Policing in a post-State society

[RedBlackStar]

I have no idea if this has been asked but I'm extremely curious, so apologies comrades.

So I'm pretty sure most people on here are either Anarchists (like myself), Marxists, or some other ideology which envisions the state ending, the predominant division, in terms of the revolution, is how to get there. So this should be pretty open to all of us.

In a post-State society, where the revolution has been thoroughly successful across the globe, how would policing be done? I had simply assumed the idea of the democratic militia, which I believe in, would work just as much for dealing with crime as it would be for destroying (or overthrowing as the case may be for certain comrades) the state and fighting revolutionary forces. After that a people's court made up of all members of the community would discuss how to deal with the person/s. A constantly rotating and democratic militia prevents a constant police force which becomes too powerful.

Then it occurred to me that cops do more than chase people. For example, in the case of investigating crimes. That's a situation in which a group needs a large amount of experience to apprehend the correct culprit. However, that experience wouldn't be likely in a system where normal people voluntarily rotate their militia role. But if that was not the case then these people would become too powerful and, in the words of Lord Acton 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

This is obviously a just for fun question, as we are a long way off being ready for a revolution, no matter what you believe the prerequisites are. But it's still an interesting point.

[Illegalitarian]

You're not too far off. I'd imagine some sort of affinity group would be on stand by just in case they were needed, people trained how to handle these situations well, investigate situations that need investigated, etc, all done under extreme transparency and direct accountability to their respective communities.


Some anarchists even prefer p2p justice, but that's a bit too much imo

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why do you think any sort of policing would be necessary in a socialist society?

Violence among humans is not something that is above the mode of production. Most violence today is about securing a comparative advantage of some sort, or enforcing class rule. Obviously neither would be possible in socialism. Not to mention that, again obviously, many of the crimes and "crimes" of the present make no sense in a socialist society. Like embezzlement or adultery.

What little violence exists will probably be dealt with by the surrounding people themselves; for example if I try to punch someone I will probably be restrained by people around me (unless that someone wants to be punched). You don't need a police or militia of any sort to do this.

And even if someone kills another person, what's the point in trying to find out who did it and then punishing them? It certainly won't bring the dead back to life.

[Comrade #138672]

I think a good example of the need for some kind of "policing" would be murder cases, which I suspect would not cease to exist in socialism, although socialism would inevitably lead to a decrease in murder cases due to reduced alienation.

Murder cases can be hard to solve. I doubt everybody would be able to decide whether a given suspect is guilty or not.

But overall, the police would cease to exist as such, since the primary role of the police is to protect private property, either directly or indirectly.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think a good example of the need for some kind of "policing" would be murder cases, which I suspect would not cease to exist in socialism, although socialism would inevitably lead to a decrease in murder cases due to reduced alienation.

Murder cases can be hard to solve. I doubt everybody would be able to decide whether a given suspect is guilty or not.

But overall, the police would cease to exist as such, since the primary role of the police is to protect private property, either directly or indirectly.

Why do you think someone would murder another person in a socialist society?

[Comrade #138672]

Why do you think someone would murder another person in a socialist society?I cannot rule out the possibility. There are many reasons why someone would murder another person. I wonder whether eliminating capitalism will eliminate all possible motivations. Surely it will happen a lot less frequently, but it seems a bit over-optimistic to think that murder will cease to exist entirely.

Communism is absolutely necessary, but it will probably not be utopia.

[BIXX]

Nah, no police. Fuck that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I cannot rule out the possibility. There are many reasons why someone would murder another person. I wonder whether eliminating capitalism will eliminate all possible motivations. Surely it will happen a lot less frequently, but it seems a bit over-optimistic to think that murder will cease to exist entirely.

Communism is absolutely necessary, but it will probably not be utopia.

I'm not saying it will be. If anything, socialism would probably look completely alien to us born in class society. But nevermind that, I'm asking what possible motivation someone could have for murdering another person in a socialist society?

Profit? It won't exist.

Jealousy? Again, it won't exist, as the bourgeois family will have been smashed.

Political disputes? The government over men will have been abolished, leaving society with the technical tasks of organising production and distribution.

And so on.

[ChangeAndChance]

I'm not saying it will be. If anything, socialism would probably look completely alien to us born in class society. But nevermind that, I'm asking what possible motivation someone could have for murdering another person in a socialist society?

