Secret police under anarchism (during transition)?

[Skyhilist]

What are your thoughts on this? Are there any situations under anarchism where you feel secret police would be necessary, and if so, how would you suggest going about setting up such a secret police force, while working within an anarchist framework?

I understand that a lot of people here are not anarchists: I ask you still to attempt to still work within an anarchist framework because I want specifically to understand better how anarchists might reconcile the need for secret police (if there would ever be a need at all that is) -- not how you personally would reconcile them if you aren't an anarchist (not that your opinion is any less valid based on tendency automatically of course).

Personally, I would say that whether or not any type of secret police force would be necessary would depend on certain circumstances. For example, if you've got some clandestine reactionary terrorist group covertly carrying out bombings on civilians, I think such groups might need to be infiltrated, which might require the element of surprise. It's situations like these in which I could see some type of (hopefully temporary) secret police being necessary.

However, I think that in such instances such secret police forces must operate in a radically different fashion from most secret police forces of the past. For example, the working class (and disabled and old people who are unable to work or have worked throughout their lives) as a whole must be the ones to determine the following:

--What types of crimes the secret police can pursue
--Which ways they can and cannot go about pursuing such crimes
--What types information they're allowed to classify
--Anything else that might be needed to regulate the power of any secret police force.

Members should be chosen via collective decision in my opinion. They should also be able to be removed and replaced via popular vote at any time should they misrepresent or betray the working class. They will essentially function like any other syndicate: They will be given jobs/tasks, and their workforce will within reason, be expected to fulfill the obligations placed upon them by society as a whole. The main difference is that whereas the bread factory is directed to produce x amounts of bread, the secret police might be directed to infiltrate terrorist types x, y, and z.

What are your thoughts on this manner? Do secret police have any place in anarchism, and if so, what form should they take?

[DROSL]

They'll always be people trying to take control, I just think anarchism is doomed to failure.

[Red_Banner]

Police is to be replaced by a peoples' militia, like what Lenin and Trotsky described.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The idea of all (or even most) of the flaws of an institution like an undercover police being eliminated by expanding responsibility of it's operations over to, well, everybody isn't likely IMO. Eventually people are going to start assigning responsibilities over to individuals who (ostensibly) represent them. And when you give individuals that kind of great power, there will always be misuses of it, abuses of it, people who act outside of the legitimate scope of their jobs, etc.

Unless that phenomenon could somehow be eliminated, I don't see how the operation of a "secret police" would vary that much fundamentally-speaking. The only way it's prevented today (and I imagine it's how it will remain) is : 1) try and make it difficult for one individual to attain too much power through a "checks and balances" system or procedural measures etc, and 2) punish the corrupt when they get caught

[d3crypt]

Anarchist police? No way!:laugh:

[Skyhilist]

Your critiques so far have all made fair points -- I agree that groups like secret police should be something that we should try to avoid. What though would you suggest should be done instead to infiltrate and/or dismantle the types of groups that I mentioned in my original post (e.g. clandestine reactionary terrorist group covertly carrying out bombings on civilians) should such groups arise?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The idea of all (or even most) of the flaws of an institution like an undercover police being eliminated by expanding responsibility of it's operations over to, well, everybody isn't likely IMO. Eventually people are going to start assigning responsibilities over to individuals who (ostensibly) represent them. And when you give individuals that kind of great power, there will always be misuses of it, abuses of it, people who act outside of the legitimate scope of their jobs, etc.

Unless that phenomenon could somehow be eliminated, I don't see how the operation of a "secret police" would vary that much fundamentally-speaking. The only way it's prevented today (and I imagine it's how it will remain) is : 1) try and make it difficult for one individual to attain too much power through a "checks and balances" system or procedural measures etc, and 2) punish the corrupt when they get caught

True, but situations would arise during a revolutionary period, I would say in which covert and clandestine operations needed to be carried out by the people in order to secure the victory of the class and the success of the revolution. With this being said, I don't think this would necessarily require a "secret police," as we are discussing it but more of those among the people that would be best suited for such operations with no real title or structure other than what the present conditions would require and as always such comrades would of course be subject to the will and authority of the people collectively. I would assume this would leave nothing for anyone to abuse and would only be existent based upon circumstantial need.

