Personally, I believe that A CAB. Yes, all cops are bastards, no exceptions. Yet I have met people who think that cops in socialist countries aren’t bastards.
My reasoning is that it is a position of power over your fellow citizens/countrymen/people and only bastards would be attracted to such positions. While a person may go in with “good intentions”, invariably they will be at some point in their career be expected to do something “not good”: cover up for a colleague, arrest someone for law they don’t agree with, beat somebody up, and so on. If they do it and remain a cop, well they are a bastard, no matter how many old ladies they help cross the street or whatever.
Let’s also not pretend that a full communist utopia where every single law/regulation/rule is fair is possible in our lifetimes (or at all likely), there’ll always be people who will want to abuse their power and take control, cops are an easily bought section of society that makes it possible for them. Historically, cops have always sided with the aristocracy/bourgeoisie/land-owners/those with money.
Your thoughts?
Historically, cops have always sided with the aristocracy/bourgeoisie/land-owners/those with money.
Because it’s that state which they serve, obviously.
There’s a fundamental difference between cops in socialist countries and those elsewhere. The police serves the state – with the exception of some individuals, they act in the interest of the bourgeoisie in capitalist countries and the workers in socialist countries. “ACAB” is implicitly limited to capitalist countries; otherwise, it would be akin to anarchists denouncing all states
There’s a fundamental difference between cops in socialist countries and those elsewhere.
And that difference is…?
The police serves the state
The police serve whoever pays them.
they act in the interest of the bourgeoisie in capitalist countries and the workers in socialist countries.
That’s an idealist view, just because you say it doesn’t make it true. Yes, in theory the police should “act in the interest of the workers in socialist countries”, but
then why didn’t they do that in the Soviet Union before its dissolution? Why did the police side with the people who wanted to tear down the Soviet Union?edit: I was wrong here. The Moscow militia actually fought against Yeltsin.
“ACAB” is implicitly limited to capitalist countries; otherwise, it would be akin to anarchists denouncing all states
Not at all. It is recognition of an institution that has no revolutionary potential. It is an institution that has historically been instrumental in counter-revolution.
And that difference is…?
Cops in capitalist societies are there to protect private property and little else. This is not the case in socialist states.
The police serve whoever pays them.
So do the workers. This is not saying anything.
That’s an idealist view, just because you say it doesn’t make it true.
It’s a material undeniable fact.
why didn’t they do that in the Soviet Union before its dissolution?
The Soviet Union was a decrepit state with poorly principled people all over. You were expecting the police to be the vanguard of maintaining socialism there? This is unserious and silly.
Not at all. It is recognition of an institution that has no revolutionary potential. It is an institution that has historically been instrumental in counter-revolution.
In capitalist societies yes.
Are all traffic lights bastards whether they’re in capitalist or socialist societies, since they have power over you? You have some neck to be calling anyone else idealist. You’re reeking off anarchist “thought”.
This is not the case in socialist states.
Is there no private property in currently existing socialist states? Do you think if you go to sleep in someone’s yard in China the police wouldn’t come and take you away?
It’s a material undeniable fact.
How can “they act in the interests of the workers” be a material, undeniable fact? You can’t just throw words and terms around.
In capitalist societies yes.
How can you be counter-revolutionary without a revolution?
Are all traffic lights bastards whether they’re in capitalist or socialist societies, since they have power over you?
Sure. There are more traffic lights
You’re reeking off anarchist “thought”.
You should learn to argue/debate without throwing insults. It makes you look insecure and immature.
Lenin replaced the police with a local “militia”, literally what I am saying now.
I was wrong about the Soviet Union’s militia. The local Moscow militia fought on the side of the parliamentarians against Yeltsin. So it helped a bit that there wasn’t a country-wide “police” to be shipped from other cities to Moscow.
Do you think if you go to sleep in someone’s yard in China the police wouldn’t come and take you away?
I mean id hope they would do that, do you want someone sleeping in your yard you dont know? 90% of people in China own a house, the need for people to sleep homelessly is all but eliminated over there.
How can “they act in the interests of the workers” be a material, undeniable fact? You can’t just throw words and terms around.
Because workers controll the government, who tell the police what to do.
I mean id hope they would do that, do you want someone sleeping in your yard you dont know?
Sure, but that’s because I’m not scared of other workers and I don’t think people are icky.
