Police in socialist society

[Le Rouge]

Hi folks. Seems like a lot of people on Revleft hate cops. I can clearly see why since they are the one who protect the ruling class. but they don't only protect the bastards (aka ruling class). They also protect people, Prevent robbery, subdue violent and dangerous people, and so on.

Yes I know the definition of Police is : "The police is a personification of the state designated to put in practice the enforced law, protect property and reduce civil disorder in civilian matters"

But after socialism is established, we'd still need cops. It's clearly utopian to say there won't be violence or robbery in socialism. In a socialist society we would still need to enforce law.

I want to know what you think now. Thanks

[Commissar Rykov]

Study the history of the police. They were created by the Bourgeoisie for one sole reason. To protect property even US Courts uphold that the police are not here to protect and serve the public but to protect private property along their original mandate.

[Le Rouge]

Yes sure. But what people would do when some dude with a gun threaten to kill everybody?
We need a trained security force. Not a law enforcement force.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Yes sure. But what people would do when some dude with a gun threaten to kill everybody?
We need a trained security force. Not a law enforcement force. In such a scenario a better question would be "why does nobody else have a gun?".

[Commissar Rykov]

Yes sure. But what people would do when some dude with a gun threaten to kill everybody?
We need a trained security force. Not a law enforcement force.
So we don't need a law enforcement force but we need a law enforcement force? LOLWUT? The reality is if we have already made the transition to Socialism than the local communities could elect peacekeepers or even take shifts as peacekeepers maintaining peace within the community you don't need a large and armed force to do that. With the majority of crimes being property crime in capitalism I would find there would be little need for law enforcement in a Socialist society as private property and poverty would no longer be issues. Flukes like homicide or other violent crime would be handled by the community proper.

[eric922]

Study the history of the police. They were created by the Bourgeoisie for one sole reason. To protect property even US Courts uphold that the police are not here to protect and serve the public but to protect private property along their original mandate.
Have the courts actually said that in any official rulings? I would love to read the decision, especially if it was made by the Supreme Court.

As to the OPs question, I have two suggestions. One is replacing police with democratically controlled town watch type groups. They would be ordinary community members appointed to help stop violent crime, but their powers would be greatly limited and they would be under the direct democratic control of the local community. If a member of this group abused their power, they could be voted out.

The second is something I read about in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the U.S. a labor union took over part of a U.S. city and they replaced the police with people appointed to resolve conflicts non-violently and crime actually decreased.

[Commissar Rykov]

Have the courts actually said that in any official rulings? I would love to read the decision, especially if it was made by the Supreme Court.

As to the OPs question, I have two suggestions. One is replacing police with democratically controlled town watch type groups. They would be ordinary community members appointed to help stop violent crime, but their powers would be greatly limited and they would be under the direct democratic control of the local community. If a member of this group abused their power, they could be voted out.

The second is something I read about in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the U.S. a labor union took over part of a U.S. city and they replaced the police with people appointed to resolve conflicts non-violently and crime actually decreased.
Yep they have:
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

Even more if you want them or feel like some reading:
Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

[Le Rouge]

So we don't need a law enforcement force but we need a law enforcement force? LOLWUT?

I didn't say we need a law enforcement force in a socialist system. I said we need trained people to maintain peace, security & order. Not to enforce law.

[Commissar Rykov]

I didn't say we need a law enforcement force in a socialist system. I said we need trained people to maintain peace, security & order. Not to enforce law.
That doesn't make any sense armed for what reason? To shoot the non-existent homeless? Baton the mentally ill? There is no need for a professional police force in a Socialist Society unless you are talking some kind of dystopian society.

[ComradeOmar]

Well actually people tend to become more normal and quite sane while under a socialist system. It has been seen in the soviet union for example that life thrived on relationships with one another, now everyone just hates each other!

[Le Rouge]

That doesn't make any sense armed for what reason? To shoot the non-existent homeless? Baton the mentally ill? There is no need for a professional police force in a Socialist Society unless you are talking some kind of dystopian society.

So what's your solution?
Non armed peacekeepers? What would they do if a shooting happen? Flee?