If we can still call this a "secret police," then sure, a secret police force would have a place in anarchism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The idea of all (or even most) of the flaws of an institution like an undercover police being eliminated by expanding responsibility of it's operations over to, well, everybody isn't likely IMO.

Yeah, neighbourhood watch, that would be impossible. :rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, neighbourhood watch, that would be impossible. :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with what I was talking about?

[Zulu]

How to reconcile the idea of secret police with anarchism? Let me see...

It must be an anarcho-capitalist privately owned secret police, of course! We snoop on you, classify the information and sell it to the highest bidder!

[d3crypt]

How to reconcile the idea of secret police with anarchism? Let me see...

It must be an anarcho-capitalist privately owned secret police, of course! We snoop on you, classify the information and sell it to the highest bidder!

Anarcho Capitalism is not real.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What does that have to do with what I was talking about?

My point is that, primarily, you seem to be operating under a false assumption of how the police gather intelligence. By and large, it's not the activity of specialists, but, already an "anarchic" model reliant on citizen-snitches, "community" organizations, etc. where people act informally as snoops on a voluntaristic basis. The role played by police, of synthesizing this information, isn't centralized so much out of its technical complexity as it is out of the necessity of maintaining a state-monopoly. For it to be generalized would simply be a matter or bringing it out into the light, rather than trying to share some sort of specialized technical tasks among people.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Anarcho Capitalism is not real.

Anarcho-capitalism is 'real' in the sense that it does exist but not in the sense that's relevant to anything other than being annoying on the internet.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My point is that, primarily, you seem to be operating under a false assumption of how the police gather intelligence. By and large, it's not the activity of specialists, but, already an "anarchic" model reliant on citizen-snitches, "community" organizations, etc. where people act informally as snoops on a voluntaristic basis. The role played by police, of synthesizing this information, isn't centralized so much out of its technical complexity as it is out of the necessity of maintaining a state-monopoly. For it to be generalized would simply be a matter or bringing it out into the light, rather than trying to share some sort of specialized technical tasks among people.

How the hell would intelligence gathering and analysis work in a "secret police" force, in which information was "brought out into the light" and was freely disseminated? You say that the method of information gathering is already "generalized", but that's a negativity set against the backdrop of a massive prison state and the omnipresent threat of incarceration.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How the hell would intelligence gathering and analysis work in a "secret police" force, in which information was "brought out into the light" and was freely disseminated? You say that the method of information gathering is already "generalized", but that's a negativity set against the backdrop of a massive prison state and the omnipresent threat of incarceration.

OK, I'm going to assume we're looking for a sincere anarchist perspective, in which the purpose and carrying out of any sort of "policing" (not even the right word, in my opinion) is being fundamentally transformed.
My point is simply that communities already watch themselves; that the relationship of the police and prison industrial complex is fundamentally parasitic, appropriating existing forms of community self-organization toward another ends (the maintenance of the bourgeois state, and the social peace).
In practice, what I'm talking about is a situation where communities, rather than engaging in information gathering for the state (upon which they find themselves reliant in our current context), could simply share information among themselves, since, with the disappearance of the state monopoly on "justice", solutions could be arrived at autonomously, without the necessity of state intervention.

[Skyhilist]

What about this?

Communities have things like forums set up where only members of those communities can sign up and they might discuss things like how to stop any clandestine terror groups within their neighborhood, make operations to do so, etc.

Might be prone to entryism by reactionary terrorists but the tech people could take care of that to an extent. I don't think this would be worse in terms of that than secret police while would also be subject to reactionary entryism.

[Creative Destruction]

wasn't there an underground police in free ukraine? or did makhno's army just take care of that?

[Os Cangaceiros]

wasn't there an underground police in free ukraine? or did makhno's army just take care of that?

Yes, there were Makhnovist secret police, the "Kontrrazvedka"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In reality, this is a question that nobody can answer with any authority, nor integrity, because the very notion of a 'secret' police force is that it is just that - secret. If it is implemented in a clandestine, 'secret' way, then it is likely to take on a different character to a democratic workers' militia, or intelligence force.

