The Existence of the Police and Military Forces

[jmpeer]

Do any specific communist ideologies actually call for the abolition of the police and military forces, is it a popular opinion at all, and what is your personal opinion on the general existence of such forces?

[Tommy4ever]

Well the abolition of the standing army was a pretty central facet of Marxism (and ofc Anarchism) before the October Revolution. However, after the Bolsheviks actually went ahead and disbanded the standing army things went tits up pretty fast and they had to basically re-establish a proffessional style military in order to win the Civil War. Since then communist ideologies stemming from Leninism have had quite a militarist tint and have basically given up on getting rid of the standing army.

Anarchists kept this belief - during the Spanish Civil War they fought using what was in essence a workers' militia (as most pre-October communists had envisioned). I think most Anarchists hold to this belief.

As for the police - I'm not so sure. I assume Anarchists again stick to their guns on this one.

[PhoenixAsh]

The whole essence of the justice system and laws will change making the role of any group responbsible for protecting people radically different from anything we understand and experience now....the current police is endebted to the state and in accordance exists to protect property and the ruling elite...tokingly protecting people more as a side line than actual job....and mainly to keep the system from falling apart.

This will change. And any group responsible in whatever form for protecting people is in the direct service of these people...and not beholden to property or government.

The military will be disbanded and replaced by workers militia.

[El Chuncho]

the abolition of the police is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Police are needed to keep order in any society, capitalist or socialist. They should not abuse power by beating up minorities, or committing extortion, but I would hate to live in a society where murderers, paedophiles, wife-beaters, husband-beaters, thugs, thieves and rapists could get off scotch free after committing their crimes. We need a police force after the revolution and to do away with policing, prisons, judges etc. would be folly and would lead to a state worse than the capitalist hellhole we currently live in.

[Magón]

the abolition of the police is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Police are needed to keep order in any society, capitalist or socialist. They should not abuse power by beating up minorities, or committing extortion, but I would hate to live in a society where murderers, paedophiles, wife-beaters, husband-beaters, thugs, thieves and rapists could get off scotch free after committing their crimes. We need a police force after the revolution and to do away with policing, prisons, judges etc. would be folly and would lead to a state worse than the capitalist hellhole we currently live in.

Why have a police force when people can just police themselves? I'm sure you police yourself in most of your daily life, than you'd let a police officer do nowadays, so why should it change when when a post-revolutionary society is achieved? Police aren't needed, and in a society where pedophiles, wife-beaters, etc. are able to run rampant, isn't a society Anarchists or Marxists want. But for Anarchists, getting the people to police themselves, and look out for one another to combat murderers, rapists, etc., is a lot better and more liberating than having some cop asshole come knocking on your door.

[Lanky Wanker]

the abolition of the police is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Police are needed to keep order in any society, capitalist or socialist. They should not abuse power by beating up minorities, or committing extortion, but I would hate to live in a society where murderers, paedophiles, wife-beaters, husband-beaters, thugs, thieves and rapists could get off scotch free after committing their crimes. We need a police force after the revolution and to do away with policing, prisons, judges etc. would be folly and would lead to a state worse than the capitalist hellhole we currently live in.

anarchists do have the crime thing planned out, it's not like the idea is "we want to let murderers and rapists get away with everything" lol

[El Chuncho]

Why have a police force when people can just police themselves? I'm sure you police yourself in most of your daily life, than you'd let a police officer do nowadays, so why should it change when when a post-revolutionary society is achieved?

Because many paedophiles, serial killers, spouse-beaters, rapists have no interest in policing themselves, which is what they would have to do if they are the only witness to their own crimes, and many people do not want to ''citizen arrest'' people (you cannot change human nature that much). What if no one saw the crime being committed? You need police investigators to investigate the crime to make sure that the perpetrator(s) can be brought to justice.


Police aren't needed, and in a society where pedophiles, wife-beaters, etc. are able to run rampant, isn't a society Anarchists or Marxists want.

I believe that police are needed, but you are right that (most, by not all) Anarchists and Marxists do not want such a state.