Profit? It won't exist.

Jealousy? Again, it won't exist, as the bourgeois family will have been smashed.

Political disputes? The government over men will have been abolished, leaving society with the technical tasks of organising production and distribution.

And so on.

What about those with antisocial personality disorder AKA psychopathy? Studies have shown there is a causal genetic link between family members with this.

[BIXX]

Even the craziest motherfucker hopefully never has a police force sent after them.

[Tim Cornelis]

870 doesn't believe in that psycho babble science. He upholds tabula rasa, although he does not admit to it. So in communism, he believes, there will be no mental health issues and no murder. Me suggesting otherwise in a thread caused him and QueerVanguard to go full wingnut and accuse me of being a fascist, a liberal, a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a Transphobe, a rightist, a Glenn Beck/Fox News-watcher, a Proudhonist, a nationalist, a non-Marxist. I wouldn't bother with these two utopians, they are far too detached from reality.

There's a crucial difference in recognising the scientific finding that psychopathy has a considerable genetic component and while genetics create tendencies in people it is the social environment that shapes the degree to which genetic tendencies manifest themselves; and rejecting this scientific finding altogether because of ideological preferences as 870 does. For instance, a genetic predisposition for psychopathic tendencies does not mean that the person will become a serial killer. The chances of this happening depend on childhood. A loving, caring environment can stunt psychopathic tendencies, whereas a cold, disengaged environment can exacerbate them. So with the implementation of collective child rearing, psychopathic tendencies far are less likely to manifest.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What about those with antisocial personality disorder AKA psychopathy? Studies have shown there is a causal genetic link between family members with this.

Assuming that psychopathy/sociopathy/antisocial/dissocial personality disorder/however they're calling it this week is an actual, well-defined condition (and that is by no means clear at this point), all that means is that some people have lower guilt levels. Good for them. This still doesn't answer the question why they would want to kill another person. Human behaviour is articulated in class society and depends crucially on the economic basis of said society.

[Raquin]

I have no idea if this has been asked but I'm extremely curious, so apologies comrades.

So I'm pretty sure most people on here are either Anarchists (like myself), Marxists, or some other ideology which envisions the state ending, the predominant division, in terms of the revolution, is how to get there. So this should be pretty open to all of us.

Marxists, when Marxists still existed, generally meant the stripping of the class/political character of the State by "withering away" or "abolition" of the State. It's basically sophistry.

In a socialist society, the police, like the state, would be stripped of its class/political character and become a servant of society. They probably won't call it police either, because again, sophistry.


In a post-State society, where the revolution has been thoroughly successful across the globe, how would policing be done? I had simply assumed the idea of the democratic militia, which I believe in, would work just as much for dealing with crime as it would be for destroying (or overthrowing as the case may be for certain comrades) the state and fighting revolutionary forces. After that a people's court made up of all members of the community would discuss how to deal with the person/s. A constantly rotating and democratic militia prevents a constant police force which becomes too powerful.
These fucking part-timers and "people's militias" and irregulars and all that fucking shit is also sophistry. It's warlordism draped in "left" colours. Look at Afghanistan in the 80s and 90s. Look at Syria today. Look at the Donbass. That's what "militias" and all that shit leads to. Thousands of warlords.

I'd rather live in a capitalist society rather than in a society where people are constantly forming fucking mobs and private armies to enforce their particular ideas. Modern Day Ireland or Croatia is better than fucking Aleppo or Daraa.

[RedBlackStar]

Nah, no police. Fuck that.

How do you propose crime would be investigated comrade?


This still doesn't answer the question why they would want to kill another person. Human behaviour is articulated in class society and depends crucially on the economic basis of said society.

Say I'm a doctor in a post-State society. I screw up and a woman dies. The woman's partner is pretty pissed at my mistake and they have one of these mental health disorders, prone to violent fits of rage and chooses to end my life. An example, because obviously you need a specific one...


Even the craziest motherfucker hopefully never has a police force sent after them.

I agree. But a team of 'police', for want of a better word, would be required to investigate and identify the culprit.


In a socialist society, the police, like the state, would be stripped of its class/political character and become a servant of society

Ignoring the fact that I don't think the state can be stripped of its political character. What I really meant was: how exactly could an effective police force still be kept in place whilst being a 'servant of society'.