In other words, precisely because the existence and activities of a secret police tends to vary from the 'known unknown' to the depths of the dangerous 'unknown unknown', we cannot really answer the question with any sort of certainty.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, there were Makhnovist secret police, the "Kontrrazvedka"

A police force, by definition, is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.

The Kontrrazvedka was primarily a military counter-intelligence and counter-espionage unit, mandated specifically to organise and execute covert and clandestine military operations.

There was briefly a political unit whose role was to detect Bolshevik, white and other political spies and agents working clandestinely within the Makhnovaschina, but this unit was eventually disbanded on the order of Makhno after some members were involved in extra-judicial executions of certain political opponents.

It is simply wrong to call them a secret police force.

[Ele'ill]

no cops

[Brutus]

They'll always be people trying to take control, I just think anarchism is doomed to failure.

Way to not address the question, and be a liberal.

It depends what you mean by 'secret police'. Makhno had the contravezda (probably spelt horribly incorrectly), which trots cite as a secret police, but anarchists cite as counter-intelligence. I suppose it all really boils down to whether it is necessary to have a secret police force.

[Skyhilist]

It's important to note that I'm looking at things here from the "a rose by any other name" perspective. I personally couldn't give a shit whether you call it secret police, counter intelligence, the people's militia, or whatever you want. My point is, is what I am describing necessary? And, more importantly, if it isn't, what specifically do you propose to deal with the problems that I have mentioned?

Simply saying "omg no cops" really doesn't do any of us any good.

[The Feral Underclass]

I personally couldn't give a shit whether you call it secret police, counter intelligence, the people's militia, or whatever you want.

Why not? They are all different things...


My point is, is what I am describing necessary?

I'm not sure how you can expect people to answer that question when it's not clear whether you are talking about a secret police force, a counter-intelligence unit or a people's militia.

[Skyhilist]

Why not? They are all different things...

Their differences are subjective though. What I mean is, do people think what I'm talking about is necessary? I personally could not care what they would choose to label what I am talking about.


I'm not sure how you can expect people to answer that question when it's not clear whether you are talking about a secret police force, a counter-intelligence unit or a people's militia.

Forget all the labels. What I mean is any group that carries out the operations I described in my initialy post, that is using the directives and guidelines of the people to gather intelligence about possible reactionary clandestine terrorist groups and destroy them with the use of at least some covert operations. The people would decide what methods were acceptable, what groups specifically were a problem, and also could remove people from this group at any time if they abused their positions.

Would that be necessary? And if not, what should be done instead to deal with clandestine reactionary terrorist groups?

[Os Cangaceiros]

A police force, by definition, is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.

The Kontrrazvedka was primarily a military counter-intelligence and counter-espionage unit, mandated specifically to organise and execute covert and clandestine military operations.

There was briefly a political unit whose role was to detect Bolshevik, white and other political spies and agents working clandestinely within the Makhnovaschina, but this unit was eventually disbanded on the order of Makhno after some members were involved in extra-judicial executions of certain political opponents.

It is simply wrong to call them a secret police force.

There is such a thing as "military police". Kontrra was primarily a secret police for in this context, although according to this:

http://libcom.org/files/Kontrrazvedka%20-%20The%20Story%20of%20the%20Makhnovist%20Intellige nce%20Service%20-%20V.%20Azarov.pdf

(pages 26-27)

...they did at one point have a "civilian section" which was responsible for handing out punitive measures on civilian suspects, notably executions. (Before this responsibility was transferred over to another division of the Makhnovists). But yes, I'd definitely classify that organization as a "secret police" within the military, seeing as how (according to that text) it operated as an undercover network of individuals trying to secretly ferret out dissent within the ranks.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is such a thing as "military police". Kontrra was primarily a secret police for in this context, although according to this:

A military police force is designed to enforce laws within the military. The Kontrrazvedka was designed to organise and execute military operations, such as sabotage, reconnaissance etc. I don't understand how you could define that as a secret police force? It just doesn't make any sense.


