Reactionaries... Police. Army. Rich people. Religious people?

[tellyontellyon]

Are the police the enemy of Marxism?
What about the Army etc?
What about rich people?
Religious people?

Are there any examples of members of the police, the army, rich people, or religious people who have furthered the Marxist cause?

[The Something]

The actual people are not the "enemy", rather the conditions in society and the institutions that made them the way they are. Don't get me wrong people should be held accountable for their actions, but our focus needs to be on the bigger picture.

[ArrowLance]

The actual people are not the "enemy", rather the conditions in society and the institutions that made them the way they are. Don't get me wrong people should be held accountable for their actions, but our focus needs to be on the bigger picture.

This is a decent summary. The army, as an institution, is an enemy of the proletariat. But many people in the army are, or could be, our allies. However, regardless of the circumstances, soldiers are a threat to our desires.

Reactionaries can be ignorant, or otherwise. If they are just ignorant, they can be educated, if not; they are enemies.

Rich people may also be ignorant, but in so few cases could they be swayed to ally with the proletariat, and even if they did they could not be trusted.

[cb9's_unity]

The Something is pretty much correct.

As social forces the police, army, the rich (bourgeoisie) as well as religion are reactionary and serve to fight socialism and hold up capitalism. That does not mean that individuals within that group are necessarily reactionary. People are taught that they are joining the police to keep society stable, they don't think their primary role is to protect private property and capitalism. They Army is very much the same, however most leftists view the army as a key revolutionary demographic as the army is mainly comprised of members of the working class that happen to be armed and well trained in combat. A successful revolution will certainly need to change the minds of individual members of the military. The religious is another group that will need to become revolutionary, if only because they are the vast majority of most countries. You also don't need to look much further than this website to see that one can be religious and revolutionary.

While the rich as a whole will certainly remain reactionary, it likely that at least a few very liberal members of the bourgeoisie will take a step to the left and back proletarian revolution (these will surely be anomalies though).

[hefty_lefty]

I'm not much of an anarchist so I'd say that a police force could act in the best interests of the socialist nation. There will be laws to protect people and protect socialism (to a degree) from those who would do harm.
I know what the pamphlets say, once socialised the country becomes crime free and everyone jumps out of bed with a smile and skips to work :D .
Believe what you will but bad people will not cease to exist and we need laws to be upheld in as civil a manner as possible.

For the army, well, a standing army is a good idea as cb9 alluded to, because when protecting socialism through civil means doesn't work a more convincing method may be needed.

Rich people just wouldn't last and as far as religious folks, I don't see there being a problem...many religions have a lot in common with socialist thought.

[Black Dagger]

I'm not much of an anarchist so I'd say that a police force could act in the best interests of the socialist nation.

That would be their official charge i'm sure, but how likely is that to work in practice? The interests of the 'socialist nation' are liberty and justice - neither of which are usually embodied by a police force.



There will be laws to protect people and protect socialism (to a degree) from those who would do harm.

What use is law to protect socialism?

At the risk of sounding cliche or Marxist, socialism is something that can only be protected by organised, revolutionary workers. Anything else is a paper tiger.

Furthermore the law does not protect people it punishes, incarcerates and murders them; it's main function is to protect money and property (material, financial, intellectual) - in capitalist society, it only 'protects people' after the event - maybe this is pedantic, but surely meaningful protection is something given before there is harm, or indeed would take the form of some kind of harm prevention?

The reality is of course that the law and police cannot prevent crime (which is driven by social forces not 'bad people), only detect and respond to it.

If you ask a criminologist they'll say the same, if you ask a retired cop they'll agree, but if you listen to politicians or the police comissioner they'll pretend as if there is some magical formula akin to 'Cops + More Cops = Less Crime'. I.E. that we need cops (more and more, we never have enough apparently) to get a handle on all these 'bad people' running around! The truth is unfortunately (for everyone else) not quite like that, more cops = more detection (well in theory, it doesn't include instances where crime is being ignored say through corruption etc.), not less crime. More detection = more arrests = more convictions = the prison system grows a little fatter.

So what is it that people need be protected from?

I don't think the existence of inter-personal 'crime' (i.e. 'crimes of passion') is sufficient grounds/justification.


Believe what you will but bad people will not cease to exist and we need laws to be upheld in as civil a manner as possible.'Bad people' don't exist.

Crime is driven by social forces (poverty, a society where you work, steal or die - class society), the law itself (outlawing things creates crime), and personal circumstance ('I bashed him coz of what he said about my gf' or 'i killed him because i got sick of getting beat every time he would come home'), and to a minor extent alcohol (though this is kind of a joke, i do suspect it may be a statistically significant contributing factor).

'Personal circumstance' is of course an inescapable facet of the human condition - shit happens, and sometimes people deal with it by lashing out at others, 'revenge' etc. Those are very personal crimes, which may hint at mental health issue (slim), or just that sometimes people get really pissed off and don't handle their anger well (more likely). The latter is something people can learn, and if the alledged 'offender' does have mental health issues well then the law and police are the last people they should be coming into contact with.

The point is law and the police are creatures designed for bourgeois society for the conditions of this society - as such, and as an institution of the ruling class (by definition) they not only protect but uphold the values, traditions and attitudes of bourgeois society - where the poor and marginalised are to feared and loathed all at once.

In reality there are no 'bad people' out there who commit crime (the kind of people the police are keeping at bay right now!), there is just us! Capitalism makes people criminals.

We are the social products of capitalism, of the anxiety of ruling class culture, of histories of oppression, prejudice and discrimination - the 'bad' people of this bourgeois 'law' narrative are really the working class folks, and the poor, who by virtue of their position in the economic system, have little property to rob, steal, or damage.

[hefty_lefty]

I won't argue with reason, but the picture you paint is rather utopian.
The fact is we are the prduct of capitalism, and it will take a long time to re-condition society to a more harmonious, natural functionability.
If, let's take North America as an example, our country switched to socialism over the course of a year or two, the people would not undergo some paradigm shift in their moral fibre.

Policing may not be the answer, but there must be behavioural guidelines for the people to follow until the time when the true socialist man/woman is realized.

[Black Dagger]

The fact is we are the prduct of capitalism, and it will take a long time to re-condition society to a more harmonious, natural functionability...the people would not undergo some paradigm shift in their moral fibre.Yes of course! No one will ever see a communist society born over night.

The point is not to begin this process of transforming our lives and society by rebuilding the institutions of the old regime. If people need to be armed for protection they will be armed, as many of the causes of crime are material or structural (linked to capitalism, from my last post) the need for a 'police force' in the mode of the contemporary just won't be there. When there is a need for community-organised security this is something that people will surely organise (i would be surprised if they decided to bring back the 'cops'!). I also think that the existence of such a society would necessarily entail that there has been some kind of shift in what you called the 'moral fibre' of society. As anarchist spain demonstrated however, it is one thing to have a vibrant and ubiquitous revolutionary spirit, but we must all fight to ensure that the revolution in social ideas remains as vital task of the reorganisation of society.

A libertarian communist society, even one that is just crawling is still capable of ensuring the safety of it's members (due to the changes in social conditions). For me a more pressing concern (and this is really a matter of historical hindsight - the reality of the future and it's priorities is not something i can yet divine!) in terms of the safety/security of a future revolution is not the internal safety of communities (though obviously this is very important) but the external security of the society itself. That is, of the threat posed by remaining capitalist states and/or corporate mercenaries. In the past, it has been the conflict between the revolution and outside forces that has proven more fatal for revolutionaries (and the revolutionary society).