You said “cops don’t protect private property in socialist states” but then you say “I hope they’d protect private property in a socialist state”, so which is it?
90% of people in China own a house, the need for people to sleep homelessly is all but eliminated over there.
Who said anything about “homelessness”? What if you’re drunk/tired and just need a place to rest your head for a few hours? Why do you think that anyone sleeping on the street is “homeless”?
Who said anything about “homelessness”? What if you’re drunk/tired and just need a place to rest your head for a few hours? Why do you think that anyone sleeping on the street is “homeless”?
Because rough sleeping is usually tied to homelessness.
In a socialist society if you’re taking a nap somewhere, the police will give you a ride home. Capitalist societies literally criminalize this.
You said “cops don’t protect private property in socialist states” but then you say “I hope they’d protect private property in a socialist state”, so which is it?
Cops dont act on behalfs of landlords, they act on behalf of the people; of course if someone is invading your home, they should still respond; dont be inane.
In a socialist society if you’re taking a nap somewhere, the police will give you a ride home.
And that’s how it should be. The police don’t need country-wide powers, 24/7 access to a criminal database or weapons to do this.
of course if someone is invading your home, they should still respond
Someone who takes a nap in your yard isn’t “invading your home”.
housing owned by the people living there is personal property, not private property; the former should certainly be protected in a socialist country
housing owned by the people living there is personal property, not private property
“owned”. If it’s “owned”, it’s not personal property, it’s private property. Personal property is owned by the State but given to you to use. That means after you die or no longer need it, it is taken from you and given to someone else. “Owned” implies that you can decide who to give it to and that your kids can inherit it.
Gonna lock this thread. Sorry but I don’t think the OP is arguing in good faith.
Moreover this is not something that needs to be had intense theoretical debate over. There are AES countries with people living in them under the authority of their police. It would be more instructive to seek their opinion (though I admit it is not easy or straightforward) rather than mull over hypotheticals.
Back in the 90’s (no idea how that would be now), at Cuba. police was formed mostly by people doing its military service (which was, at the time, 3 years).
Many of my highschool friends worked as proximity police because of that.
So no, not all C AB.
Said that, I would say that there are a ton of material and social conditions to ensures that, at least in a capitalist country, the role is fullfilled by Bs.Personally, I believe that A CAB. Yes, all cops are bastards, no exceptions. Yet I have met people who think that cops in socialist countries aren’t bastards.
This is framing the entire world in the lenses of western liberal issues, its chauvinism to a degree.
ACAB makes most sense in the west, american police kill 1000 people+ a year in cold blood and oversee the largest prison population in humanities history, slave labour and racial terror.
Chinese police on the other hand, have killed about 20 people in 30 years… and typically in response to being attacked first, or in response to mass terror events. They are simply not comparable.
The idea is they too eventually get phased out, but it is base idealism to think you can vanish the police over night. They get removed because of contradictions leading to solutions, as marxists we should recongise this; even after the revolution, or seizing power, or gaining power; we will still need to defend it, we will still need ‘police’; the benefit is there will be no landlords, so they will not serve the landlord class, and we will direct them to serve socialist interests (read althussers theory of the state apparatus, they are the club of the brain of the state)
Since our end goal is the dissolvement of the state, it comes to think they will be disolved too eventually, and it is our end goal; but you cant jump straight to the end goal.
Chinese police on the other hand, have killed about 20 people in 30 years…
So have police in other Western imperialist/capitalist nations. If you’re going by “murder by police” statistics to determine which police is better than others then the US police is in a league of its own. In some Western countries police don’t even have guns on them 24/7. It’s a poor metric.
They are simply not comparable.
In the OP I named things that I’m sure every cop in every country in history has done: helped a colleague over what’s right/fair, enforced a law they don’t agree with, beaten up someone, and things like that. Violence isn’t only murder, there’s false imprisonment, charging an innocent person with a crime, mistreating a prisoner, those are all objectively negative things that don’t involve murder and make a police force “bad”.
So have police in other Western imperialist/capitalist nations. If you’re going by “murder by police” statistics to determine which police is better than others then the US police is in a league of its own. In some Western countries police don’t even have guns on them 24/7. It’s a poor metric.
The metric im using is the one in which ACAB was born out of, as a response to the terror of american police, and largely in part due to the drug war.