...they did at one point have a "civilian section" which was responsible for handing out punitive measures on civilian suspects, notably executions.

No, that's not what it was responsible for, but that is what some members ultimately did, which is why Makhno had it disbanded.

A police force is about enforcing laws and stopping crime. How can that definition be applied to the Kontrravedka?

[Skyhilist]

I know that I am guilty of it myself sometimes... But it always sort of annoys the hell out of me when a thread about one thing splinters off to being about a few different things, but none of them include the original thing.

Anyways, when you guys get done responding to this DROSL fool, any responses to the question I initially posed would still be appreciated. And perhaps "secret police" wasn't the best term to use for what I meant so if people are confused about that (as TAT suggests they would be), see my most recent response to TAT. Thanks.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Getting back to the OP:

One argument I've heard is that we have to have secret police, because there are secret crimes. That is to say, certain kinds of criminal activity, especially the large-scale organised variety with money and/or power behind it, goes to significant trouble to remain hidden from prying eyes.

While the production and distribution of drugs should be rehabilitated or at the very least be a non-issue due to de facto if not de jure decriminalisation, I imagine that a revolutionary society would not condone activities such as people trafficking, child abuse rings, arms smuggling, large-scale fraud (which needn't [directly] involve money), and counter-revolutionary activity such as sabotage and so forth. I also think that terrorism (which may or may not overlap with counter-revolutionary activity) should be treated along similar lines as primarily a civil matter rather than a military or political one, as it is generally dealt with currently.

I'm not entirely convinced of the secret crimes/secret police argument, but I do think that society needs a mechanism for exposing such crimes in order to deal with them in the clear light of day, and that covert or clandestine activity on the part of those investigating may be necessary for the purposes of operational effectiveness.

I think that in any case worth considering from a revolutionary point of view, some kind of division of labour would be needed in order to prevent too much power accumulating under the aegis of one person or organisation, and other potential hazards such as mission creep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep) and groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) need to be considered and countered.

[synthesis]

Wouldn't "secret police" in anarchism basically be vigilantes? I mean, how is it different? And how would you not get all the (proto-fascist) problems that always accompany vigilantism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wouldn't "secret police" in anarchism basically be vigilantes? I mean, how is it different? And how would you not get all the (proto-fascist) problems that always accompany vigilantism?

Since vigilantes by definition operate outside of the laws and regulations of wider society, and police, secret or otherwise, are nominally within that context, I'm not seeing the equivalence. Maybe you could explain more.

[synthesis]

Since vigilantes by definition operate outside of the laws and regulations of wider society, and police, secret or otherwise, are nominally within that context, I'm not seeing the equivalence. Maybe you could explain more.

Well, secret police in anarchism, also by definition, would 1. have some sort of state-like authority, 2. be volunteers, and 3. be operating secretly and therefore largely unaccountable to the wider public. Maybe it's not technically a duck, but it sure looks and quacks like one.

[Quail]

I've split the crap into another thread although I don't know if I should just trash it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, secret police in anarchism, also by definition, would 1. have some sort of state-like authority, 2. be volunteers, and 3. be operating secretly and therefore largely unaccountable to the wider public. Maybe it's not technically a duck, but it sure looks and quacks like one.

My understanding is that vigilantes don't have any authority apart from what they make for themselves. As for volunteering, what would be the alternative, compelling people to be investigators, forensic specialists, and so on? I suppose that a system similar to jury duty could be used instead, but that's a far cry from how vigilantes would operate.

When it comes to operating secretly, I think it does matter as to how far it goes. I'd say that the difference between temporary secrecy during the course of an investigation for the sake of getting to the kingpin rather than just knocking down the easily-replaced smaller subsidiaries, is sufficiently divergent from the contemporary phenomena of industrial-scale spying on large sections of the civilian population to be treated as another thing entirely. The former can be carried out in an entirely civilian capacity, whereas the latter is a horrific but inevitable mutation of a bloated military-industrial complex that won't exist in any remotely revolutionary society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ultimately the working class will require any tool at their disposal that will defend their gains and not act counter-intuitively to the creation of a communist society.