Could you consider police officers as proleteriats?

[CommieTroll]

I'm wondering if members of any police force could be considered as proleteriats, specifically in my case police in Ireland or Garda as they are called.
I'm wondering this because my father is a retired member of the Irish police force and he asked me if Garda Siochana members are considered proletariats in the eyes of the revolutionary left, I know that in Ireland the police are a part of the public sector. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

[BostonCharlie]

What commodities are police officers producing? How is surplus value being extracted from their labor?

No, I would say they are not proletarian. The money spent on them is socialized surplus value extracted from proletarians and distributed to them by the capitalist state for the needs of Capital to 'maintain public order.'

[Ocean Seal]

In the sense that they earn a wage and do not profit from the labor of anyone else yes. However, the police forces are essentially the last defense of the state and often perform a reactionary role in society by keeping other working class people in line for the ruling class. The alignment of the police *materially* is with the ruling class because their interests run in such a manner that a stronger control of the working class is beneficial for them (at least in the short term). However, that does not mean that individual police officers cannot be revolutionary. Although there are many reactionary cops and cops as a whole are reactionary, individual cops can still be revolutionary by working to keep leftist groups informed of their activity as some cops did help out the Black Panther party by ratting on their own cops. But by and large, as the history of the Panthers showed, the cops sided with the ruling class against the Panthers and tore apart the movement along with a great many other leftists movements. Cops aren't generally very well regarded by the revolutionary left with no offense to your father intended, but its just that they play a key role in putting down strikes, aiding gentrification, beating down protestors, and imprisoning far more working class people than needed. Its about the institutional capacity, not about individuals cops.

[Tim Finnegan]

What commodities are police officers producing? How is surplus value being extracted from their labor?
What commodities are private gardeners producing? How is surplus value being extracted from their labour?

The delineation between the proletarian and non-proletarian waged employees under capitalism is more complex than simply "oh noes they be takin mah surplus value". The particular experience of the worker under capitalism is primarily characterised by the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital, so for the class of any individual to be meaningful on a social level, rather than some individual star-sign, it must be determined in relationship to these. In this regard, the police, as the defenders of the capitalist social order - and lacking the sort of "economic draft" that complicates the class character of the military rank-and-file - must be regarded as a dependent class of capital, much as, say, feudal men-at-arms were dependent classes of the aristocracy.

Which is to say, I agree, but not for the same reasons.


Its about the institutional capacity, not about individuals cops.
This is also important. Class reveals itself in aggregate, not in individuals; a member of an objectively anti-worker class may still be individually subjectively pro-worker, the bourgeois Engels providing the classic illustration. Of course, the extent to which mere sympathies count for anything depends on how they act when push comes to shove...

[Hivemind]

I don't think that they're "proletarians", but I can see how many cops don't support the laws they've sworn to uphold, and they only do it to keep their job. Depending on the country, being a cop may be the only thing that a person could do, whether it is because of family tradition or the fact that it's either be a cop or work a menial job that they do not want to do.

The thing that bothers the revolutionary left is a police officer's involvement in keeping the people in line. It doesn't take a genius to notice that giving a stupid person authority is wrong. A lot of blind followers are cops, which sucks.

The thing to note is, they still do something for a paycheck, and it's not exactly something out of this world. But it all comes down to the following: you have a wife and two kids to feed, all you can do is be a cop, and you don't support half the shit that you have to do. A lot of people will just swallow their pride and do what they do, perhaps half ass it or turn a blind eye to things they don't agree with, etc.

[griffjam]

The police exist to enforce the will of the powerful; anyone who has not had a bad experience with them is likely either privileged or submissive. Today’s police officers, at least in North America, know exactly what they’re getting into when they join the force; people in uniform don’t just get cats out of trees in this country. Yes, most take the job because of what they feel to be economic necessity, but needing a paycheck is no excuse for obeying orders to evict families, harass young men of color, or pepper spray demonstrators; those whose consciences can be bought are everyone else’s enemies, not potential allies.