[Commissar Rykov]

So what's your solution?
Non armed peacekeepers? What would they do if a shooting happen? Flee?
Violence is a rarity even in American Society as it only makes up 10% of all crime nationwide. The majority of that violence is usually in the commission of a robbery. So again I state why would you need an armed and professional police force? There is no reason to have one in a Socialist Society as it makes no sense as the majority of reasons for committing crime are no longer valid and thus no longer applicable to the situation. If you remove the causation of crime which is desperation of a highly stratified society there is no longer a motive to committing crime. Thus no need for an armed and professional police force.

In the case of a violent situation the community as a whole would respond just as they would to any other disaster. Hell even then crime is likely going to be low for another reason high community cohesion which dramatically reduces crime as well. So two things dramatic reductions in crime would make it an anomaly thus something a democratic body could easily deal with through unarmed mediation or worst case using the People's Militia to seize the individual. Hell just looking at it from a criminology perspective alone crime would be such a virtual anomaly it would probably warrant studying of the individual involved.

You are viewing crime from a rather reactionary lens and are obviously not taking into account the actual causation of crime that or you come from a family of cops and feel the need to justify them continuing their trade in socialism. Either case is wrong.

[Le Rouge]

You are viewing crime from a rather reactionary lens and are obviously not taking into account the actual causation of crime that or you come from a family of cops and feel the need to justify them continuing their trade in socialism. Either case is wrong.

it's mainly why i posted this in the learning section.

[Geiseric]

An armed class concious working class will maintain peace and order better than any pigs will, and the right people will be oppressed. By the right people I mean capitalists and fascists. However, the chatanooga riots in the 1980's had an episode where every black middle aged man in the black section of the city got a gun, and didn't let the pigs in for a week. in the impoverished black neighborhoods for a week, there were zero cases of any crime.

[Commissar Rykov]

it's mainly why i posted this in the learning section.
Which I understand but one has to look at the causation of crime. Even the most Bourgeois schools of Criminology will admit stratification of society, joblessness and marginalization will lead people towards crime it is just reality. The Critical Criminology school of Thought takes this further by stating that crime is largely a fabrication of the Ruling Class in order to keep the Workers in line hence why the majority of crime is typically crime against Private Property or Capital.

To better understand what the role of Proletarian Justice will be we must first look at what causes crime now and see how it would be applicable in a DoP. What we find is that by eliminating the oppressive nature of Bourgeois Liberal Democracy and Capitalism is that we are also liberating people from criminal habits done in order to survive. Sure there will be some Lumpenproletariat and Lumpenbourgeoisie elements to get rid of but I imagine they will be long gone by the time we reach Socialism since they will likely side with the Bourgeoisie anyways in order to maintain the Status Quo.

[thefinalmarch]

I've no clue what form the body which maintains peace will take - whether it be an actual specialised police force (although one which does not protect property and what-have-you), a sort of "neighbourhood watch" with guns/"workers' militia", or even just an armed populace. We are not here to make blueprints for future society. One thing is certain, however, forensic scientists and other experts in their fields will end up being needed to solve crimes that actually do end up happening (murder, rape, &c.). It's stupid to call for the complete abolition of these secondary functions of police in general (the primary function being defence of private property).

[unfriendly]

No dangerous or violent situation I've ever been has been helped by the cops. Either they were the result of imbalances in power that the police helped to protect (ex child abuse), they were too time-sensitive to call a cop to my aid (ex street harassment), or they were caused by the police themselves (like the time the fuckers put me in a mens' jail for 3 weeks over some bathroom graffiti).

Maybe in some not-at-all-time-sensitive situation in which I am threatened by some mean evil person who isn't privileged over me on any axis, I'll be glad the cops were around, but as I'm quite marginalized I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Nox]

It's important to recognise that the police can't prevent crimes, they just arrive after the crime has taken place and arrest the criminal.

A better idea would be to somehow try and prevent crimes happening in the first place.

[Dumb]

Who's going to be stealing this private property that we've abolished under socialism (and how)?

[Hexen]

Study the history of the police. They were created by the Bourgeoisie for one sole reason. To protect property even US Courts uphold that the police are not here to protect and serve the public but to protect private property along their original mandate.

