Abolition Puns

Are you for the abolition of single family zoning to allow land owners to build whatever density of housing they want? Do you think the free market should decide density rather than big government? If not, what is your solution to the housing crisis? Do you think it’s the government’s job to prop up said prices?

-Albert Fairfax II

When anarchist talk about prison abolition, do they mean prison abolition for everyone? I was thinking about the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery. Do they deserve prison abolition?

I was having a conversation with a dear friend of mine the other day. He (cishet male) is very intelligent, kind, and a wonderful ally to many communities. Everything he's done in the time I've known him (10 years) has been done with the best of intentions and comes from a very informed place, usually.

So I was disappointed and concerned when he explained that he was talking to a nonbinary PhD candidate friend of his about gender abolition. He has come to believe that people are just people and the future is gender neutral. Aside from some biological parts we're stuck with, utopia makes no distinction between male or female. Gendered pronouns will be a thing of the past.

I was hurt, tbh, and I'm genuinely concerned and curious why so many progressive people think gender neutral across the board is the answer. I'm fighting tooth and nail to transition from female to male over here. I get excited when people use he/him with me, or call me bro. I just had top surgery. My gender matters to me and I feel like this whole movement just...erases that. Don't get me wrong, there's way more to me than my gender. I do identify as a human being before I identify as a man, but I do regard both as important. I get the general sentiment that people are people and that yeah, gender stereotyping can get in the way of that. Also, "person" being a gender neutral category would really help nonbinary people get across that there are more than 2 genders. But I don't think getting rid of men and women as categories altogether is right.

So what's up with that? How many of y'all think we'll end up in that kind of future?

Here's an in-depth conversation between Marc Lamont Hill and activist/author Angela Davis. They discuss prison and police abolition and its links to socialism and a radical vision of the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRUHYkjwx4&feature=youtu.be

Video in question: https://youtu.be/USjI-ttKrPw https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/ruyy40/recently_saw_a_video_about_anarcho_communism_and/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Link to other post: Secondary not totally relevant video but kinda explains why I talk about barter later: https://youtu.be/PWqtX8izZdc

If you would like my full reply it was waaaaayyyyy to long to actually write out as a post. So here's my reply to his specific points. If you would like to read my criticism of the gift economy that can be found at the link at the bottom.

So a couple issues.

I hear this sorta thing a lot from more communist types so I figured i would address the main points of this video and then talk about what they missed."In scientific terms, there is no accurate way to measure labor input vs commodity output. In other words, money is a HORRIBLE way to determine how much somebody's labor is actually worth or how much a commodity should cost"

This (and another point I will address later) is one of the main thrusts of his argument. But it's based on a flawed view of what money actually is.

Money is a way of measuring subjective value. So here's the basic idea:

Have you ever seen a product and thought "Wow that is massively overpriced" or "Whoa that's such a steal!" That's because you value holding onto your money more than you value the cost of the good or vice versa. You would rather keep your $20 than have that handbag or would rather have that handbag than your $20. The actual price of a good is set at a value where the seller thinks the maximum average consumer (in a given market) is willing to pay. Technically, this value is represented by the demand curve and the seller sells where MR = MC but since MR is determined by said subjective valuing, the point still stands.

The issue is that money is in no way an objective measure of value. It is very subjective and its value depends on the person.

For another example to drive home this point, say the last thing your mother ever gave you was her favorite necklace or something. To you that item is invaluable, i.e. you either would never sell it for any money or only for a very very high price. To someone else, that same necklace is just a necklace and they would sell it for a way lower price. The amount of money used for pricing here really isn't objective at all, it is subjective.

So yeah, money is a terrible way of measuring objective value, because it isn't meant to measure objecti

Mariame Kaba published an article on the New York Times: "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police". Kaba claims that the police were always "a force of violence against black people". Her proposed solution is this:

>We should redirect the billions that now go to police departments toward providing health care, housing, education and good jobs. If we did this, there would be less need for the police in the first place.
>
>We can build other ways of responding to harms in our society. Trained “community care workers” could do mental-health checks if someone needs help. Towns could use restorative-justice models instead of throwing people in prison.

There is also MPD150, which helpfully, I guess, provides an FAQ section. They claim that "mental health service providers, violence prevention specialists, social workers, victim/survivor advocates, elders and spiritual leaders, neighbors and friends" will replace police officers.

I understand that I have not been through the same experiences as Kaba and I believe she is genuine in her requests. But there are several flaws I wish to point out.

Firstly, I believe Kaba overestimates the effectiveness of her community based support alternative. What community programs does she specifically want to invest in, and how does she intend to direct the programs to be foolproof? No amount of money we pump into them is going to eradicate crime, especially when we given up on investigating or prosecuting criminals.

If Kaba’s community has neither the resources, power or willingness to punish crime, what is the incentive to not commit crimes? Perhaps Kaba sees her idealized community acting as a neighbourhood watch? Or does she expect vigilantes or a group of vigilantes to rise up, who might ironically murder and detain criminals? Or does she plan to stick them in an asylum? Something has to be done with recalcitrant criminals who pose a serious danger to others.