This argument could be more persuasive if it was couched in strategic terms, rather than Marxist abstractions: for example, “Every revolution succeeds at the moment the armed forces refuse to make war on their fellows; therefore we should focus on seducing the police to our side of the barricades.” But again, the police are not just any workers; they are the ones who have most deliberately chosen to base their livelihoods and value systems upon the prevailing order, and thus are the least likely to be sympathetic to those who struggle against hierarchy. This being the case, it makes sense to focus on opposing the police as such, not on seeking solidarity with them. So long as they serve their masters, they cannot be our allies; by publicly deriding the police as an institution, we encourage individual police officers to seek other employment, so we can find common cause with them.

[CommieTroll]

In the sense that they earn a wage and do not profit from the labor of anyone else yes. However, the police forces are essentially the last defense of the state and often perform a reactionary role in society by keeping other working class people in line for the ruling class. The alignment of the police *materially* is with the ruling class because their interests run in such a manner that a stronger control of the working class is beneficial for them (at least in the short term). However, that does not mean that individual police officers cannot be revolutionary. Although there are many reactionary cops and cops as a whole are reactionary, individual cops can still be revolutionary by working to keep leftist groups informed of their activity as some cops did help out the Black Panther party by ratting on their own cops. But by and large, as the history of the Panthers showed, the cops sided with the ruling class against the Panthers and tore apart the movement along with a great many other leftists movements. Cops aren't generally very well regarded by the revolutionary left with no offense to your father intended, but its just that they play a key role in putting down strikes, aiding gentrification, beating down protestors, and imprisoning far more working class people than needed. Its about the institutional capacity, not about individuals cops.

Thanks for this useful post, I do agree with you regarding that they are a tool of the ruling class used to put down protests. My father is in no way revolutionary:laugh: My family don't see things on a larger scale, they are caught up in the thought of Marxism being a system that failed and that will always fail, its hard to convert staunch Catholics to a leftist way of thinking.
I have bad memories of the police in Ireland for petty things like arresting me for underage drinking or telling me to move on from the street for no good reason or even handcuffing me when my own father attacked me but I cannot say that I hate the police, after all it was the work of a police officer that provided for me throughout my life. From the things my father did tell me I understand that its a horrible job as a whole. If the police are a tool of the ruling class could they be considered Proletariat then? Isn't that what a proletariat is? A worker that is abused by the ruling class for profit?

[CommieTroll]

A lot of blind followers are cops, which sucks.

That's exactly what they are

[BostonCharlie]

The distinction between wage laborer and proletarian is important in political economy for the purpose of identifying members of the class that is the potential engine of revolutionary transformation from capital to socialism. Thought experiment: what would be the effect if police officers or private gardeners withheld their labor from capitalists, and in fact seized control of their work tools and wielded them for their own collective purposes? Would this be a movement towards socialism or towards something else?

Marx's discussions of the distinction between productive and non-productive labor are useful here. Non-productive labor of course does not mean that the workers who do it are lazy layabouts! It simply means that they are the recipients of socially redistributed surplus value rather than producers of it, and thus are not potential subjects of revolutionary transformation in the same way that productive workers are.

Yes, I would say that private gardeners are wage-laborers, doing in many cases socially desirable labor, but not proletarians.

[CommieTroll]

The police exist to enforce the will of the powerful; anyone who has not had a bad experience with them is likely either privileged or submissive. Today’s police officers, at least in North America, know exactly what they’re getting into when they join the force; people in uniform don’t just get cats out of trees in this country. Yes, most take the job because of what they feel to be economic necessity, but needing a paycheck is no excuse for obeying orders to evict families, harass young men of color, or pepper spray demonstrators; those whose consciences can be bought are everyone else’s enemies, not potential allies.

This argument could be more persuasive if it was couched in strategic terms, rather than Marxist abstractions: for example, “Every revolution succeeds at the moment the armed forces refuse to make war on their fellows; therefore we should focus on seducing the police to our side of the barricades.” But again, the police are not just any workers; they are the ones who have most deliberately chosen to base their livelihoods and value systems upon the prevailing order, and thus are the least likely to be sympathetic to those who struggle against hierarchy. This being the case, it makes sense to focus on opposing the police as such, not on seeking solidarity with them. So long as they serve their masters, they cannot be our allies; by publicly deriding the police as an institution, we encourage individual police officers to seek other employment, so we can find common cause with them.

