[Blake]

I sgree with Adrian and Trigger H. I see this as one of the flaws af communism at it has been implemented. It is based on good logic but with knowledge that has long since been revised. The view people had of families and particularly child rearing from the late 1800's to recently was very counter to the natural order of things. You can not delegate that there are no families and have healthy children. Study after study shows that children who are raised very affectionatley with a strong reliable family bond grow up to be MORE secure and productive members of society. Less likely to be involved in criminal activity, more ourgoing and social minded.

[Subversive Rob]

To all of you condemning the boy.

Would you condemn an American child who reported his father for murder?
What about someone who reported his father for theft? Rape?

His father was committing a crime and the boy reported it, what is so "morally wrong" about this? We all seem to be adopting Camus' view on this matter.

Perhaps his bond of social obligation was stronger than that of the familial one...

[Attila The Nun]

It wasn't murder, though. And he did it without second thought. That disgusts me. And the fact that the Soviets taght kids to do this. Seems a little like the KGB resembles the SA.

[Subversive Rob]

It wasn't murder, though. And he did it without second thought. That disgusts me. And the fact that the Soviets taght kids to do this. Seems a little like the KGB resembles the SA.

The Soviets taught kids to reports criminals, not dissidents in this case, to the authorities? Oh the horror. We do that today. Should they have taught - "Report criminals - unless they are relatives"?

And how do you know he "did it without a second thought"? Do you have any idea of what he felt? Were you in his head at the time.

The problem is that you are operating from your cultural standard. You are simply appalled that a child would report his criminal father. If it is wrong to commit a crime why is it wrong to report someone for doing it? Is justice not supposed to be blind? The "nuclear family" is a historic phenomenom you know...

[Attila The Nun]

The father forged documents, it's not hat bad. And it wasn't just that. Soviet children reported their parents for talking bad about the leader.

[Subversive Rob]

The father forged documents, it's not hat bad

In that case why arrest any forgers at all, hell let's just legalise it. He committed a crime and his son reported it, period. His son was being a good citizen. In fact if his son hadn't reported it he would have been an accesory.

As Jaakko said:

And forging documents and selling them to rich peasants is not petty criminal activity, but criminal rebel activity.

Soviet children reported their parents for talking bad about the leader.

We're not discussing that, we're discussing this particular article. But anyways, proof?
[/quote]

[The One.]

Well,I think we can all learn a lesson from this article: soviet propaganda in schools was terribly effective

[Gothmog]

The two cases are not of the same nature: the example you have evoked Gothmog would not make me blame Capitalism (it would be too easy), it is a crime that could have happened elsewhere, and is rather to justify through the madness of the woman, social pressure, bad education, family problems, or something else.

On the other hand Ixabert reported something that is also not the result of Socialism/Communism, but the result of a police state worth that of the Third Reich and other fascist States (even 40/44 France), a police state working on breaking families, human values, morals, etc. And that's why it is a disgusting story.

-Adrien, I´m not blaming capitalism for the Brazilian incident. I´m just pointing that it´s absurd to say that the fault of both incidents is to be placed on government systems. In every system you will see a few indivuals betraying their relatives, or denouncing them to authorithies for many reasons. The fact that this boy was made a hero by Soviet authorities point to the fact that these incidents were actually exceptional in Stalinist USSR. You could argue that the government reaction to this incident is unusual, but, again, in every political system, it´s common practice to reward people who give the state information about criminal activities (which, btw, didn´t happen in this case, he was only made a heroe after his death). Btw, I also disagree from what the boy did. I wouldn´t have done this, but, don´t remember, there were hard times, and it´s possible that the boy really believed he was building a better society and that his father would receive a short sentence. The condictions of the Soviet Gulag were probably not known by most people.

[Fernando]

I am not interested in showing if it was communism, socialism, marxism-leninism or bolchevism (trostkyst or stalinist branch) what is to blame for this topic.

The problem is that this particular regime, in that particular time considered GOOD for a child to report their fathers' "crimes" (not murder, not rape) to the police, even not knowing they were going to be killed.

An it is a major problem that nowadays some people think this was good.