Violence isn’t only murder, there’s false imprisonment, charging an innocent person with a crime, mistreating a prisoner, those are all objectively negative things that don’t involve murder and make a police force “bad”.
Sure, its part of the ‘monopoly of violence’, it typically serves the ideological means of who ever is in control. We want that to be socialist as socialism/communism looks to phase this out by transitioning away from statism, untill then we still need to grappel with capitalism pitting everyone against each other so a police force is needed to stop violent acts. We all know the police do ‘bad’ things, I do believe they can be controlled to do what we want though, as ultimately they will just do whatever who is paying them tell them to do.
What would you suggest a socialist country do? Pull the rug out from the police and abolish the whole institute? What about domestic abuse? It would inherently hit the vunerable; thats why I called it ‘idealism’
The metric im using is the one in which ACAB was born out of, as a response to the terror of american police, and largely in part due to the drug war.
That view ignores the history from which the police was born out of (not just a slogan). Police were bastards long before the US war on drugs in the 1970s. From their inception the police was a violent, mercenary group that did the bidding of the landed elite. The police crushed workers’ protests in the 19th century, long before the war on drugs.
so a police force is needed to stop violent acts
No, it is not. A people’s militia could do the same, or the army/national guard, citizen-soldiers, a people’s army, whatever you want to label it.
ultimately they will just do whatever who is paying them tell them to do.
Precisely. So how can you
What would you suggest a socialist country do? Pull the rug out from the police and abolish the whole institute?
Sure. Police have been historically counter-revolutionary and if a capitalist wants to undermine your State they will first attempt to bribe the police. Because now they have an armed force that is present all over the country. Having the police in a socialist country is like having a snake in a kindergarten.
What about domestic abuse?
Wjhat about it? Do you think the police prevents domestic abuse? LMAO. To stop domestic abuse you have to remove conditions which enable it: patriarchal capitalist society and its culture of “household breadwinner”. There’s also drug and alcohol abuse. These are all problems that the police can’t fix. Police can however make them worse. Also, police officers are some of the worst domestic abusers, so I really don’t know what your point is.
Neighbours who hear domestic abuse can stop it. But that requires that people actually give a shit about one another and take responsibility for the place they live in, and not just call “the police” and wash their hands off it.
It would inherently hit the vunerable; thats why I called it ‘idealism’
No, the vulnerable are the victims of police violence. You are the one who want to believe the police can be a force for good. I’m saying that “the police” as in “people who’s job is to police/control people and effectively rule the streets” are inherently negative and cannot be reformed, they have to be abolished.r
That view ignores the history from which the police was born out of (not just a slogan). Police were bastards long before the US war on drugs in the 1970s. From their inception the police was a violent, mercenary group that did the bidding of the landed elite. The police crushed workers’ protests in the 19th century, long before the war on drugs.
It doesnt ignore this, again we’re focusing on the american conception of the police. Of course a state born out of slavery and genocide will continue to evolve its police based on its own ideological conception. Other countries dont have this same relationship; the chinese police where not born out of a slave state, they where born out of a socialist revolution.
No, it is not. A people’s militia could do the same, or the army/national guard, citizen-soldiers, a people’s army, whatever you want to label it.
That would ulimtiately just be a ‘police’, renaming it something different doesnt make it different.
Sure. Police have been historically counter-revolutionary
Where have socialist police ever been counter-revolutionary?
Wjhat about it? Do you think the police prevents domestic abuse? LMAO. To stop domestic abuse you have to remove conditions which enable it: patriarchal capitalist society and its culture of “household breadwinner”. There’s also drug and alcohol abuse. These are all problems that the police can’t fix. Police can however make them worse. Also, police officers are some of the worst domestic abusers, so I really don’t know what your point is.
Again, yes in a capitalist system they often make things worse. Im asking how you would deal with issues like domestic abuse in a hypothetical that we just deleted the police from existance, some form of sanctioned violence needs to be weilded in the function of a government, its idealist to think otherwise.
No, the vulnerable are the victims of police violence. You are the one who want to believe the police can be a force for good. I’m saying that “the police” as in “people who’s job is to police/control people and effectively rule the streets” are inherently negative and cannot be reformed, they have to be abolished
And replaced with what? Im fine considering your ideas, but you need to consider what comes after, otherwise a vaccum emerges and the people who rely on others to exist (the disabled, the vunerable) will be easy pickings for people with bad intentions.
we’re focusing on the american conception of the police
You are. Cops were present in 17th century Britain, they served the aristocracy, the landed elite and the rich. They were tasked to round up “vagrants”, poor people, etc.