But for Anarchists, getting the people to police themselves, and look out for one another to combat murderers, rapists, etc., is a lot better and more liberating than having some cop asshole come knocking on your door.

Very idealistic. You seem to believe that you can teach all people to be nice citizens of the world, I reject that. Murder, rape, paedophilia and violence will, unfortunately, always happen and that is why a police force will always be needed. They need not be assholes, they should stand up for innocent people being abused by ''problem members'' of society and to stand for protection and justice. A police officer making an investigation when some has been brutally murdered hardly makes them an asshole, especially if they are working in a Socialist society, for the protection of the people.

[Magón]

Because many paedophiles, serial killers, spouse-beaters, rapists have no interest in policing themselves, which is what they would have to do if they are the only witness to their own crimes, and many people do not want to ''citizen arrest'' people (you cannot change human nature that much). What if no one saw the crime being committed? You need police investigators to investigate the crime to make sure that the perpetrator(s) can be brought to justice.

I'm not saying you can't have CSI people, or whatever, look into a crime, just we don't need cops 24/7 like we do now, thinking they're in a higher rank and file than the rest of us. You're falling for the common misconception that most have towards an Anarchist, when he/she tells them, there shouldn't be cops. Anarchists aren't opposed to having crimes committed, be investigated and have the person(s) found, we just don't want cops like we have them now.

Nor do Anarchists oppose a prison, but not the type of prisons we have now. If someone commits a crime so terrible, there's no helping them, or the victim, then we can easily put them to death for doing such a terrible thing, and that's that. There's also rehabilitation, and I'm not talking about the kind of rehabilitation that prisons have now; because if you look at the rehabilitation system US prisons have today, they hardly fucking work at all, and don't even really reach the problem from which the individual(s) began acting in such a way.



Very idealistic. You seem to believe that you can teach all people to be nice citizens of the world, I reject that. Murder, rape, paedophilia and violence will, unfortunately, always happen and that is why a police force will always be needed. They need not be assholes, they should stand up for innocent people being abused by ''problem members'' of society and to stand for protection and justice. A police officer making an investigation when some has been brutally murdered hardly makes them an asshole, especially if they are working in a Socialist society, for the protection of the people.

Once again, common misconception about Anarchists and our views on crime. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, in their right mind would think murder, rape, etc. wouldn't happen in a world, even one that we're all trying to achieve, but having some cop patrolling an area, isn't going to help the problem. You could set up neighborhood watches, and things like that, to make sure things like murder and rape, don't go without notice, and can be taken care of. Once again, Anarchists aren't opposed to people taking up the job of being a CSI person, but the need for some cop to tell me I'm breaking the law because I didn't do this right, or went about this the wrong way, is bullshit. I can govern and police myself, and everyone else can to. For those who can't, there can be proper systems in place to help them, and take them off the street if need be, and into a place where they can get rehabilitated or just taken out for good.

[PhoenixAsh]

Nor do Anarchists oppose a prison, but not the type of prisons we have now. If someone commits a crime so terrible, there's no helping them, or the victim, then we can easily put them to death for doing such a terrible thing, and that's that.


ehh...pretty sure most anarchists are not that into the death penalty....it violates the limits on authority and contradicts personal autonomy in its extreme.

[Magón]

ehh...pretty sure most anarchists are not that into the death penalty....it violates the limits on authority and contradicts personal autonomy in its extreme.

I'm not talking the death penalty per se, I'm talking when rehabilitation and help in those forms, can't possibly help the person(s), and they're no longer a person people want around in any form. I'm against the death penalty as it is today, sure, but I think that some criminals, for the betterment of society, need to be executed either before rehabilitation is even a question because of the severity of the crime, like I said, or after rehabilitation, when it's clear this person is no longer a proper person to have in society anyway.

Besides, would you really want to waste food, water, and things like that, on a person who's either a serial killer/rapist, etc, and wasn't going to be getting any better? I wouldn't, and that's one of the reasons prisons are so filled up. Either people are put there for stupid crimes, and shouldn't even be there, or they're just rotting there waiting to die on death row or just rot away in a cell. I say, either execute them, (determined by the severity of the crime, again,) or get them some rehabilitation and care.