Yes that is a good point but what about in socialist countries such as Cuba after the revolution or The Soviet Union pre-Stalin era, that's the job of a police officer, to keep civilians in line and to keep order, picking on minorities and evicting families? In larger countries yes but in Ireland, no. I'd say the average police officer in Ireland has to deal with public disturbances such as drunken brawls or drunk drivers or people speeding, petty stuff, not exactly oppressing the proletarians.

[Tim Finnegan]

The distinction between wage laborer and proletarian is important in political economy for the purpose of identifying members of the class that is the potential engine of revolutionary transformation from capital to socialism. Thought experiment: what would be the effect if police officers or private gardeners withheld their labor from capitalists, and in fact seized control of their work tools and wielded them for their own collective purposes? Would this be a movement towards socialism or towards something else?

Marx's discussions of the distinction between productive and non-productive labor are useful here. Non-productive labor of course does not mean that the workers who do it are lazy layabouts! It simply means that they are the recipients of socially redistributed surplus value rather than producers of it, and thus are not potential subjects of revolutionary transformation in the same way that productive workers are.

Yes, I would say that private gardeners are wage-laborers, doing in many cases socially desirable labor, but not proletarians.
But Marx was very specific that workers are by the nature of their position within capitalist social relations alienated from their actual labour. What does it matter, then, whether or not worker X is socially productive, if he is every bit as alienated from his labour as productive worker Y? Why are the workers of one shipyard, making a transport ship, proletarian, and the workers of the one next door, making a naval destroyer, not, if both of them "care as much about the crappy shit he has to make as does the capitalist himself who employs him, and who also couldn't give a damn for the junk" (Grundrisse, Notebook II, The Chapter on Capital, p. 193)?

Certainly, if you think that communist revolution would merely involve workers taking over and operating existing institutions, rather than the fundamental reconstitution of all social relations and therefore of all society, than you are aiming extremely low.

[ArrowLance]

Whether or not police officers are proletarian or not does not matter, for as long as they are police of the bourgeois nations they are class enemies.

However they most certainly do produce a commodity, that of security. They perform a service for a wage, they undoubtedly run a profit for the bourgeois, so they must produce surplus value. Or at least they make it possible for surplus value to be exploited more freely.

[wayward1981]

My question here is that if you abolished the police, what would you replace them with?

[Tim Finnegan]

Whether or not police officers are proletarian or not does not matter, for as long as they are police of the bourgeois nations they are class enemies.
This analysis essentially writes class out of the picture in favour of, if I infer correctly, ideological alignment, which is a fundamentally un-Marxian approach to political struggle. While Marxism should not be so mechanical as to reduce classes to unthinking homogeneous blocs, nor should it reduce class to a mere abstract, entirely secondary to party-affiliation, or what have you, an essentially individualistic of class more befitting of social democracy than revolutionary socialism.

[ArrowLance]

This analysis essentially writes class out of the picture in favour of, if I infer correctly, ideological alignment, which is a fundamentally un-Marxian approach to political struggle. While Marxism should not be so mechanical as to reduce classes to unthinking homogeneous blocs, nor should it reduce class to a mere abstract, entirely secondary to party-affiliation, or what have you, an essentially individualistic of class more befitting of social democracy than revolutionary socialism.

No, not ideological alignment but the material affects of the individual. I even made the case quite clear that I believe they are proletarians I believe, they produce a commodity which results in surplus value taken as profit by the bourgeoisie. However they can not assume their revolutionary role so long as they are counter-revolutionary in their role.

Perhaps I was to short in dismissing their class affiliation but I still believe that they are by definition enemies of the proletariat so long as they continue on as security officers.

[Tim Finnegan]

No, not ideological alignment but the material affects of the individual. I even made the case quite clear that I believe they are proletarians I believe, they produce a commodity which results in surplus value taken as profit by the bourgeoisie. However they can not assume their revolutionary role so long as they are counter-revolutionary in their role.

