Cops tase deaf man who tried to use sign language

[Skyhilist]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/16/california-police-use-taser-on-deaf-man-trying-to-communicate-with-them-via-sign-language/

Wow.

[adipocere]

Not unlike the cops killing the down syndrome man (http://rt.com/usa/ethan-saylor-death-petition-025/) in the movie theater.

[Sinister Intents]

This makes me want to kill cops to be completely honest. I'm so fucking sick of reading and hearing about this shit. Also fuck you to people who consider cops 'workers in uniform'

[tachosomoza]

Also fuck you to people who consider cops 'workers in uniform'

Technically, they are. Violent, corrupt, reactionary, racist, class collaborationist workers, but workers still. They most certainly aren't bourgeois.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Technically, they are. Violent, corrupt, reactionary, racist workers, but workers still. They most certainly aren't bourgeois.

Fuck no.

Cops are cops. A special bureaucratic layer responsible for enforcing the bourgeois dictatorship at street level. The only thing the workers' movement can offer cops are katorgas and lead in the event of our victory; the only thing cops have to offer to the workers are prisons and lead now.

[tachosomoza]

Fuck no.

Cops are cops. A special bureaucratic layer responsible for enforcing the bourgeois dictatorship at street level.

Sure. But, they still sell their labor and receive a wage, so technically they're members of the working class.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Sure. But, they still sell their labor and receive a wage, so technically they're members of the working class.

Not really - their role in the production process is not the same as that of a proletarian. Foremen sometimes receive wages as well; this doesn't make them proletarians.

[Sinister Intents]

Technically, they are. Violent, corrupt, reactionary, racist, class collaborationist workers, but workers still. They most certainly aren't bourgeois.

Technically. I don't consider them workers for what they are. Fuck them, fuck them all. Fuck those abusive, weak lemmings. Fuck their black hearts. I would love nothing more than to destroy them with everything at my disposal. Oh yeah lets tase someone who is using sign language cuz you know that's so fucking threatening and bizarre that humans can be deaf. Just not normal isn't it. Fuck the police.

[tachosomoza]

Not really - their role in the production process is not the same as that of a proletarian. Foremen sometimes receive wages as well; this doesn't make them proletarians.

The only thing of value that a police officer has is their labor to sell to the bourgeois state. They don't own capital, nor are they self-employed, so yes, they are members of the proletariat.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

The only thing of value that a police officer has is their labor to sell to the bourgeois state. They don't own capital, nor are they self-employed, so yes, they are members of the proletariat.

Under that definition, foremen and managers are proletarians as well. As are most bureaucrats and even ministers.

[tachosomoza]

Under that definition, foremen and managers are proletarians as well. As are most bureaucrats and even ministers.

If a top level bureaucrat or a cabinet officer owns capital, like many here in the US do, they aren't proletariat. A McDonald's manager and a secretary, file clerk or a security guard at city hall I would consider proletariat.

[Art Vandelay]

My views on the matter aside, which is essentially that in terms of their consciousness Trotsky's quote that 'the worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state is a bourgeois cop not a worker' is pretty accurate, allowing emotional or moralistic arguments effect your analysis of class society is pretty weak.

But this is absolutely awful, hope the guy gets more than a paid vacation, cause that's all suspended with pay amounts to. I doubt it given the fact that the investigation will probably be handled internally and by his buddies in pd.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

If a top level bureaucrat or a cabinet officer owns capital, like many here in the US do, they aren't proletariat. A McDonald's manager and a secretary, file clerk or a security guard at city hall I would consider proletariat.

But there's a sleight of hand here. A high functionary or cabinet officer doesn't need to own capital. Michel Pablo, for example, never did, even when he served in Ben Bella's cabinet. So was Pablo the minister for abandoned properties (like the FI, heh) a prole? I don't think so.

[Slavic]

The only thing of value that a police officer has is their labor to sell to the bourgeois state. They don't own capital, nor are they self-employed, so yes, they are members of the proletariat.

I don't understand why people on the left cherry pick who is and who is not of the proletariat class. The definition is right in the open.

There are many vile and disgusting workers in the world but that does not negate the fact that they are workers. Members of the proletariat can, have, and will be reactionary.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I don't understand why people on the left cherry pick who is and who is not of the proletariat class. The definition is right in the open.

There are many vile and disgusting workers in the world but that does not negate the fact that they are workers. Members of the proletariat can, have, and will be reactionary.

Yeah, but cops aren't just personally reactionary.

Deciding who is part of the proletariat and who isn't is a bit more involved than simply citing a simplified definition. The proletariat fulfills a certain role in the functioning of the capitalist economy. The police do likewise, but their role is completely different. People are retreating into schematism here.