[El Chuncho]

I'm not saying you can't have CSI people, or whatever, look into a crime, just we don't need cops 24/7 like we do now, thinking they're in a higher rank and file than the rest of us.

So, you admit that we do need some form of a police force? I do, however, think we do need 24/7 cops, because it would be easy to have them standing by ready for trouble, rather than expecting innocent civilians to arrest other citizens (and potentially get killed).

I don't want to live in a police state, but I do want professionals that will jump to the defense of law, order and the safety of the people if the need arises. They do not need to think they are better than the rest of us, because they would be taught that they are workers like everyone else and just need to do a certain job.


You're falling for the common misconception that most have towards an Anarchist, when he/she tells them, there shouldn't be cops. Anarchists aren't opposed to having crimes committed, be investigated and have the person(s) found, we just don't want cops like we have them now.

Which, means you cannot say that the police force shouldn't exist. You want to change the working hours and attitudes.


Nor do Anarchists oppose a prison, but not the type of prisons we have now. If someone commits a crime so terrible, there's no helping them, or the victim, then we can easily put them to death for doing such a terrible thing, and that's that.

You can kill them, but you could also imprison them, I do believe in utilitarian justice anyway. You mention rehabilitation, which I agree with entirely.







Once again, common misconception about Anarchists and our views on crime. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, in their right mind would think murder, rape, etc. wouldn't happen in a world, even one that we're all trying to achieve, but having some cop patrolling an area, isn't going to help the problem.

But having a cop ready to take action would help justice prevail. I am not saying that I want cops patrolling every area of the Earth catching people before they commit crimes, however, I do want a standing police force that would at least be stationed in a police barracks.


You could set up neighborhood watches, and things like that, to make sure things like murder and rape, don't go without notice, and can be taken care of.

You could set up neighbourhood watches, but it would just be as easier to have professionally trained police officer who would be police officers as a full time job, rather than as a part time job.


Once again, Anarchists aren't opposed to people taking up the job of being a CSI person, but the need for some cop to tell me I'm breaking the law because I didn't do this right, or went about this the wrong way, is bullshit.

The police are not there to tell you if want you did is wrong, they are there to arrest you if you are breaking the law. The jury would decide whether you are guilty or not. It is somewhat fair, I think.


I can govern and police myself, and everyone else can to. For those who can't, there can be proper systems in place to help them, and take them off the street if need be, and into a place where they can get rehabilitated or just taken out for good.

It would easier to have a police force to A) guard the gaols while the criminals wait trials, and B) to bring them in without risking the lives of civilians. They should be like civic security guards, really.

[We will rise again]

Why kill a murderer, when we can make them work in a camp?

[JacobVardy]

So, you admit that we do need some form of a police force?

CSI, coroner and morgue attendees are civilians.

The paramilitary force currently known as the police would not be needed in an anarchist society. There would be no property crimes or strikes to break. Disputes over possessions can be arbitrated by the neighbourhood council. With people working a lot less, there will be far fewer crimes of passion, and more neighbours available to intervene. Sure, the will need to be a group who specialises in investigating hit-and-run crashes and interviewing molested children. If need be, they could call on a militia of locals. However both would be civilian groups, with no more authority than anyone else . This is so differert from the current army of occupation called the police, that it requires a different name.

[∞]

Poverty is the greatest cause of crime...in a communistic society, poverty would not exist.

[Magón]

So, you admit that we do need some form of a police force? I do, however, think we do need 24/7 cops, because it would be easy to have them standing by ready for trouble, rather than expecting innocent civilians to arrest other citizens (and potentially get killed).

No Anarchist would disagree there's a need for a type of "cop", just not the type we've seen in history, or have today. It's too easy for people to get a big "ego", and take it upon themselves in a bad way. Having 24/7 cops is a means to getting that "ego", and ruining everything for everyone. As for people getting hurt, a person's a person, and whether you've got some well known neighborhood person who's on the current neighborhood watch cycle, or some cop, the risk of getting hurt is equal. I just prefer to have a trusted and known neighbor watching the streets, than some asshole I've never met and has a big "ego".