Perhaps I was to short in dismissing their class affiliation but I still believe that they are by definition enemies of the proletariat so long as they continue on as security officers.
But, again, your abandoning a discussion of class in favour of an idealistic discussion of "revolutionary" and "counter-revolutionary" "roles", which despite your ambiguous references to "affects" is not a materialist class analysis. If you are to make any generalised comment on the relationship of a large body of individuals to class struggle, it has to be based on their relationship to the material content of class struggle, not just on an assumption of ideological alignment based on employment. All public sector employees are "of the bourgeois nation", as you put it, but I doubt we'd write them off as "class enemies" for that alone.

Also, I wouldn't consider "security" to be a commodity, given that it's a total abstraction which cannot be traded and therefore has no market value. Their labour power is in this case applied as a service, i.e. directly as a use-value, rather than in commodity production. While this doesn't exclude them from membership in the proletariat- the same could be said of a janitor, for example- it does mean that they are not included by default.

[The Man]

You simply cannot call them proletarians, as they are defenders of private property and the bourgeoisie.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Didn't the Berlin police union side with the communists in the 1919 uprisings or whatever it was, for what it's worth?

[jake williams]

Didn't the Berlin police union side with the communists in the 1919 uprisings or whatever it was, for what it's worth?
Police at different points have sided with the working class; and actually, they're generally siding with organized labour in Wisconsin, too. If things got a lot sharper there, they might not, but that said they're of supportive of labour as much as they are in a context where class and political consciousness are exceptionally low. It's absolutely possible that police might side with (other) workers in different situations, but it's not necessarily likely, and it's definitely not in general reliable.

Police have sort of an awkward class position. There is an interesting phenomenon, however, in that there is a partial "re-privatization" of the police, with traditional policing roles increasingly relegated to private security workers. Whether or not this affects their political or class position is more than debatable, but it's significant.

It's also notable that throughout much of society, class relations aren't simple. To an extent virtually all workers serve capitalists, by definition. To a significant extent public elementary school teachers are acting on behalf of the bourgeois state to indoctrinate children and shape a pliant workforce-citizenry. There are clear material reasons that public school teachers presently and historically have been more progressive than police, but they both have functions which fall on both sides of class struggle, at least time to time.

[ArrowLance]

But, again, your abandoning a discussion of class in favour of an idealistic discussion of "revolutionary" and "counter-revolutionary" "roles", which despite your ambiguous references to "affects" is not a materialist class analysis. If you are to make any generalised comment on the relationship of a large body of individuals to class struggle, it has to be based on their relationship to the material content of class struggle, not just on an assumption of ideological alignment based on employment. All public sector employees are "of the bourgeois nation", as you put it, but I doubt we'd write them off as "class enemies" for that alone.

Also, I wouldn't consider "security" to be a commodity, given that it's a total abstraction which cannot be traded and therefore has no market value. Their labour power is in this case applied as a service, i.e. directly as a use-value, rather than in commodity production. While this doesn't exclude them from membership in the proletariat- the same could be said of a janitor, for example- it does mean that they are not included by default.

I made no assumption of ideological alignment and their job directly affects their material involvement in class struggle, it is impossible to struggle for your class struggle when you are actively fighting that exact same class struggle, fighting against your own class interests, in the form of protecting the system of private property directly. Services most certainly are a commodity in the Marxist sense and can be treated almost the same as a bag of rice.

[Rafiq]

You simply cannot call them proletarians, as they are defenders of private property and the bourgeoisie.

So what do you call soldiers? :rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

I made no assumption of ideological alignment and their job directly affects their material involvement in class struggle, it is impossible to struggle for your class struggle when you are actively fighting that exact same class struggle, fighting against your own class interests, in the form of protecting the system of private property directly.
Well, in that case I agree, but I would say that their very material relationship to class struggle places them outside of the proletariat. To be within the proletariat but to be on the side of the bourgeoisie is indicative of a subjective, ideological alignment with capital, rather than an objective, material alignment with capital; if your objective, material alignment is with capital, as we seem to be agreeing of the police, then you cannot be a proletarian, but must be a "coordinator", to use the fashionable term for that vague mish-mash of latter-day feudal retainers.