I'd rather live in a capitalist society rather than in a society where people are constantly forming fucking mobs and private armies to enforce their particular ideas. Modern Day Ireland or Croatia is better than fucking Aleppo or Daraa.

I wasn't suggesting people would not simply form mobs. That's not what I meant by 'militias', I simply don't like using the word police; I still refer to a democratic and careful system of law enforcement. Call it what you like comrade.

[Raquin]

Ignoring the fact that I don't think the state can be stripped of its political character.
Of course it can. When the state becomes a tool for the administration of things after the abolition of social classes, instead of a tool of the rule of one class over other classes, it will not have a political character.


What I really meant was: how exactly could an effective police force still be kept in place whilst being a 'servant of society'.I think quite easily. When the police isn't being used as a club to beat the heads one class by another class, it will have nothing else to do besides serving society.



I wasn't suggesting people would not simply form mobs. That's not what I meant by 'militias', I simply don't like using the word police; I still refer to a democratic and careful system of law enforcement. Call it what you like comrade.So basically you want to do the same thing the Soviets did, rename police to militia?

Sure, that's a nice change. But it's a cosmetic one. Soviets also called Lenin Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars but he was still essentially the Prime Minister.

[RedBlackStar]

When the police isn't being used as a club to beat the heads one class by another class, it will have nothing else to do besides serving society.

I think the police, in fact anyone in a position of power, are quite capable of becoming corrupt without class even existing...


So basically you want to do the same thing the Soviets did, rename police to militia?.

No, I believe a total restructure is in order, but the function will essentially be what we are told the function of the police is. Law and order. The issue is simply making the 'police force' democratic and accountable, which would probably change its entire shape.


Of course it can. When the state becomes a tool for the administration of things after the abolition of social classes, instead of a tool of the rule of one class over other classes, it will not have a political character.

I don't want to get sidetracked but what's to stop those who occupy those administrative positions, which obviously hold power, from misusing and abusing their power. Essentially becoming a bureaucratic dictatorship.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Say I'm a doctor in a post-State society. I screw up and a woman dies. The woman's partner is pretty pissed at my mistake and they have one of these mental health disorders, prone to violent fits of rage and chooses to end my life. An example, because obviously you need a specific one...

Ignoring for now some of the assumptions you're making about the sexual lives of people in the socialist society, why do you assume the first response of the woman's partner would be to kill you? That's what many people would do today (or at least think about it), sure. But again, we are dealing with a particular form of class society. In previous forms of class society, their first impulse might be to blame, not you individually, but your family, clan or ethnoreligious (sub)group. Sometimes your guild or commune. All of these reflected the particulars of that form of class society. In capitalism, the logic of commodity exchange is also reproduced in these matters: someone has taken something from you (as sexual exclusivity is "seen" - it's rarely made explicit but that's how most people act - as possession), so you take something from them.

Obviously this would not be the case in the socialist society. Here, one would hope, people would realise that "revenge", "justice" etc. won't do anything positive.

But let's say this really happens. What then. How is the police going to protect you? By the time the police arrive, you'll be dead. If the killer is stopped, it won't be because of the police (the police very rarely stop killers), but because of your efforts or the efforts of people around you.

[RedBlackStar]

Ignoring for now some of the assumptions you're making about the sexual lives of people in the socialist society, why do you assume the first response of the woman's partner would be to kill you?

The parameters of this scenario are that this man/woman had a mental condition which made him prone to immediate aggression and incapable of logical thought when aggressive.

And yes, I make the assumption that some people will likely have one continuous relationship, similar to a marriage, this is not necessarily sexually exclusive, but people will still seek emotional companionship.


But let's say this really happens. What then. How is the police going to protect you?

Even if I'm dead the killer still has to be caught. This requires the expertise of what today we'd call a professional to carry out that investigation. The general community may accidentally contaminate evidence if they were all clumsily involved in the process.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The parameters of this scenario are that this man/woman had a mental condition which made him prone to immediate aggression and incapable of logical thought when aggressive.

Be that as it may, you still haven't given us a reason to think that, in the socialist society, this person would immediately blame you and seek to harm you.


Even if I'm dead the killer still has to be caught.

Why?