Yep the Police have only one purpose is to protect and serve the bourgeoisie against the lower classes. Their really no different than masters whipping their slaves into submission and work faster....

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yes police would exist in a socialist society because a socialist society is still a society divided by class and the state still exists.

[KevlarPants]

I'd say a police force would be necessary. People that call for a "neighborhood watch" are just doing it so that there won't be anything else to refer to as "the police", when it's really the same thing.

It must be remembered that the police ruled under a socialist society (and the recruits and rookies in the current force) would (and are) still members of the working class. They sell their labour (protection of the people), and that's the way that they contribute to society. It's much easier and effective to make a nation wide force than to organize unnecessarily complicated, pansy ass "neighbourhood watch" programs. The national police would be trained to focus on the sole protection of the people and on the punishment of corruption.

And yes, since many of the current laws would be abolished, crime would probably be narrowed down to crime driven solely on greed. Communism advocates the elimination of private property, and not of personal property, which could still be stolen. And this would have to be punished. Yes, alot of crimes are driven by the state of poverty that certain individuals are forced to live under in the current system, but murder and rape are commonly non-profit.

As long as there are people, there will be dicks. And as long as there are dicks, there will have to be other, more well trained dicks to beat them with clubs.

[Kamos]

As said above, there will be a police, but with different goals, of course - for the protection of the people themselves rather than private property. I'd easily prefer a worker-based police to everyone carrying a gun. I don't know with you all, but guns in the hands of random strangers unnerve me. Saying that there will be no crimes and that it's enough to give everyone a gun is idealistic and dangerously counterproductive.

[Die Rote Fahne]

What crimes do we "need" police to prevent in capitalism, exactly? Will they be crimes that end as a result of the end of capitalism? Are they crimes that police are called to, not discover? Are they victimless crimes?

Those are some questions you need to think about.


You have the emergence in human society of this thing that's called The State. What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy. It is the police department. It is the Army the Navy. It is the prison system, the courts and what have you. This is the State it is a repressive organization. But the state, and gee well you know you've got to have the
police because if there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to
yourselves -- you'd be killing each other if there were no police! But the
Reality is the police become necessary in human society only at that junction in human society where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got. - Omali Yeshitela

[redtex]

Fuck the police. I hate them so much I don't even call them when I'm the victim of a crime. The last 2 times my apartment was broken into I didn't call. They don't do anything anyway. The last time I did call them when I was burglarized they took a report and were leaving when I said, "Hey wait, aren't you going to dust for fingerprints or something and try to catch the burglars?" the pig laughed at me. Worthless assholes. I solved the problem of burglars by getting a 75 lb pitbull.

Will we need police when we reach socialism? No. I have no use for them now, I will have even less use for them in our glorious future.

[A Marxist Historian]

Yes police would exist in a socialist society because a socialist society is still a society divided by class and the state still exists.

U? Is that supposed to be a joke?

A dangerous piece of humor on the Learning page, some of the readers might think that was what you actually meant, and believe you. Sarcasm has its place, but this is not that.

OK, kids, Marxism 101 is that the definition of a socialist society is one that is not divided by class, and since the state is a vehicle for one class ruling over another, you can't have a state and socialism at the same time. That's about on the level of two plus two equals four, ought not even to be controversial I should hope.

Lesson #1 for all you learners out there.

-M.H-

[A Marxist Historian]

As said above, there will be a police, but with different goals, of course - for the protection of the people themselves rather than private property. I'd easily prefer a worker-based police to everyone carrying a gun. I don't know with you all, but guns in the hands of random strangers unnerve me. Saying that there will be no crimes and that it's enough to give everyone a gun is idealistic and dangerously counterproductive.

There will be no police in a *socialist* society. but you can't build socialism overnight. In a transitional society in between, the workers have to keep the capitalists and the middle classes in line, so you will need a workers police, a Cheka, to enforce *working class* law and order vs. other classes in a society which still has different classes.

Our current police treat the ruling classes very nicely and everybody else like shit. A workers police will presumably be the other way around. Not a good thing necessarily, but understandable under the circumstances.