After all, a workers' job alone should not make them counter-revolutionary, because all workers are, according to Marx, alienated from their labour, and so alienated in a material (although not idealogical) sense from its class struggle-related content.


Services most certainly are a commodity in the Marxist sense and can be treated almost the same as a bag of rice.
If a private security firm was letting out rent-a-cops, then yes, but we're talking about the police, whose labour power is applied directly in the production of use-values by the state. This gives them a more complex relationship to class struggle.


So what do you call soldiers? :rolleyes:
Soldiers are more complex, because the majority of them are not career soldiers, but undertaking a consciously temporary term of service, which means that their long term plans- and in most cases, these plans are to become a worker- become relevant in determining the relationship of any individual to class struggle. This is particularly true of soldiers who are not actually involved in the defence of capital, and so who often regard themselves as nothing more than wage labourers in uniform, lacking quite the same exposure to or investment in the systems of ideological legitimisation that are necessary to make human beings go into combat.

[The Man]

So what do you call soldiers? :rolleyes:

I would call soldiers defenders of the state.

[Barry]

In my opinion although soldiers and police are defenders of the state they cannot be excluded from the poletariat. Although they are viewed as the last defence in other countries, Ireland for example they exist solely as upholders of the law and public sector workers whose wages have been attacked just like the rest of the people and their attempts to create a representation group has been stopped. A revolutioary movement must attempt to convert both people and army to support the people during a revolution, although their will be certain members who will stand by the state.
At a protest last year a member of the guards even took a socialist paper and asked me a few questions, this shows that there does exist the grounds for the consciousness of the army and police to evolve just like the working class. You also can compare historically the failed coup in 1917 in russia were the people went to the soldiers and talked them into joining them

[Barry]

Also for e those that think they are not members of the poletariat, if a member of the poletariat joins the police force, does he therefore stop being a member of the poletariate?

[El Oso Rojo]

No, Police are not proleteriats under capitalism, in a socialist society, yes, but no. Someone who would shot a person dead in their wheelchair is total reactionary scum, and then you have people who mean well but do not realized, they will be oppressing communities instead of helping them.

[ArrowLance]

No, Police are not proleteriats under capitalism, in a socialist society, yes, but no. Someone who would shot a person dead in their wheelchair is total reactionary scum, and then you have people who mean well but do not realized, they will be oppressing communities instead of helping them.

This does not mean they are not proletarian. What makes someone proletarian is their relation to the means of production, that is, if they are forced to sell their labour power in exchange for their livelihood. I feel police meet this requirement although as long as they are members of security forces they can not participate in the revolutionary role of their class.

[S.Artesian]

I'm wondering if members of any police force could be considered as proleteriats, specifically in my case police in Ireland or Garda as they are called.
I'm wondering this because my father is a retired member of the Irish police force and he asked me if Garda Siochana members are considered proletariats in the eyes of the revolutionary left, I know that in Ireland the police are a part of the public sector. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

No. Armed agents of the ruling class.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Didn't the Berlin police union side with the communists in the 1919 uprisings or whatever it was, for what it's worth?

And the overwhelming majority of police in Berlin did not resign when the Nazis came to power.



The Nazis came to power (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005204) in Germany in January 1933 and established a dictatorship, ending the 12-year German experiment with democracy, the Weimar Republic. Yet the police, who had been charged with defending the Weimar Republic, were integrated relatively easily into the Nazi regime. There was neither a wholesale purge nor a wholesale resignation of policemen.


Most policemen in 1933 were not Nazis, though they were overwhelmingly conservative. They thought of themselves as neutral professionals and as impartial servants of the law.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005465

Does that attitude sound familiar?

Of course there have been police officers who've joined revolutionary movements. They're traitors to their occupation's purpose and should be commended. The primary function of law enforcement has always been the protection of capital, though.