[RedBlackStar]

Be that as it may, you still haven't given us a reason to think that, in the socialist society, this person would immediately blame you and seek to harm you.

It was my screw up in this situation which caused the woman to die. This person, who is prone to illogical and irrational anger can't be reasoned with, as he knows that I am responsible.


Why?

In the situation that someone has committed an act of rape/murder/theft(still can happen in socialism)/any other crime which would harm another individual they need to be identified, so to stop them from recommitting.

I'm amazed that you can't grasp these very basic concepts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It was my screw up in this situation which caused the woman to die. This person, who is prone to illogical and irrational anger can't be reasoned with, as he knows that I am responsible.

You still aren't addressing what I've said, since you aren't situating human responses in their historical-economic context. If this conversation was going on thousands of years ago, you would assume it's natural that the person in question would blame your family - after all, one of their members caused the woman to die. And so on.


In the situation that someone has committed an act of rape/murder/theft(still can happen in socialism)/any other crime which would harm another individual they need to be identified, so to stop them from recommitting.

You set up this far-fetched scenario and then you don't keep in mind the specifics. Remember, this person supposedly killed you because you messed up etc. etc. Why would he kill someone else? The chance of reoffending is nearly zero. As for the rest, how could rape, the most vicious and violent expression of misogyny, happen in a society where not only misogyny but gender are things of the past? How in the name of Lenin's bald spot could theft happen in a society without property?


I'm amazed that you can't grasp these very basic concepts.

What makes them "basic" is that you're taking the logic of capitalist society for granted.

[RedBlackStar]

You set up this far-fetched scenario.

The scenario is necessary because you seem to not think crime is possible in Communist society. All other discussion has been sidetracked to prove to you that it is. So I'm calling it here.

The point is that crime will obviously still continue; I agree it will be greatly lessened but some people can just be bad people. My question was how could we have a police system, in order to investigate crime and apprehend criminals for a people's court to then make the next decision, whilst ensuring that this police system is kept as a 'servant to society' and remains democratic and accountable, without losing the necessary experience for the job.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The scenario is necessary because you seem to not think crime is possible in Communist society. All other discussion has been sidetracked to prove to you that it is. So I'm calling it here.

The point is that crime will obviously still continue; I agree it will be greatly lessened but some people can just be bad people. My question was how could we have a police system, in order to investigate crime and apprehend criminals for a people's court to then make the next decision, whilst ensuring that this police system is kept as a 'servant to society' and remains democratic and accountable, without losing the necessary experience for the job.

Yes, I think that anyone who mechanically transposes the category of "crime" from the present capitalist society to socialism is making a serious idealist mistake. You still haven't explained what "theft" would be in socialism, by the way.

To prove me wrong, you invent this scenario, but then you assume something that is outside the parameters of the scenario entirely. Even if your original point stands - and I don't think it does, at all - the subsequent point doesn't follow.

The main problem is that you seem to take the categories of present society - the police, courts, whatever - and try to "make them socialist" my making them a "people's" police, a "people's" court, whatever. This misses the point entirely - the point being that socialism changes all social relations.

[RedBlackStar]

You still haven't explained what "theft" would be in socialism, by the way.

Sheer distinguishment between property and possessions, the later being sentimental objects which are defined by occupation. For example, a piece of jewelry made specifically for someone as a sentimental gesture. It has no real value in Socialist society, but sentimental meaning to that person. It is not theft in the sense of taking something of value from someone, as nothing really has value in socialism, but that is still an object of sentiment which it would be upsetting to lose.


Yes, I think that anyone who mechanically transposes the category of "crime" from the present capitalist society to socialism is making a serious idealist mistake.

Do you believe a Socialist society would be without rules?

[BIXX]

How do you propose crime would be investigated comrade?
It shouldn't. You assume that the social relations under some post-capitalist society would necessitate a police force. You assume that our ideas of justice and punishment and wrongdoing would remain. They cannot.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sheer distinguishment between property and possessions, the later being sentimental objects which are defined by occupation. For example, a piece of jewelry made specifically for someone as a sentimental gesture. It has no real value in Socialist society, but sentimental meaning to that person. It is not theft in the sense of taking something of value from someone, as nothing really has value in socialism, but that is still an object of sentiment which it would be upsetting to lose.

