie: org around a problem deep enough (aka: org around legit needs) to resonate w/8b today.. via a mechanism simple enough (aka: tech as it could be) to be accessible/usable to 8b today.. and an ecosystem open enough (aka: sans any form of m\a\p) to set/keep 8b legit free

findings from on the ground ness:

1\ undisturbed ecosystem (common\ing) can happen

2\ if we create a way to facil the seeming chaos of 8b legit free people

________

_______

______

_______

_____

________