There will always be crime. There will always be murderers, rapists, thieves, abusers, the desperate, the greedy, the cruel. As long as humans continues to exist.

What are your thoughts?

Looking for some good reading on this. Books, articles, essays, Jstor journals are all welcome.

I already have some material available to me that discusses the topic of gender, but I'm looking for work that directly talks about abolishing gender / what post-gender society could look like or if we could ever live in a post-gender society. I'm also interested in unpacking a very common "trans exclusionary radical feminist" talking point that trans-ness is a reinforcement of gender (not a TERF or transphobic, I just want to analyse this).

I know of Butler's Gender Trouble and own it, just need to get around to reading it. I don't know if Butler is a "gender abolitionist" though. I also have read the "Gender Accelerationist Manifesto".

Hello everybody, I have believed in anarchist politics for some time now and have recently started to read From Urbanization to Cities by Murray Bookchin. From Bookchin I have been introduced into communalism, which (if I have a correct understanding) advocates for a small government working via representatives of a direct democracy. My question is how could we guarantee that this government would be a true, incorruptible democracy? How would it prove advantageous to abolishing government and hierarchy altogether?

Thank you everybody and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day.

A

BILL

TO

Repeal the Consent of the Crown Act 2021 and bring in related provisions on Crown Consent

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Section 1: Repeals

The Consent of the Crown Act 2021 shall be repealed in its entirety.

Section 2: Crown Consent

(1) The prerogative power to refuse to grant the consent of Her Majesty or the Prince of Wales for a bill which would affect their capacity as Her Majesty or the Prince of Wales respectively —

> (a) the royal prerogative;
> (b) hereditary revenues;
> (c) the Duchy of Lancaster;
> (d) the Duchy of Cornwall;
> (e) the Earldom of Chester;
> (f) the Duchy of Edinburgh;
> (g) the proprietor of personal property and interests in right of any royal title;

shall be reinstated in its entirety.

(2) The Standing Orders of both House of Parliaments must make appropriate amendments to incorporate the concept of Crown Consent.

Section 3: Short title, commencement and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Crown Consent Abolition (Repeal) Act 2022.

(2) This Act comes into force immediately upon Royal Assent.

(3) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.

This bill was written by The Rt Hon. Lady Kilmarnock /u/NeatSaucer LG LD LP DCB OM PC and The Most High, Noble and Potent Prince His Grace the Earl Marshall /u/britboy3456 GCT GCVO GBE CB PC, The Duke of Norfolk, Premier Duke, Marquess and Earl of England, 19th Duke of Norfolk, 19th Marquess of Winchester, 34th Earl of Arundel, 8th Baron Skelmersdale and Deputy Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, on behalf of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Opening speech:

Crown consent is a sensible legal protection of our shared institution that is the monarchy, against governments that would otherwise tear it all down. It is not sensible to allow the legislature to punish or manipulate the head of state, putting at risk their political impartiality, hence why it is just sensible that this protection exists.

The 2021 Act was rejected and amended multiple times before eventually passing, and this was in recognition of the fact that it was a virtue signalling waste of time, a vanity project for republicans to make themselv

My friend asked me if I could send them some works on prison/police abolition. They seem very receptive to the notion but have some very reasonable reservations. Obviously I can't answer every single question that may arise since I'm one person and don't have all the answers alone. Plus they think it would be better for them to read the information themselves rather than just be lectured by me lol. I agree and was wondering if there was any easy to read entry level texts, wrightings, pamphlets etc. addressing commonly asked questions and concerns regarding prison abolition and acting as a beginner's guide to what a world without prison looks like. Thankyou in advance to anyone who responds.

I started following /r/antiwork, mainly for the job and work related rants or vents, which I can get behind. But there is another side to the sub that is filling with more radical people who want to abolish work entirely, self-proclaimed anarchist I believe. I see the same comments about ending work over and over again and I wonder how such system would even work.

I thought, how does the abolition of work even work? Do they want reddit engineers to work for free so you can use Reddit? Or abolish all forms of work so the internet and all modern life shuts down and everyone just fends for themselves in an anarchist wasteland?

I can kind of understand the argument of automation, eliminating menial labor and repetitive jobs from people. But that's not the same as abolishing work, as in the abolition of slavery or child labor. Creative people, engineers, doctors, need to exist to run the world. And it's highly unlikely they will do their trade without compensation or incentive, $$$.

But the modern world runs on acquisition of money and producing capital. Most people want to buy and use the latest technologies for a low price. I guess you can live in a theoretical utopia where that isn't the case and everyone is charitable and donates their time and work for the greater good of everyone. Problem with that is there will be inevitably led to free loaders and leeches in such a society. And would also be the lack of the incentive to be creative or innovate.

The only other idea I can think of is to literally reallocating/stealing (whatever way you want to view it) money of billionaires and redistribution of wealth among everyone. So that people are required to work less. But that also isn't a really sound proposition for a variety of reasons. The first namely is that if one takes away the financial incentive for businesses to make money, they wouldn't have the drive to make the product or innovations in the first place, most of them at least (some people don't patent their creations).