I don't want to live in a police state, but I do want professionals that will jump to the defense of law, order and the safety of the people if the need arises. They do not need to think they are better than the rest of us, because they would be taught that they are workers like everyone else and just need to do a certain job.

Anyone can do a police officer's job, and anyone can jump in to defend the laws and safety of others. The only difference is cops are protectors of the state, and have to cover a large range of area, that differs day to day or whatever. With a civilian/neighborhood watch, you'd have trusted people and people who knew the area a lot better than some guy in a squad car, and hardly knows the neighborhood and it's residence.


Which, means you cannot say that the police force shouldn't exist. You want to change the working hours and attitudes.

Police in their form now, or as you're advocating shouldn't exist. Also, I don't think the police force of a society like I'm talking about, wouldn't be set either. Watching over a neighborhood would be regulated and the people of the neighborhood could alternate who watches when.


You can kill them, but you could also imprison them, I do believe in utilitarian justice anyway. You mention rehabilitation, which I agree with entirely.

Keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life, or for a period of time, doesn't help them or their situation/condition, in the long run. That's why rehabilitation is important. If they sit in prison all day, and only get to go out into the yard for a certain amount of time, you get people like we have today that don't change, and regress into a bad situation/attitude even more.



But having a cop ready to take action would help justice prevail. I am not saying that I want cops patrolling every area of the Earth catching people before they commit crimes, however, I do want a standing police force that would at least be stationed in a police barracks.

Like I said, you could have neighborhood watch people do it, and make it a lot easier since the people of the neighborhood would know the person(s), and it wouldn't be some stranger. Do you know the cop who patrols your neighborhood? Do you know what he/she's like? Where they're from, or what they think on certain things? Probably not, but with a neighbor, you're more than likely too have that type of info.


You could set up neighbourhood watches, but it would just be as easier to have professionally trained police officer who would be police officers as a full time job, rather than as a part time job.

No, because once again you get big "egos". And like I said, alternating who does it when, can help out a lot.


The police are not there to tell you if want you did is wrong, they are there to arrest you if you are breaking the law. The jury would decide whether you are guilty or not. It is somewhat fair, I think.

It would be nice if that were all true, but cops do arrest people for doing something "wrong". For example, cops think it's wrong of me to smoke weed in the privacy of my own home, which doesn't endanger anyone, and yet they can arrest me for it. There's a reason why we have so many people in jail/prison, on so many stupid little "crimes". Police may not be there to tell me if I did something wrong, but they sure as hell do it anyway and call it "justice".


It would easier to have a police force to A) guard the gaols while the criminals wait trials, and B) to bring them in without risking the lives of civilians. They should be like civic security guards, really.

Well this sort of example draws into another subject that I hold, probably contrary to your own, and I don't really want to drag this thread into that, but to make my point on this, neither the jury or the person put in charge of the trial, would have to worry about security if they were all; or some of them, armed with a self defense weapon like a small pistol or knife. The need for a police force doing these things, isn't needed either when the criminal(s) on trial know that trying to escape or flee, would be worthless and only end up worse for them.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm not talking the death penalty per se, I'm talking when rehabilitation and help in those forms, can't possibly help the person(s), and they're no longer a person people want around in any form. I'm against the death penalty as it is today, sure, but I think that some criminals, for the betterment of society, need to be executed either before rehabilitation is even a question because of the severity of the crime, like I said, or after rehabilitation, when it's clear this person is no longer a proper person to have in society anyway.

well...we are going to differ on opinion here. I think its never acceptable to execute somebody for crimes outside a revolution or war situation. Its a severe violation of personal autonomy and its an authority no person or group of person should and can have.

I also have major issues with death penalty on popular demand.


Besides, would you really want to waste food, water, and things like that, on a person who's either a serial killer/rapist, etc, and wasn't going to be getting any better? I wouldn't,

Well...there are a lot of people I do not want to waste food, water and air on. That is not however my decision and not a decision for me or anybody to make....seeing as this argument can extend to about anybody for any reason as long as it garnishes enough support...I think that speaks for itself as to why.



and that's one of the reasons prisons are so filled up.