Also, if cops are workers, why do communists fight for driving cops out of the unions? If you genuinely think cops are simply reactionary workers, why not act to unionize them? There's a lot of pseudo-Marxist precedent for such capitulation to the apparatus of the bourgeois state.

[tachosomoza]

Also, if cops are workers, why do communists fight for driving cops out of the unions? If you genuinely think cops are simply reactionary workers, why not act to unionize them? There's a lot of pseudo-Marxist precedent for such capitulation to the apparatus of the bourgeois state.

http://iupa.org/




The International Union of Police Associations is the only AFL-CIO union chartered exclusively for law enforcement and law enforcement support personnel.*

The AFL-CIO affiliation places I.U.P.A. in a position of strength within the labor movement. While I.U.P.A.’s officers, active and retired law enforcement officers, fight to improve the lives of their brothers and sisters in law enforcement, I.U.P.A. works to improve legislation that protects and affects public safety officers, as well as representing the needs of law enforcement officers and support personnel, whether that be for better equipment, more staff or a fair wage.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Yeah, pigs have unions. Sometimes. Do you think that is a good thing? Do you think socialist should support them, support the creation of more cop unions, fight for higher wages for police etc.?

I need another glass of Malibu.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Cop associations are the worst kind. Back more repressive laws, support cops who murder, etc, etc. Police unions need to be struggled against time and time again when fighting against police brutality.

[tachosomoza]

Yeah, pigs have unions. Sometimes. Do you think that is a good thing? Do you think socialist should support them, support the creation of more cop unions, fight for higher wages for police etc.?

Do you even know what type of person becomes a cop? His father worked in a factory. His mom went to PTO meetings. He was a Boy Scout. If you're in an urban area, he grew up in a ghetto or barrio or lower working class white ethnic neighborhood. He very possibly might be black or hispanic. The only way to get out of those neighborhoods is to become a cop, join the Army, or go to university on a sport scholarship. These people are proletarians to the bone. Yes, socialists should support higher wages for all workers, better working conditions, along with educating them and promoting class consciousness. Not antagonize them and call for their violent deaths for joining one of the few occupations that working class youths can get into at a respectable salary and with relatively little bullshit.

[Decolonize The Left]

Deciding who is part of the proletariat and who isn't is a bit more involved than simply citing a simplified definition. The proletariat fulfills a certain role in the functioning of the capitalist economy. The police do likewise, but their role is completely different. People are retreating into schematism here.

Being a member of the working class is not synonymous with supporting the interests of that class because economic situation and political philosophy are not synonymous. There are plenty of pro-capitalist, pro-bourgeois members of the working class. Likewise, police are economically members of the working class but politically act against those interests as a part of their job.


Also, if cops are workers, why do communists fight for driving cops out of the unions? If you genuinely think cops are simply reactionary workers, why not act to unionize them? There's a lot of pseudo-Marxist precedent for such capitulation to the apparatus of the bourgeois state.

Cops should unionize. I'm not going to help them do it but I think they should as workers. You don't?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I would not support a union drive by cops, no. When the cops get organized what do they do? They fight for interests which are directly counter to ours. They'll try and make laws which make it harder to arrest cops for misconduct, they support the racist drug laws and fight against those that want to decriminalize, etc, etc, it's a union of thugs. What good comes from it?

[tachosomoza]

I would not support a union drive by cops, no. When the cops get organized what do they do? They fight for interests which are directly counter to ours. They'll try and make laws which make it harder to arrest cops for misconduct, they support the racist drug laws and fight against those that want to decriminalize, etc, etc, it's a union of thugs. What good comes from it?

They don't always fight against decriminalization. Especially if they work in and come from neighborhoods destroyed by the drug war. Many say that if they didn't have to waste time on bullshit drug laws, they could be dealing with actual crimes that hurt people, like rape and murder.

http://www.leap.cc/

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Being a member of the working class is not synonymous with supporting the interests of that class because economic situation and political philosophy are not synonymous. There are plenty of pro-capitalist, pro-bourgeois members of the working class. Likewise, police are economically members of the working class but politically act against those interests as a part of their job.

But the notion that the police are, economically, part of the proletariat is precisely what I dispute. This is a horribly abstract formulation that does not engage with the material reality of the working class - the chief mistake, I think, is the notion that all of society is neatly divided into three classes (sometimes two). But Marxists have always recognized the existence of special layers - the state bureaucracy, the police, the intelligentsia, etc. etc.

Again, if you think cops are proles, then most ministers are proles as well.


Cops should unionize. I'm not going to help them do it but I think they should as workers. You don't?

Hell no. Cop unions and cops in the unions are one of the greatest dangers that the workers' movement faces.