So essentially, if work is abolished, it seems to be that the world would stop functioning as we know it. Unless we all fundamentally change how society thinks and functions, by adopting some other form of non-capitalistic ideology, I don't see it working. Any pro-abolitionist of work would care to enlighten?

First: Regardless of disagreements folks may have with this, sending so much love and solidarity to anyone fighting to end exploitation and oppression!

*

Vegan and prison abolitionist here. I wanted to bring folks' attention to a distinction in the prison abolitionist community between reformist reforms and abolitionist reforms which I think some people might find helpful.

Like vegans, prison abolitionists face a widespread, structural problem, about which individuals can only do so much. Realistically, it's unlikely that we're going to abolish all prisons overnight. This means looking at prison abolition as a long-term, step-by-step project. Although the end goal is radical (the total abolition of prisons), some degree of incrementalism and reform seems necessary to get closer to that goal. However, not all reforms are equal.

Prison abolitionism distinguishes between reformist reforms and abolitionist reforms. Reformist reforms have an end goal of reforming the prison system: sanitizing it and making it palatable long-term. Abolitionist reforms have an end goal of abolishing the prison system.

Reformist reforms either move to preserve and expand the prison system (for example, building a new prison to reduce overcrowding) or take the movement down an alternate path that organizers will have to work to undo later (for example, ankle monitors as an alternative to cash bail). For vegans -- and feel free to push back on these examples or share others -- we might think of the push for humane beef, which has created an entirely new sector of the animal agriculture business to sell "happy beef" for more money.

Abolitionist reforms do not produce immediate abolition, but they do reduce the number of people incarcerated or disempower the prison-industrial complex. Some examples in the prison abolition movement are decarceration (getting people out of prison or reducing who is imprisoned in the first place) and shutting down existing prisons and jails. For vegans, we might think of shutting down slaughterhouses or ALF actions (though I guess that latter isn't really a "reform").

This distinction isn't fool-proof, and plenty of things fall in the middle or remain contested. (For example, are cleaner prisons with better food abolitionist reforms because they humanize incarcerated people, neutral reforms that don't fall into either camp, or are

I am currently a college student and was just offered a research position for improving the health of incarcerated folk. I am very torn about whether or not I should take it because on one hand, it will improve the lives of people currently incarcerated, but on the other, it does not necessarily challenge the system that put them there in the first place. I consider myself to be an abolitionist, however, I am now struggling with the concept of whether or not certain reform should occur before prisons are abolished. I unfortunately don’t see prisons being completely abolished for a while, so realistically, keeping prisoners healthy for the time being seems like it would keep them alive and well longer, which is good for their lives and their communities. However, I am aware of the caveat that any prison reform can have harshly negative effects and may make people more supportive of prisons.

Any advice or suggestions or reading material? My mind thinks its a good thing, but my gut tells me to stay weary.

So I just started my MSW program this past semester and it has definitely been a roller coaster from start to finish. There are a lot of people in the profession who believe social work is the only way to solve crises and very little support goes to abolitionist centered thinking and mutual aid efforts. Don’t even get me started about the lack of discourse around capitalist thinking and exploitation, specifically unpaid and underpaid labor of the field.

My question is, did anyone here get their degree and also supports abolitionist work? Or is it counter intuitive to expect that in a field where abolition goes against its whole creation? Social workers and the social work profession solidify systems of power. Just trying to see if staying in this program is best for me and trying to navigate these conflicting feelings.

We where talking about landlords and i have gotten her to agree that they a leeching on the housing crisis and how they are the scum of the earth, this is kinda epic

Hey gang,

I'm working on a bunch of giveaways for Black History Month and would love to grab 2-3 PF69/70 Silver Tuskegee Airmen quarters. One will be for my personal collection and the other two will be for giveaways. They are $43 shipped on Feebay, so I'd love to be at $35 each.

I'm also open to buying any other items that you may have that relate to Black History or the Abolition of Slavery. I have a couple "Am I Not a Man" Conder Tokens and an "Am I not A Woman" Hard Times (HT-81) token, but would love to see you graded or raw examples. These will all be part of the future giveaways.

Other ideas - Let me know what else you have!

-1863 CIVIL WAR F-36/340 a TOKEN "Liberty and No Slavery"

-2007 Great Britain 2 pound - Bicentenary of the Abolition of Slavery

- I have been collecting raw and graded Booker T Washington and George Washington Carver/BTW commems all year that I will be giving away, so I have a bunch and would only be a buyer at spot shipped for those.

I can pay with Venmo, PPFF, PPGS, USDC, Zelle, Gold, Silver, Platinum, Palladium, Goldbacks

One of the most transparent partisan issues currently is the status of voting rights. Pretty much all democratic voters are against any of the voting restriction laws currently circulating Republican lead state legislatures. With that being said, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have continued to drag their feet on the issue of abolishing the filibuster even with it being in the perspective of a civil rights struggle. What can the larger democratic leadership do to pressure them into changing their vote on the filibuster?