-M.H.-

[Rusty Shackleford]

U? Is that supposed to be a joke?

A dangerous piece of humor on the Learning page, some of the readers might think that was what you actually meant, and believe you. Sarcasm has its place, but this is not that.

OK, kids, Marxism 101 is that the definition of a socialist society is one that is not divided by class, and since the state is a vehicle for one class ruling over another, you can't have a state and socialism at the same time. That's about on the level of two plus two equals four, ought not even to be controversial I should hope.

Lesson #1 for all you learners out there.

-M.H-


Socialist society is when the working class is in power, but capitalist elements may still exist in society in the economic sphere. I'm also referring to it on a global scale. A socialist society may exist while capitalist still exists elsewhere in the world and capitalists, or capitalist ideologues still exist within. the role of the state is to repress the capitalists within and prevent capitalists from without from influencing anything within.

That is the role of the police and military wings of a socialist state. Defense of the gains of the working class and maintaining proletarian political power while at the same time repressing and defeating capitalist elements.


I was not being sarcastic, i just may have not elaborated on it well enough for it to not be taken in the correct context.

[Lanky Wanker]

Aren't the police the ones that commit a lot of the violent acts in society as it is now? Sometimes I actually wonder if more people are physically attacked by the police than saved by them.

[A Marxist Historian]

Socialist society is when the working class is in power, but capitalist elements may still exist in society in the economic sphere. I'm also referring to it on a global scale. A socialist society may exist while capitalist still exists elsewhere in the world and capitalists, or capitalist ideologues still exist within. the role of the state is to repress the capitalists within and prevent capitalists from without from influencing anything within.

That is the role of the police and military wings of a socialist state. Defense of the gains of the working class and maintaining proletarian political power while at the same time repressing and defeating capitalist elements.


I was not being sarcastic, i just may have not elaborated on it well enough for it to not be taken in the correct context.

You should check in with your PSL on that, that is not their line I am quite sure.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class in power. It is not at all the same thing as a socialist society. It is a tool to create one.

-M.H.-

[Rusty Shackleford]

You should check in with your PSL on that, that is not their line I am quite sure.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class in power. It is not at all the same thing as a socialist society. It is a tool to create one.

-M.H.-
DotP is Socialism in construction. (maybe i should have elaborated on that as well)

I was basically talking about the role of the state under working class governance.

"The defense of a the revolutionary government shall be organized on the basis of an armed, organized working class." The working class sets up its own institutions to defend its political power which basically includes 'policing' counterrevolutionary activity.

[Ocean Seal]

We shouldn't have a professional police. We should have a community police. One where people have control over who does the policing. Each community should train all of its citizens to handle crime and have an unprofessional police who takes shifts safeguarding the community.

[Tifosi]

OK, kids, Marxism 101 is that the definition of a socialist society is one that is not divided by class, and since the state is a vehicle for one class ruling over another, you can't have a state and socialism at the same time. That's about on the level of two plus two equals four, ought not even to be controversial I should hope.

Really?

Socialism seems to me to be a form of class society where the means of production are owned and controlled by a "cental body", the state. The people that are in control of this state form the ruling class of a Socialist society. In a Socialist society the vast majority of labour is wage-labour, where surplus value is for the most part extracted from the workers. Money is still in use, and so there is still differences in standards-of-living (but not on the same scale as in Capitalism).

You can have a debate about the in's and out's of living in such a society. Like how the Socialist societys of the 20th century claimed that the working class was in control - which it clearly wasn't. Or if these societys even tryed to progress to communism at all - whcih again they clearly didn't.

I thought everyone agreed that Socialism is a form of class society.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Will a classless society really mean that there are no more racists, nihilistic vandals, sexual perverts, rapists, or even jealous spouses? :rolleyes: There would be no gang crime, the insane would be taken care of more effectively, and most violent theft would be gone, but you would still have the odd criminal problems that stem from people's individual imperfections.


Who's going to be stealing this private property that we've abolished under socialism (and how)?