That would ulimtiately just be a ‘police’, renaming it something different doesnt make it different.
Nope. Because the difference is the scope of their powers and where they are recruited from. A “police offcer” shouldn’t have any authority outside of their neighbourhood/village, for example.
Where have socialist police ever been counter-revolutionary?
Every socialist country where the revolution was crushedt: Yugoslavia,
Soviet Union, Burkina Faso, … in each of those countries the police was instrumental in taking power away from the people and giving them to the capitalists/imperialists. There’s a reason why historically the communists have allied with the army and not the police.Im asking how you would deal with issues like domestic abuse in a hypothetical that we just deleted the police
Pretty sure I answered that. By having a society where people give a shit about one another. If a neighbour hears/sees domestic abuse going on, they should do something. The other solution is to remove the causes of domestic violence, like I already wrote.
And replaced with what?
A neighbourhood watch. The problem is the scope of powers. Have a police, but have the police officer only have authority inside of his neighbourhood or a demarcated, small area. Why should a cop have city-wide powers. Do we expect the police officer to be familiar with every neighbourhood and people in a city of 200-300k people? There’s just no way. And that’s part of the problem why the police behave the way they do, they are effectively ruling over strangers, and not people they have to see/meet every time they go to the grocery store.
A neighbourhood watch. The problem is the scope of powers. Have a police, but have the police officer only have authority inside of his neighbourhood or a demarcated, small area. Why should a cop have city-wide powers. Do we expect the police officer to be familiar with every neighbourhood and people in a city of 200-300k people? There’s just no way. And that’s part of the problem why the police behave the way they do, they are effectively ruling over strangers, and not people they have to see/meet every time they go to the grocery store.
So your solution is to have thousands of indiependant police cells in countries that have billions of people and expect it to just work out without any centralization of methodology or ideology and accountability to any central power? I can think of 100 ways this falls flat due to abuses of power…
Pretty sure I answered that. By having a society where people give a shit about one another. If a neighbour hears/sees domestic abuse going on, they should do something. The other solution is to remove the causes of domestic violence, like I already wrote.
Ah yes, lets just rely on our neighbours to violently de-escelate something, better hope your neighbour isnt a 70 year old women, il be moving into the bloc of MMA fighters and body builders to ensure my safety.
Every socialist country where the revolution was crushedt: Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Burkina Faso, … in each of those countries the police was instrumental in taking power away from the people and giving them to the capitalists/imperialists. There’s a reason why historically the communists have allied with the army and not the police.
The police in the USSR didnt crush the revolution, america did that economically, they also didnt act as houndogs for landlords.
I think we agree in parts though, the best way for a socialist country to get rid of cops is to eliminate all the conditions that require them, thats what i was getting at with ‘contradictions leading to solutions’, total abolishment is shock therapy.
So your solution is to have thousands of indiependant police cells in countries that have billions of people
Most countries aren’t that big. China and India account for 3 billion people, leaving 5 billion people across some 190 countries or so. It’s not “thousands of cells” and “billions of people” in countries. I said neighbourhood/village. You’re assuming that there’s “crime” going on every second in every square km of a country, that’s simply not true. You don’t need that many cops to be “patrolling” the streets. And what are they doing anyway? Looking for petty criminals and people who are circumventing tax laws and regulations mostly.
Ah yes, lets just rely on our neighbours to violently de-escelate something, better hope your neighbour isnt a 70 year old women, il be moving into the bloc of MMA fighters and body builders to ensure my safety.
The police doesn’t “de-escalate”, the police comes and beats people up and throws them in prison.
to ensure my safety.
Does the police ensure your safety right now, or will they come after the fact to “investigate”? That neighbour who calls the police for you could also have stopped whatever was happening. The police can’t teleport themselves instantly.
total abolishment is shock therapy.
First thing any new socialist country should do is throw all the police into the prison, then politically educate and hire a new cadre.
deleted by creator
No, cops are fundamentally individuals. Lots of cops are bastards, and we hear about them. The good ones don’t attract clicks.