Public services in socialism

[Alexenator]

Would police, health services, and the fire department still exist in socialism? How would they be managed if they indeed will still exist?

[ckaihatsu]

Would police, health services, and the fire department still exist in socialism? How would they be managed if they indeed will still exist?


These government / public sector services are a good starting point for any discussion about socialism -- I tend to describe socialism as being where the existing public sector expands outward to the point where it includes 100% of all services provided. (And, obviously, the public sector would also be the sole "employer" for all work roles.)

The proletariat itself would collectively self-manage the organization and fulfillment of all work since the public, the public sector, and the self-liberated proletariat would all be one and the same thing.

[RedScot24/11/1859]

I honestly don't see why the proletarian state couldn't do those things why relative similarity to they are now. They could be democratized with the members of the profession having a say, however big a say is decided to be practical, and the rest of the public, as they would be deeply affected by these matters, would get a say in it too.

[ckaihatsu]

[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

[RedScot24/11/1859]

The point being? And I'm pretty it was socialism he asked if these services would still exist in.

[ckaihatsu]

The point being? And I'm pretty it was socialism he asked if these services would still exist in.


Not trying to be pointed or cryptic -- just juxtaposing, and it's f.y.i.

We *could* get into some hair-splitting about the differences in contexts between socialism and communism, but-- well, actually, feel free to do so if you like.... (It may be a useful exercise.)

[Buttress]

Fire departments, health services, these things would still exist under socialism, just run by the people collectively. As for police.. well, they'd probably be quite different from the police we're used to today.

[KR]

The police would not exist, as police is a class with certain privileges that the rest of the population does not have, thus it should be abolished.

[Erratus]

The police would not exist, as police is a class with certain privileges that the rest of the population does not have, thus it should be abolished.

If you don't mind me asking, this bit has always been confusing to me. I can easily see how the police force can be used by the capitalists to oppress the workers, but they do serve a useful purpose in up-holding the law. I don't think anyone could argue that in a communist world, there would be no criminals. Maybe a lot less crime due to lack of incentives to steal and whatnot. However, there is still always going to people that will do stuff. People may not like you and will break your stuff (even if they can be replaced, it will be a burden to continually make a car for you ever week and it will prevent you from doing stuff for that amount of time). Pedophiles and sociopaths will still exist too. It seems to me like there will have to something, some means to enforce order.

[ckaihatsu]

If you don't mind me asking, this bit has always been confusing to me. I can easily see how the police force can be used by the capitalists to oppress the workers, but they do serve a useful purpose in up-holding the law. I don't think anyone could argue that in a communist world, there would be no criminals. Maybe a lot less crime due to lack of incentives to steal and whatnot. However, there is still always going to people that will do stuff. People may not like you and will break your stuff (even if they can be replaced, it will be a burden to continually make a car for you ever week and it will prevent you from doing stuff for that amount of time). Pedophiles and sociopaths will still exist too. It seems to me like there will have to something, some means to enforce order.


For the sake of the discussion there should probably be some particulars hypothesized for 'crime' and 'order' in a post-capitalist society.

It sounds like you're referring to incidents against one's person, and/or their personal possessions (since private capital interests would no longer exist).

I guess the question is whether a formal social "commons" could exist in more of a social, ad hoc way -- once all assets and resources are collectivized / socialized -- or if a workers government would be more of a fixed institution similar to bourgeois traditions of today.

I'll venture to say that the more a world revolution can break *cleanly* away from the "ancien regime", the better it will be as an entity and more independent from having to borrow from traditions for political reasons (think of how relations were settled after the U.S. Civil War, for [an] example [of politicking].)

[KR]

If you don't mind me asking, this bit has always been confusing to me. I can easily see how the police force can be used by the capitalists to oppress the workers, but they do serve a useful purpose in up-holding the law. I don't think anyone could argue that in a communist world, there would be no criminals. Maybe a lot less crime due to lack of incentives to steal and whatnot. However, there is still always going to people that will do stuff. People may not like you and will break your stuff (even if they can be replaced, it will be a burden to continually make a car for you ever week and it will prevent you from doing stuff for that amount of time). Pedophiles and sociopaths will still exist too. It seems to me like there will have to something, some means to enforce order.
The problem with a police or military force is that they can easily coup themselves to power due to they privileges and firepower. Crime i think should be handled by everyone, with everyone having the ability to arrest someone if they see he/she doing a crime, after which they will be send to a court. Off course if someone abuses they power by arresting random people or something, they right to arrest people can easily be taken away. As an anarchist, i also just inherently have a problem with a specialized force that has authority over the population, make no mistake that is what a police is.

[ckaihatsu]

If we all here would agree that the motivations for crime -- however defined -- would be far fewer in a post-capitalist society, then it would make sense to think of a political culture and public policy around 'public safety' instead of today's societal practice of political commodification into "criminals" for acts of incursion onto the claims of private capital (and for far, far less).

I'll venture to say here that a fully post-capitalist socialized society would have pushed past any remaining objective motivations for favoritism / elitism, and so such a society would definitely *not* require a specialized force with authority over the population for the purpose of "fighting crime", 'public safety', or any other such social-service-type stated reason. As with mass political decision-making itself, 'public safety' would be fully socialized and intrinsically part of each person's civil responsibility in society.

[Erratus]

As with mass political decision-making itself, 'public safety' would be fully socialized and intrinsically part of each person's civil responsibility in society.

Which is one thought that I had, however I am not sold on how effective it would be. Though a lot of this would vary with what a completely post-capitalism society would look like. However, lets say that for whatever motive, there is an armed and dangerous man. Could we really count on some citizen stepping up to deal with him? Or a situation that requires detective work? I suppose certain members of a community could take to actively protecting their community, simply because they care. This seems like it might lead to the same problems we have now with the police force (on a smaller scale).

[ckaihatsu]

Which is one thought that I had, however I am not sold on how effective it would be. Though a lot of this would vary with what a completely post-capitalism society would look like. However, lets say that for whatever motive, there is an armed and dangerous man. Could we really count on some citizen stepping up to deal with him?


A shortfall of any method of hypothesizing / extrapolation into the future is that the more *specific* our perspective is, the *less* certainty we can have about our speculation. At best we can address *generalities* since they benefit from being structural common elements in any given scenario.

I'll politely decline to address this point of yours for this reason. (You may want to advance a line of reasoning here.)





Or a situation that requires detective work? I suppose certain members of a community could take to actively protecting their community, simply because they care. This seems like it might lead to the same problems we have now with the police force (on a smaller scale).


Again, I wouldn't want to presume.

Could there still be institutionally promoted and protected mass-hysteria witchhunts in a post-commodity society -- ? I would tend to say no because threats to public safety would require a societal structuring that would provide objective *motivations* for risk-taking / rule-breaking. Once our human material world has transcended its dependence on the commodity production system of economics, society would no longer feature "loopholes" and any and all similar double-standards in matters of policy.

Instead of material participation measured according to a money standard, there would be equitability of access to participation and production throughout *all* levels and aspects of society. Hope this helps.


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://postimage.org/image/1d6itveo4/