Getting cops over to our side seems pointless anyway. They get taken out of the picture relatively quickly during serious unrest. Spreading the social contagion into military units and the National Guard seems much more important.

[∞]

No.

[ellipsis]

maybe this questions should be put into an FAQ...

[Dogs On Acid]

Yes of course they are.

They are class-traitors but still proletarians. They get paid a wage and have orders from top-to-bottom.

[∞]

Yes of course they are.

They are class-traitors but still proletarians. They get paid a wage and have orders from top-to-bottom. Get paid a wage and are workers.

They get paid a wage from the state. They take no part in any kind of production. Our tax money goes to these bastards to stick their snouts in our business. That is not proletariat.

[Dogs On Acid]

They get paid a wage from the state. They take no part in any kind of production. Our tax money goes to these bastards to stick their snouts in our business. That is not proletariat.

I don't give a shit what your theory is. Under Marxist terms the proletariat is the class that doesn't own means of production (check), has to sell it's labour power (check), and lives off a wage (check).

Police are proletarians, period.

[Aspiring Humanist]

They willingly protect the rich, beat minorities, oppress the poor and incite riots. All for a small paycheck. They are enemies of the people and should be treated as such

[-marx-]

I like this pic that International Publishers put out many years ago, it explains my opinion on Police/Military:
http://www.erzwiss.uni-hamburg.de/Personal/Lohmann/Materialien/capyr.jpg

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/pyramidofcapitalism.jpg

[Dogs On Acid]

They willingly protect the rich, beat minorities, oppress the poor and incite riots. All for a small paycheck. They are enemies of the people and should be treated as such

Bullshit. Most police don't beat minorities or incite riots. They are just ordinary people who get orders from the top. And police do a lot of good to the community too. Yes they will be enemies of the people during the Revolution but until then they are just doing what they are told by some twat at the top of the ladder. Most haven't even developed class-consciousness.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Bullshit. Most police don't beat minorities or incite riots. They are just ordinary people who get orders from the top. And police do a lot of good to the community too. Yes they will be enemies of the people during the Revolution but until then they are just doing what they are told by some twat at the top of the ladder. Most haven't even developed class-consciousness.

Most don't do that obviously, but if ordered to do it the vast majority of them would. They are tools for the oppressing class.

[Charlie Ceausescu]

Police officers in the US are armed goons of the capitalist state. Their history comes from slave patrols and strike breakers. It is true the police arefacing the possibility of cuts as a result of the ultra reactionary measure being pushed in states such as Ohio and Wisconsin. However, the police cannot join the struggle until they quit their jobs, make public and sincere statements to confess and denounce any of their crimes.

[∞]

I don't give a shit what your theory is. Under Marxist terms the proletariat is the class that doesn't own means of production (check), has to sell it's labour power (check), and lives off a wage (check).

Police are proletarians, period.

Cool semantics, bro.

[Dogs On Acid]

Most don't do that obviously, but if ordered to do it the vast majority of them would. They are tools for the oppressing class.

Yes they are. That's why they are called class-traitors (traitors to their own class, the proletariat), you see?

[Dogs On Acid]

Cool semantics, bro.

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/5818/semantics.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/semantics.png/)

[S.Artesian]

Also for e those that think they are not members of the poletariat, if a member of the poletariat joins the police force, does he therefore stop being a member of the poletariate?

Yes.

When a worker scabs on a strike, does he stop being a worker and become a scab? Absolutely.

Why not ask that question to anyone who's had to deal with cops breaking up a his/her picket line.

[S.Artesian]

Bullshit. Most police don't beat minorities or incite riots. They are just ordinary people who get orders from the top. And police do a lot of good to the community too. Yes they will be enemies of the people during the Revolution but until then they are just doing what they are told by some twat at the top of the ladder. Most haven't even developed class-consciousness.


Now that's bullshit. It's not a question of what any individual cop does, it's a question of their social role, their function in society, which is why Aspiring Humanist is absolutely correct.


They know what they're job is, even if you don't.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp347/ArtSC/Fun%20Stuff/AwGeezNotThisAgain.jpg

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From past threads:

Anyone with an understanding of class, which is defined by relation to the means of production, recognizes that the cops are not members of the proletariat. Their role is to defend and serve capital against the lower classes.