I think this is mainly because we put people in jail for ridiculous reasons many of which are actually rooted in property and a severe unequal distribution inherreted in the current system....not because we keep too much people alive.


Either people are put there for stupid crimes, and shouldn't even be there, or they're just rotting there waiting to die on death row or just rot away in a cell.

Well this is why we should not put people on death row. I think a complete overhaul of how prisons should look and function for people who continue to pose a threat to society.



I say, either execute them, (determined by the severity of the crime, again,) or get them some rehabilitation and care.

Well...personally I feel like we need to restrict their freedom to move into main society without restricting their basic capacity to function as a human being. Regardles of their crimes. Which out of the top of my head comes down to giving them a decent place to stay and continue to contribute to society without actually being able to function within it where they can pose a threat and without the need to execute them.

[El Chuncho]

CSI, coroner and morgue attendees are civilians.


In the UK, you have forensic police officers. And there is also no such thing as the CSI, as far as I am aware of, it is just the name of a show about a forensic team. http://hesas.glam.ac.uk/subjects/forensic-police/police/


The paramilitary force currently known as the police would not be needed in an anarchist society.

That is pretty much the idealism I am against. :rolleyes:






With people working a lot less, there will be far fewer crimes of passion, and more neighbours available to intervene.

And then these non-professionals will get hurt. I do not care how much you want to teach them to be a good neighbourhood watch, a neighbourhood watch is no match for a well-trained, well-equipped police force.



Sure, the will need to be a group who specialises in investigating hit-and-run crashes and interviewing molested children.

So, pretty much a police force then? Why not just cut out the idealism and actually have a police force rather than people who ''specialises in hit-and-run crashes and interviewing molested children''. A police force in all but name is a bit silly.



This is so differert from the current army of occupation called the police, that it requires a different name.

No, it doesn't. The police do not have to believe themselves to be superior to everyone else, all they need to do is protect people. That is it. The idea of policing doesn't necessarily equate with the idea that there should be a group of people superior to others.

[Magón]

well...we are going to differ on opinion here. I think its never acceptable to execute somebody for crimes outside a revolution or war situation. Its a severe violation of personal autonomy and its an authority no person or group of person should and can have.

Well obviously if that person's committed a crime, that person's already violated another person's autonomy and ability to live. Depending on how many people they've killed, I think we should either execute them for violating those people's autonomy and ability to live, or get them rehabilitation to help them from doing it again possibly.


Well...there are a lot of people I do not want to waste food, water and air on. That is not however my decision and not a decision for me or anybody to make....seeing as this argument can extend to about anybody for any reason as long as it garnishes enough support...I think that speaks for itself as to why.

It sort of is yours and other's decision when it comes to where you waste or don't waste food, especially when it comes to someone who's possibly just murdered half your family, or something like that. Even in a post-scarcity society, people have to be smart on where they put their food, because if they're not, then we'd only regress into a society of scarcity again.



I think this is mainly because we put people in jail for ridiculous reasons many of which are actually rooted in property and a severe unequal distribution inherreted in the current system....not because we keep too much people alive.

There are still too many people in prison, once again depending on their crime, that I see are still being kept alive, but I would probably consider executing or getting help, instead of letting them rot in a prison cell.


Well this is why we should not put people on death row. I think a complete overhaul of how prisons should look and function for people who continue to pose a threat to society.

Right, I think the prison system needs a complete overhaul as well, but executing someone people will still be needed because of the severity of their crime. If we're talking about someone like a serial rapist or murder, I think they're long gone from being helped, but the local weed dealer on the corner, should just be ignored since the only people going to or away from him, are people doing so of their own will.



Well...personally I feel like we need to restrict their freedom to move into main society without restricting their basic capacity to function as a human being. Regardles of their crimes. Which out of the top of my head comes down to giving them a decent place to stay and continue to contribute to society without actually being able to function within it where they can pose a threat and without the need to execute them.