Do you even know what type of person becomes a cop? His father worked in a factory. His mom went to PTO meetings. He was a Boy Scout. If you're in an urban area, he grew up in a ghetto or barrio or lower working class white ethnic neighborhood. He very possibly might be black or hispanic. The only way to get out of those neighborhoods is to become a cop, join the Army, or go to university on a sport scholarship. These people are proletarians to the bone. Yes, socialists should support higher wages for all workers, better working conditions, along with educating them and promoting class consciousness. Not antagonize them and call for their violent deaths for joining one of the few occupations that working class youths can get into at a respectable salary and with relatively little bullshit.

Hey, there's a sob story behind every scab as well. Doesn't mean shit. Cops constitute the directly repressive part of the state apparatus and anyone who doesn't see that, and fights for benefits for this repressive apparatus, is quite frankly nuts.

[RedAnarchist]

Some porcine (apologies to actual pigs) fellows decided to attack a man for not treating them like the demi-gods they believe themselves to be? How strange it is that I'm not fucking surprised.

Police might be technically part of the working class, but if you actively go against your own class interests, you're a class traitor.

[tachosomoza]

Police might be technically part of the working class, but if you actively go against your own class interests, you're a class traitor.

It's very unfair and cold to throw working class people under the bus for taking what they see as a way to advance themselves and do better for themselves and their families. Like I said, it's either an athletic scholarship, the military or the police. There are no more factories.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

It's very unfair and cold to throw working class people under the bus for doing what they see as a way to advance themselves and do better for themselves and their families.

Like crossing the picket line?

[RedAnarchist]

It's very unfair and cold to throw working class people under the bus for doing what they see as a way to advance themselves and do better for themselves and their families. Like I said, it's either an athletic scholarship, the military or the police. There are no more factories.

OK, I might be generalising, and many officers might be men and women trying to put food on the table for their families. However, how can these honest officers stand by and let their corrupt, violent colleagues get away with assault, and sometimes murder?

[tachosomoza]

However, how can these honest officers stand by and let their corrupt, violent colleagues get away with assault, and sometimes murder?

Because they'll be retaliated against. They're afraid.

[RedAnarchist]

Because they'll be retaliated against. They're afraid.

Are they in the majority? If so, why not unite against the corrupt minority?

[Queen Mab]

It's very unfair and cold to throw working class people under the bus for taking what they see as a way to advance themselves and do better for themselves and their families.

You can say that about any job. People rounded up Jews for the Nazis to better their families. It's not an excuse.

[tachosomoza]

Are they in the majority? If so, why not unite against the corrupt minority?

I imagine it would vary by department. And I and nobody else here is in no position to call them out or pick at them, considering we're not honest police officers who have to deal with the blue wall on a daily basis.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

OK, I might be generalising, and many officers might be men and women trying to put food on the table for their families.

Most of them are. But they do so by participating in the repressive apparatus of the bourgeois state, a murderously anti-worker, anti-union, racist, misogynist and queerphobic apparatus at that. Their working-class origins do not mean anything; socialists organize those whose objective interests lie in opposition to capitalism and the state. Cops are the state. That this has to be pointed out on a socialist forum is surreal.


I imagine it would vary by department. And I and nobody else here is in no position to call them out or pick at them, considering we're not honest police officers who have to deal with the blue wall on a daily basis.

Well I'm not an "honest minister" dealing with government bureaucracy either, does this mean I can't criticize ministers?

[Decolonize The Left]

But the notion that the police are, economically, part of the proletariat is precisely what I dispute. This is a horribly abstract formulation that does not engage with the material reality of the working class - the chief mistake, I think, is the notion that all of society is neatly divided into three classes (sometimes two). But Marxists have always recognized the existence of special layers - the state bureaucracy, the police, the intelligentsia, etc. etc.

Not really an argument on your part... economically speaking police officers sell their labor to capital. You haven't refuted this. You're just saying you're upset about the political and social role that police officers play within society.

And as to the "existence of special layers," that's nonsense. Those layers were invented by people in order to compensate for political feelings regarding hard economics.


Again, if you think cops are proles, then most ministers are proles as well.

It's not up for discussion, really. An economic relationship is an economic relationship. Just because you're politically opposed to X, Y, or Z doesn't mean it changes the economic relationship in place.


Hell no. Cop unions and cops in the unions are one of the greatest dangers that the workers' movement faces.

Cop unions are in no shape, or form, "one of the greatest dangers" to our movement. Be honest - cops are a huge danger, but their unionizing is relatively meaningless. Unless you're prepared, that is, to demonstrate lengthy evidence of cop unions being directly responsible (not cops, but the fact that they're unionized) for destruction of movements.