You use to blame UK for famines in British India. Some British surely would disagree with you and would say you are not right but I assume none of them would say: "Yeah, we did it and we are proud of it" (what is exactly what Ixabert has said"

[Rust]

The problem is that this particular regime, in that particular time considered GOOD for a child to report their fathers' "crimes" (not murder, not rape) to the police, even not knowing they were going to be killed.

The article said he was sent to prison, a very fitting punishment for what the father did.

If the same would happen in the U.S. right now, if someone where caught forging official documents, he could be charged with terrorism!

[Gothmog]

You use to blame UK for famines in British India. Some British surely would disagree with you and would say you are not right but I assume none of them would say: "Yeah, we did it and we are proud of it" (what is exactly what Ixabert has said"

-I don´t think we should be proud of this boy, however, you said you were proud of what the other relatives did (killing Pavel), so where is your moral superiority in relation to Ixabert? Both you are claiming that it´s ok. for people to betray or kill relatives.

[Fernando]

Of course I am totally against of killing none. My answer was a reply to the provocation of Ixabert.

He has taken out a very well-known example of totalitarism in the Soviet Union (quoted one and again by anti-commies) as an example of how good USSR was.

As I have renounced to answer him seriously I just wanted to ironize about how good "Morozov" was, just to say at the end that the right guy was the brother who killed Pavel. When I am with friends or family in no matter what context it is clear to everyone that when I am talking about killing someone I am just kidding. In the PoFo (for some reason) this happen to be not so clear.

And I thought I have been understood by everyone. If not, I sincerely apologize.

[Ixa]

He has taken out a very well-known example of totalitarism

a crime was being committed. This is the farthest thing from 'totalitarianism'. You are the one who is being a totalitarian here.

as an example of how good USSR was.

How did I use it 'as an example of how good the USSR was'?

[Subversive Rob]

So does everyone here think it:

A) is wrong to report family members committing a crime?

B) is it just that "forgery isn't that severe"?

If you choose B remember that you are making a subjective judgement, meaning you endorse people judging the severity of a family member's crime before deciding whether or not to report it. This doesn't sound like effective justice to me.

If it is "wrong" to commit a crime but "wrong" to inform on you family the individual makes a choice. Just because they think criminality is the greater wrong is not indicative of totalitarianism. If it is I could very well say that you all support totalitarianism of the family, whereby the family creates all the unbreakable rules for society, and looking at some families that may not be a good idea.

Camus: "I believe in justice but I will defend my mother above justice"

Jules Roy: "It is not a matter of choosing one's mother above justice. It is a matter of loving justice as much as one's mother"

You are using this example as an excuse to call the USSR "totalitarian" but sons report their fathers to the police under capitalism too, in the US and the UK, does that make them totalitarian.

[Fernando]

A) It is wrong to report family members committing a non-severe crime.
It is wrong to report a crime when your father is to be killed because of it.
It is wrong to encourage children to report their father. And yes, that is totalitarian.

B) Forgery is not that severe. This is a sujective judgement.

I assume that you are not reporting your father (or mates, it is the same) every time they drive faster than the speed limit (what it is severe to me, by the way).

I assume you would if your father was killing 30 people. Are you doing a subjective judgement?

Totalitarianism of the family: Difficult to see when it is not a excuse for killing to do it because your father said to you. There are laws and you have to respect them, regardless what your family has said to you. Simply, there is a thing, called family, where there is a confidence between their members. The state (but in totalitarian states) simply reckons that situation.

About "capitalist" legislation: you can report on your fathers, but I have not been encouraged to in the school. I have not seen no statue of a child who has betrayed his hamily. At least in Spain you are less punished if you don't report on your relatives. With minor faults that means you are not punished at all becasue of non-reporting.

[Subversive Rob]

A) It is wrong to report family members committing a non-severe crime.
It is wrong to report a crime when your father is to be killed because of it.
It is wrong to encourage children to report their father. And yes, that is totalitarian.

He was not sentenced to death but to 10 years. Even if you think he was "killed" the boy could not know this since the sentence was "10 years".

And how is it totalitarian to tell children to report all criminals, regardless of any bonds? The article pays no specific mention to soviet educational practice.

B) Forgery is not that severe. This is a sujective judgement.

I assume that you are not reporting your father (or mates, it is the same) every time they drive faster than the speed limit (what it is severe to me, by the way).