That still doesn't answer the question. Why do you think the socialist society would involve itself in such personal disputes, trying to return jewelry to "its rightful owner"?


Do you believe a Socialist society would be without rules?

What sort of rules? Obviously there will be rules for filing and calculating the target numbers for various products. There would probably be unspoken rules about not harming another person. Beyond that, no, I don't think we will have "people's" laws enforced by a "people's" police. That would mean that the government over men has not been abolished; that society concerns itself with more than "the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production".

[synthesis]

Ignoring this hilarious idea that violent revolution will completely resolve all personality disorders, I think "the detective" will become as much of a non-exclusive, community project as "the beat cop." Look at the times Reddit has shown up in the news because of some of the dirt these amateur sleuths dig up and give to the FBI or whatever. Shit, we already convict people in the court of public opinion anyways.

[RedBlackStar]

There would probably be unspoken rules about not harming another person.

That is precisely the only rule that will still need to exist in a Communist society. One must not directly harm another person. As it is the only crime (as we know it today) which could still exist. I apologise if that point has not been made clear comrade.

What would you propose to be done when this rule is eventually broken?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ignoring this hilarious idea that violent revolution will completely resolve all personality disorders...

I think what's hilarious is the obsessive focus on personality "disorders", when people with such "disorders" (or at least people diagnosed as such, for whatever that's worth) make up a tiny minority of criminals (and "criminals"), as well as the notion that human behaviour is going to be the same across two modes of production. But that's just me, apparently. I think the entire premise of the question is misguided.


That is precisely the only rule that will still need to exist in a Communist society. One must not directly harm another person. As it is the only crime (as we know it today) which could still exist. I apologise if that point has not been made clear comrade.

What would you propose to be done when this rule is eventually broken?

That's the point; most likely it will not be broken on purpose in any significant way. Minor things like bar scuffles would be dealt with by the people "on the scene", not some "socialist police". Someone tries to punch someone, you hold them back. Problem solved.

[consuming negativity]

i am perhaps 87% in agreement with 870 here.

most of the crime we see is created by the conditions that surround it:

property crimes based on needing to accumulate wealth which is no longer necessary

jealous crimes based on our warped definitions of love and intimacy which will necessary be revolutionized

accidents, negligence, etc. won't stop happening but then there isn't much reason to get involved in fixing accidents - they're accidents, they happen, and we just try to make sure that they don't happen again, that everybody is okay, and that everybody still has everything they need to make it through

870 is also right about the idea of needing to "catch the bad guy" being, for the most part, unnecessary. the problem is that he's wrong in that he is assuming that we need to catch the "bad guy" to punish them rather than to help them. a person who is an adult who upon seeing a mistake that led to the death of a loved one premeditated the murder of the doctor who was trying to help his romantic partner probably has some serious issues going on that need to be addressed and, to be honest, should have already been addressed

it is inevitable that during a transition there will be severe growing pains as all of us are products of bourgeois society as it exists right now, and that is why Marx talked of "lower" and "higher" communism which exist insofar as communism develops based on the development of us as individuals independent from capitalism

[synthesis]

I'd argue that a re-purposing of the psychopharmacology/psychiatry industry towards "the public good" rather than the profit incentive would also help out our hypothetical post-revolutionary society enormously. I mean, we still basically treat psychotics with a lobotomy, except it's Seroquel instead of an icepick.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

i am perhaps 87% in agreement with 870 here.

Alright, so maybe wordplay should remain criminal.


870 is also right about the idea of needing to "catch the bad guy" being, for the most part, unnecessary. the problem is that he's wrong in that he is assuming that we need to catch the "bad guy" to punish them rather than to help them. a person who is an adult who upon seeing a mistake that led to the death of a loved one premeditated the murder of the doctor who was trying to help his romantic partner probably has some serious issues going on that need to be addressed and, to be honest, should have already been addressed

I don't think it's the business of the socialist society to "help" people by force. If the man wanted help, he could have got it for free. But "helping" people without their consent usually turns out much worse, for them, than punishing them.

[RedBlackStar]

Ignoring this hilarious idea that violent revolution will completely resolve all personality disorders, I think "the detective" will become as much of a non-exclusive, community project as "the beat cop."