Most of them are. But they do so by participating in the repressive apparatus of the bourgeois state, a murderously anti-worker, anti-union, racist, misogynist and queerphobic apparatus at that. Their working-class origins do not mean anything; socialists organize those whose objective interests lie in opposition to capitalism and the state. Cops are the state. That this has to be pointed out on a socialist forum is surreal.

You faultily (and rather naively, which is odd) assume that everyone possesses class consciousness. That when a fifteen year-old kid decides he wants to be a cop he's thinking: "fuck the working class, I want to actively work against my class interests in the name of the state and capital. I also want to work for a murderously anti-worker, anti-union, racist, misogynist and queerphobic apparatus! To the sign-up window!" That's laughable and you know it. I know full grown intellectuals who can't articulate that much class consciousness, let alone a nuanced socio-political analysis of an institution.

But to sum it up, the "objective interests" of a person are economic: you need stuff to wear, eat, and shelter you. Cops do, whether you like it or not, sell their labor to capital. Economically, they are at opposite interests with the capitalist class who employs them via the state.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Not really an argument on your part... economically speaking police officers sell their labor to capital. You haven't refuted this. You're just saying you're upset about the political and social role that police officers play within society.

No, I'm saying sentiments like "cops are workers in uniform" are objectively a capitulation to opportunism, and are most commonly found in organizations well on the way to complete social-democratic degeneration.

As for the supposed "hard economics", the police do not sell their labor to capital, they sell their labor-power to the state, a special institution of bourgeois society.

Furthermore, the proletariat is not defined by the sale of labor-power to the bourgeoisie; all sorts of salaried officials and managers also do this, and it would be beyond absurd to call them proletarian. Or if you will: all Marxist theoreticians, from Marx (who called this layer the "sergeants of the bourgeoisie) onwards, treated managers as separate from the proletariat.


And as to the "existence of special layers," that's nonsense. Those layers were invented by people in order to compensate for political feelings regarding hard economics.

Someone should have told, for example, Marx, Lenin or Trotsky that they were "compensating for political feelings regarding hard economics". Consider, e.g., Marx's statements about the bureaucracy, the "squirearchy" etc.

Of course, it is a gross political error to neatly separate politics and economy, as if the former was an epiphenomenon of the latter.


It's not up for discussion, really. An economic relationship is an economic relationship. Just because you're politically opposed to X, Y, or Z doesn't mean it changes the economic relationship in place.

Well, try as you might, you can't stop people from drawing conclusions - politically insane conclusions - from your statements. If cops are proletarians, so are ministers. If cops need unions, so do ministers. And that is, of course, ridiculous.


Cop unions are in no shape, or form, "one of the greatest dangers" to our movement. Be honest - cops are a huge danger, but their unionizing is relatively meaningless. Unless you're prepared, that is, to demonstrate lengthy evidence of cop unions being directly responsible (not cops, but the fact that they're unionized) for destruction of movements.

Well, just consider the 1971 New York police strike - generously supported by those who took the line that "cops are workers in uniform", like the Healyite "Workers'" League. Of course, what you're asking me to do is nonsensical - I don't have the time to go over every pig strike and pig union, and "destruction of movements" is not the only way in which the workers' movement can be negatively affected. The bourgeois state granting police summary powers, the demand of most police strikes, also affects the workers' movement negatively.


You faultily (and rather naively, which is odd) assume that everyone possesses class consciousness.

In fact, I assume no such thing. You are the first to mention class-consciousness in this conversation. I am talking about the objective relation between the police and the workers' movement.


That when a fifteen year-old kid decides he wants to be a cop he's thinking: "fuck the working class, I want to actively work against my class interests in the name of the state and capital. I also want to work for a murderously anti-worker, anti-union, racist, misogynist and queerphobic apparatus! To the sign-up window!"

Who cares what fifteen-year-olds who end up becoming cops think? The socialist movement is not a movement for the uplifting of the virtuous or for the salvation of souls. Likewise, a scab might have the purest motives possible - such as supporting an "independent trade union" against the e-e-evil Stalinists - this doesn't change their relation to the workers' movement and it certainly doesn't mean the workers' movement should give them a free pass.


But to sum it up, the "objective interests" of a person are economic: you need stuff to wear, eat, and shelter you. Cops do, whether you like it or not, sell their labor to capital. Economically, they are at opposite interests with the capitalist class who employs them via the state.

Quite so, the objective interests of a person are economic. Without the bourgeois state apparatus, the cop would have enormous material difficulties - and no protection against retribution. But the socialist revolution requires the smashing of this apparatus; therefore the objective interest of the cop is incompatible with the socialist revolution, and anyone who claims otherwise either has a very romantic view of cops, or is selling a very odd sort of socialist revolution.