I assume you would if your father was killing 30 people. Are you doing a subjective judgement?

But if they were driving that fast they could kill someone, a person might judge that to be severe, hence a subjective judgement. And my point is where does the line come between "severe" and "non severe"?

Totalitarianism of the family: Difficult to see when it is not a excuse for killing to do it because your father said to you. There are laws and you have to respect them, regardless what your family has said to you. Simply, there is a thing, called family, where there is a confidence between their members. The state (but in totalitarian states) simply reckons that situation.

When you say that family should be the ultimate ethical and legal subject and legislator you promote the ideology of the family to a totalitarian position. The boy knew his father was breaking the law. If he was encouraged (by you) not to report family you promote the family to a totalitarian position.

About "capitalist" legislation: you can report on your fathers, but I have not been encouraged to in the school. I have not seen no statue of a child who has betrayed his hamily. At least in Spain you are less punished if you don't report on your relatives. With minor faults that means you are not punished at all becasue of non-reporting.

Socialism has a different ethical system to capitalism, placing less emphasis on the family as a unit of importance. You on the other hand hypostatise the family as an eternal truth (something contradicted in the animal kingdom and primitive man). I'm sure if in Spain a boy informed on his father for say, drug offences, and was then murdered by his vengeful family he would at least get some credit.

Or perhaps in the US if a man was selling forged papers to al Qaeda, his son reported it and was then killed I am certain the US would make something of the child.

[Fernando]

He was not sentenced to death but to 10 years. Even if you think he was "killed" the boy could not know this since the sentence was "10 years".

I suppose he didn't know. That's why we don't encourage 13 years old guys to report on their parents.

Anyway Ixabert let us without doubts:

The elder Morozov was sentenced to ten years in a labor camp, and although his fate thereafter is unknown, it is thought that he did not long survive.

And how is it totalitarian to tell children to report all criminals, regardless of any bonds? The article pays no specific mention to soviet educational practice.

It is totalitarian because the State does not reckon any other authority, separate from State authority. You must to do what the State says to you, regardless your parents, your friends, your church, your personal beliefs and your common sense say to you.

About soviet educational practice, I am not an expert. The problem is that this child became a model (a hero, in Ixabert's words). The question is the behaviour of a brainwashed guy is considered by Ixabert (by you?) as "what must be done".

But if they were driving that fast they could kill someone, a person might judge that to be severe, hence a subjective judgement. And my point is where does the line come between "severe" and "non severe"?

I said before: Of course it is subjective. I don't know where the line is. I only know that, in this particular case, is well below that line.

You haven't answered: Are you curently reporting your parents or friends' behaviour?

When you say that family should be the ultimate ethical and legal subject and legislator you promote the ideology of the family to a totalitarian position

Nego maiorem, ergo nego consequentiam.
I love to be quoted but please, do it properly.

You on the other hand hypostatise the family as an eternal truth (something contradicted in the animal kingdom and primitive man).

I haven't said so, but I could agree the family is "natural" or "eternal truth". I know just a little bit about prehistory but I haven't heard nowhere that family was a 18th century capitalist invention. Anyway is off-topic.
Could we agree that in 1930's Russia family had some importance.

I'm sure if in Spain a boy informed on his father for say, drug offences, and was then murdered by his vengeful family he would at least get some credit.

In Spain we don't use to execute drug offenders. Anyway if a child would report on his father maybe he would be seen with contempt. Maybe if his father were a drug czar it would be different. And if he would be killed because of his report we certainly would feel pity on him. I don't really know if some stupid real-TV magazine would dedicate him a program.

[Gothmog]

Of course I am totally against of killing none. My answer was a reply to the provocation of Ixabert.

He has taken out a very well-known example of totalitarism in the Soviet Union (quoted one and again by anti-commies) as an example of how good USSR was.

As I have renounced to answer him seriously I just wanted to ironize about how good "Morozov" was, just to say at the end that the right guy was the brother who killed Pavel. When I am with friends or family in no matter what context it is clear to everyone that when I am talking about killing someone I am just kidding. In the PoFo (for some reason) this happen to be not so clear.

And I thought I have been understood by everyone. If not, I sincerely apologize.

-Well, sorry . Nothing to add......