Communism does not have private property but there is still personal property. Marx makes this perfectly clear in the Manifesto for instance. If you inherited a sentimentally important golden wedding ring from your dead grandmother and some jerk who hates you stole it in a communist society, it would still be "stealing".

[Ocean Seal]

OK, kids, Marxism 101 is that the definition of a socialist society is one that is not divided by class, and since the state is a vehicle for one class ruling over another, you can't have a state and socialism at the same time. That's about on the level of two plus two equals four, ought not even to be controversial I should hope.

Lesson #1 for all you learners out there.

-M.H-
Actually that would be a communist society. In socialism class is still very much alive from a materialist standpoint. It is only abolished when the ruling class worldwide no longer exists and there is no reason for the working class proper to exist.

[A Marxist Historian]

DotP is Socialism in construction. (maybe i should have elaborated on that as well)

I was basically talking about the role of the state under working class governance.

"The defense of a the revolutionary government shall be organized on the basis of an armed, organized working class." The working class sets up its own institutions to defend its political power which basically includes 'policing' counterrevolutionary activity.

Right, but that isn't socialism. Under socialism we'll have no social classes, state, no government, no police, no lawyers, and no jails. We won't need them, any more than people needed them back before private property was invented. That's what they're all basically about, protecting private property, not individual safety, for which there are better methods.

As the working class will no longer exist, it will not need institutions to defend its political power.

-M.H.-

[Rusty Shackleford]

Oh great jumbler of words, splitter of hairs, and most orthodox of the orthodox; i kneel before you for your power is great.

[A Marxist Historian]

Actually that would be a communist society. In socialism class is still very much alive from a materialist standpoint. It is only abolished when the ruling class worldwide no longer exists and there is no reason for the working class proper to exist.

An interesting notion which Stalin hinted in the direction of, but he never stated, as he knew perfectly well that it totally contradicted everything Marx ever said on the subject, and he wanted to claim to be a Marxist.

I guess his latter day epigones feel no such limitations.

-M.H.-

P.S. Found myself reading Molotov's memoirs a while back. A 100% totally loyal supporter of Stalin of course.

But he does mention at one point in them that Stalin, being a bit less theoretically precise than he, Molotov, was, did have this conception that the Soviet Union was a socialist society, which he, Molotov, knew was technically scientifically incorrect, as Stalin was a bit sloppy there.

Stalin's claim was that all that was left in the USSR were the *remnants* of the capitalist classes, and it was because they were just remnants that they were so frenzied and murderous, allegedly.

A merely temporary phenomenon which he, Stalin, was putting an end to. Not something alive during the entire period of socialism as you claim.

[A Marxist Historian]

Really?

Socialism seems to me to be a form of class society where the means of production are owned and controlled by a "cental body", the state. The people that are in control of this state form the ruling class of a Socialist society. In a Socialist society the vast majority of labour is wage-labour, where surplus value is for the most part extracted from the workers. Money is still in use, and so there is still differences in standards-of-living (but not on the same scale as in Capitalism).

You can have a debate about the in's and out's of living in such a society. Like how the Socialist societys of the 20th century claimed that the working class was in control - which it clearly wasn't. Or if these societys even tryed to progress to communism at all - whcih again they clearly didn't.

I thought everyone agreed that Socialism is a form of class society.

That's about as wrong as it can possibly be. Off of Revleft, I have never in my entire life heard the claim that socialism is a form of class society.

Socialism is a classless society. End of story. Look it up in Webster's.
In fact that is the definition of socialism, and always has been so, since the time Thomas More started talking about it in the 16th Century.

Your conception isn't socialism, it is actually that of "bureaucratic collectivism," a notion mostly identified with ex-Trotskyist Max Shachtman. The originators were some intellectuals in the '30s who thought that "bureaucratic collectivism" was the wave of the future, as represented by Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and Roosevelt's New Deal.

The most well known in America is Shachtman's pal James Burnham, who after leaving the revolutionary movement became an extreme rightist, a staff writer for William F. Buckley's National Review. A natural political direction for notions as anti-communist as that.

Burnham and Shachtman were among the "New York intellectuals" who departed the left and were founding seeds for the "neo-conservatism" that was big under Bush Jr.

-M.H.-