I've seen the Warren quote going around about applying "maximum punishments" to people who've committed "heinous crimes." I've seen poorly thought out arguments in defense of her sentiments and amongst those criticizing her. But I wanted to speak to something I heard. (Thread.)
I saw someone post those screenshots on fb and someone responded that they doubted Sanders has an abolitionist platform. While that's accurate, I think something is missing here about how abolitionists interact with the electoral system.
An abolitionist framework accounts for what we call reformist reforms and non-reformist reforms. A reformist reform serves the interests of those who want to expand the reach and resources of the prison industrial complex.
While aspiring to reform the system, many well-intentioned people ppl will help feed it by arguing that money should be spent on new jails and initiatives that will somehow make prisons good.
Those investments have routinely led to reinventions of various elements of a system of torture. Rikers was a reform project, as was Parchman in Mississippi. History is consistent on this.
So as abolitionists, we know that greater investment in punishment is unacceptable -- even when it's draped in the language of reform. The prison industrial complex seizes money greedily and does not release it easily.
A non-reformist reform, conversely, takes power away from the death-making systems we oppose.
I am just one abolitionist and there are def others who've reached a different conclusion, but in my opinion, Bernie's positions on reducing the number of imprisoned ppl, voting rights for imprisoned ppl, abolishing cash bail & demilitarizing the police are non-reformist reforms.
I think there's enough worth supporting here that we can say there's a major distinction between this approach and openly declaring support for death by incarceration.
Full text from image: feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders…
Full text from image: feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders…
But abolitionists who support Warren are also considering harm reduction w in this framework, just differently. Warren does support policy changes that are direct resources toward root causes of the cycle of incarceration. That's significant to ppl looking to redirect resources.
Warren also says she wants to end cash bail & she has a number of policy proposals that are clearly the result of engaging w ppl who are looking to direct resources away from the punishment system. We don't all agree but there's a logic to how abolitionists approach these things.
Some abolitionists don't engage with the electoral system at all. But dismissively saying that "neither progressive candidate has an abolitionist platform," as tho abolitionists do not have an analysis around policy and rhetoric if it falls short of total abolition is silly.
The word "abolitionist" should never be used as a form of dismissal -- a way of deeming someone too radical to give meaningful input on a matter of policy. Such characterizations are ahistorical & ill-informed.
Abolition is a political vision & a way of practicing politics. Its meaning in the popular imagination has already been twisted by misuse. At some point, the term became a grant-writing buzzword & we now have a lot of folks who are "abolitionists, except for" & that's a nope too.
Words mean things. And that particular word is important to me.
Since this thread is still getting traction, I'm going to shamelessly tack on my collective's fundraiser. We are abolitionists and we organize direct action workshops and protests within that framework. We're an all-volunteer team.