There's only so much a person could be adequately functional in society, that most who I would consider executing, would be zero to hardly any. Like I said, a serial rapist or murder, I'd probably have executed rather than rehabilitated, because most of those people anyway, even with the most progressive of tactics used today to rehabilitate those types of people, even outside of prison systems, fail, and could be time and energy better spent on helping another criminal who's done something where the time and energy would be better placed.

[El Chuncho]

Having 24/7 cops is a means to getting that "ego", and ruining everything for everyone.

I think you are blaming the actual job too much. The problem is in the way that the capitalists do not have enough checks on the police force, not on 24/7 policing itself. If the police force is handled more carefully, the police would do their job, which is protecting the people not dominating them.


As for people getting hurt, a person's a person, and whether you've got some well known neighborhood person who's on the current neighborhood watch cycle, or some cop, the risk of getting hurt is equal.

I disagree. A professional is less likely to get hurt than a semi-professional and the cop would at least be injured whilst performing his full-time job.


I just prefer to have a trusted and known neighbor watching the streets, than some asshole I've never met and has a big "ego".

Again, policing the streets for the safety of the people is not being an asshole and egos would be checked in a good police system. I would rather professionals watching the streets than semi-professionals at best, and non-professionals at worst.




The only difference is cops are protectors of the state, and have to cover a large range of area, that differs day to day or whatever.

No, cops are protectors of the people ideally, and they would be that exactly in a better managed system.


With a civilian/neighborhood watch, you'd have trusted people and people who knew the area a lot better than some guy in a squad car, and hardly knows the neighborhood and it's residence.

You keep saying ''trusted'', but trust is unfounded. Some ''trusted'' family friends have been found to be paedophiles who abuse your children. Just because you think they are trustworthy neighbours, it doesn't mean that they actually are.




Police in their form now, or as you're advocating shouldn't exist.

I am certainly not advocating the police of the capitalist system. :rolleyes:


Watching over a neighborhood would be regulated and the people of the neighborhood could alternate who watches when.

You could do that, but again it is easier to have a professional police force to do that job, allowing the majority of the populace to have happier and safer lives.




Keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life, or for a period of time, doesn't help them or their situation/condition, in the long run. That's why rehabilitation is important.

I have said that I agree with utilitarian justice, you are preaching to the choir.







Like I said, you could have neighborhood watch people do it, and make it a lot easier since the people of the neighborhood would know the person(s), and it wouldn't be some stranger.

Not quite true as many, many criminals commit their crimes in neighbourhoods foreign to them.


Do you know the cop who patrols your neighborhood? Do you know what he/she's like? Where they're from, or what they think on certain things?

Probably not, but I would know that they are probably professional and had been through a vetting process.





It would be nice if that were all true, but cops do arrest people for doing something "wrong".

I said that. You said that cops tell you want is wrong and what isn't, and there is the rub. The jury would decide whether you are guilty or not.


For example, cops think it's wrong of me to smoke weed in the privacy of my own home, which doesn't endanger anyone, and yet they can arrest me for it.

That is neither here nor there. Yes, they can arrest you because it is illegal for you to be smoking it, but you would still get a trial. They don;t just throw you into a jail and swallow the key, you know.


There's a reason why we have so many people in jail/prison, on so many stupid little "crimes".

Most people are in jail for more than just smoking weed. But this is irrelevant as we are talking about a post-revolutionary police force, which would enforce fair laws, and thus you would not have leftists behind bars for their beliefs.


Police may not be there to tell me if I did something wrong, but they sure as hell do it anyway and call it "justice".

The please would have no real comment, as they do not pronounce you guilty, a judge does.




Well this sort of example draws into another subject that I hold, probably contrary to your own, and I don't really want to drag this thread into that, but to make my point on this, neither the jury or the person put in charge of the trial, would have to worry about security if they were all; or some of them, armed with a self defense weapon like a small pistol or knife. The need for a police force doing these things, isn't needed either when the criminal(s) on trial know that trying to escape or flee, would be worthless and only end up worse for them.

You are right that I would not agree with that. If a revolutionary society comes about, I would feel much safer if weapons were not common place, and I do not see why they should be if we have a police force (and please note that not all police forces carry arms).