Here's an old thread on this question, which covers all this: Are cops and security guards working class? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cops-and-security-t63126/index.html?t=63126&highlight=security+guards)

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen." - The Communist Manifesto

"(1) synonymous with “modern working class”, (2) proletarians have no means of support other than selling their labour power, (3) their position makes them dependent upon capital, (4) it is the expansion of capital, as opposed to servicing the personal or administrative needs of capitalists, which is the defining role of the proletariat, (4) proletarians sell themselves as opposed to selling products like the petty-bourgeoisie and capitalists, (5) they sell themselves “piecemeal” as opposed to slaves who may be sold as a whole and become the property of someone else, (6) although the term “labourers” carries the connotation of manual labour, elsewhere Marx makes it clear that the labourer with the head is as much a proletarian as the labourer with the hand, and finally (7) the proletariat is a class." - Marxist Internet Archive Encyclopedia

If you need more evidence, try going on strike sometime.

* * *

The fact that they earn a wage for their work means little. FBI agents, military officers, spies, politicians, CEOs, and heads of capitalist states all earn wages too.

* * *

The police are a part of the armed forces of the capitalist state. It matters little what's in the heads of individual cops. It's their social role that counts.

* * *

What "Marxist class analysis" are your referring to?

What is their relation to the means of production? Do they work them in return for a part of the product they create? Or do they protect the private ownership of them, and their owners, against the lower classes?

This is at least one thing that a substantial part of the left gets right. I can literally quote from dozens of "anarchist," "communist," "Trotskyist," "Marxist-Leninist," "Maoist," etc., groups to the effect that cops aren't workers.

* * *

When these threads come up there are always tons of "revolutionaries" coming out of the woodwork to try and squeeze and contort reality in order to portray cops as some sort of abused workers that we need to stand by.

I often wonder if many of them have cops as family and friends or what. I also wonder who exactly they think the working class has to go up against in revolutionary battles. Do they imagine 99% of the population walking into the G-20 to deliver a pink slip letting the handful of folks there know they "are no longer needed" or what?

If you haven't been around any working class struggles or abused by the cops yourself, at least take a look at history and see what exactly it is the police do in society.

* * *

It doesn't matter why they sign up. Do you think strikers who get their brains bashed in by cops give a fuck what their motivation was for joining the force? We're talking about the social role of the police. What do they do? Who do they serve?

It's a question of if, but when. The cops know that. Too bad you don't. You may not want to "focus on them," but you'd better believe they are focused on you.

[Kadir Ateş]

The police evolved at a critical point in history when the protection of private property became the responsibility of the state (beyond the Pinktertons, etc.). Again, couched in terms of universality, where they purport to serve and protect "all", quickly becomes discredited when one begins to study the history of the working class.

I find it in some ways ironic that the police, on one hand, defend the capitalist state, and on the other are still subject to the law of value and therefore demand "unions" from the anarchic movement of capital. They are workers as unproductive labour, but of the type whose purpose is to enforce the visible hand of the state especially when social relations begin to break down between capital and labour.

[∞]

Fuck the police.

[Hivemind]

Fuck the police.

I like you :blushing:

[∞]

I like you :blushing:

I have that effect on people, baby.

[Yazman]

FightTogether, Nothing Human Is Alien,

You are not allowed to make picture-posts like that. They constitute spam and are not allowed. Only post pictures if they contribute to the discussion in some substantial way.

Blackened Marxist,

While you've made otherwise reasonable posts, quoting somebody and saying "Cool semantics, bro." is not an acceptable post, and its off topic. Don't do it again.

This post constitutes a warning to Blackened Marxist, FightTogether and Nothing Human Is Alien.

[∞]

Well he was delving inot semantics rather than presenting anything insightful

[Yazman]

Well he was delving inot semantics rather than presenting anything insightful

I agree that it is frustrating and kind of bullshit when people take diversionary tactics. But maybe just chill and take a break from the thread next time, alright?