Thanks comrade. I forgot what a straight up answer looked like :laugh:

[Redistribute the Rep]

It is true that communism will bring about vast changes in human behavior, which has an obvious class basis. 870 seems to believe that this means that anything that exists in class society in any way, will necessarily cease in communism. This is moronic, as evidenced by the fact that aggression exists in other species, hunter gatherer societies, and is known to be partially influenced by genetics. We know that he specific manners in which anti social behavior manifests and the scale of this will be dramatically different, but we really cannot predict how exactly the new society will look.

I find it painfully stupid that 870 feels no need to investigate murders because "it cannot bring back the dead." Perhaps some of us want to prevent the murderer from committing more violent acts and make sure they have adequate counseling?


I think what's hilarious is the obsessive focus on personality "disorders", when people with such "disorders" (or at least people diagnosed as such, for whatever that's worth) make up a tiny minority of criminals (and "criminals"),

It's been shown empirically that personality disorders are much more common in the criminal population than in the general population, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. It would not be wrong to consider this in a discussion about the causes of crime, especially since other factors like poverty will be surely eliminated, and the new factors arising in socialism are not currently known

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It is true that communism will bring about vast changes in human behavior, which has an obvious class basis. 870 seems to believe that this means that anything that exists in class society in any way, will necessarily cease in communism. This is moronic, as evidenced by the fact that aggression exists in other species, hunter gatherer societies, and is known to be partially influenced by genetics. We know that he specific manners in which anti social behavior manifests and the scale of this will be dramatically different, but we really cannot predict how exactly the new society will look.

Nonhuman animals and humans in hunter-gatherer societies live in conditions of generalised scarcity. It would make more sense to base your view of socialism on capitalism, as socialism follows capitalism as a mode of production, whereas the primitive communal society is separated from socialism by every form of class society.

As for genetics, some people apparently think genes encode behaviour. That is laughable; despite the claims of pop-sci authors, there are no genes "for" such-and-such behaviour (the same goes for hormones, including the eternally misrepresented oxytocin). Genes encode the production of proteins, and the presence or absence of certain proteins can influence the behaviour of an organism in a given situation. But the behaviour of an organism is always articulated in a certain material context, which in the case of human organisms is given by society and the material basis of the same.


I find it painfully stupid that 870 feels no need to investigate murders because "it cannot bring back the dead." Perhaps some of us want to prevent the murderer from committing more violent acts and make sure they have adequate counseling?

The problem is that repeated murder is an even more specific kind of act, and there is absolutely no reason to assume it would be a noticeable facet of life in a socialist society. As for making sure people "have adequate counseling", that's a given in a socialist society - unless you actually mean that you want to force people to get "counseling".


It's been shown empirically that personality disorders are much more common in the criminal population than in the general population, for reasons that should be fairly obvious.

The empirical status of "personality disorders" is very much in question, from the constantly changing definitions, selectively-applied diagnostic criteria, to high rates of comorbidity and so on.

[synthesis]

Trying to debate 870 or his alter ego, Lucretia/Five Year Plan/Sandy Becker, is almost exactly like trying to debate someone from Stormfront. Anything contradictory to their ideological framework must be false; a fact becomes non-factual - just as often, an insidious lie devised by shadowy conspirators - simply by virtue of contradicting that framework. I think it's because that framework is so utterly essential to their identity that they begin to subconsciously recognize it as a sort of balloon that can be completely popped with just a small blow, and therefore no quarter can be given, no small allowances allowed whatsoever. The rigidity produced by this process - sort of like soaking the balloon in liquid nitrogen - makes any sincere dialogue impossible. I gave up trying to debate people on Stormfront when I was 15, because the futility of it became impossible to ignore, but unfortunately that mentality has mutated leftwards and migrated here.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Nonhuman animals and humans in hunter-gatherer societies live in conditions of generalised scarcity. It would make more sense to base your view of socialism on capitalism, as socialism follows capitalism as a mode of production, whereas the primitive communal society is separated from socialism by every form of class society.

Nice try, but I wasn't saying that socialism would be like hunter gatherer society or another species, I used those to simply show that aggression manifests itself in different ways under different conditions, and is not unique to capitalism. Indeed, scarcity may be a cause of anti social behavior, but this isn't to say all acts of violence stem solely from this. As I said in my post, the exact way humans behave in socialism cannot be predicted. You seem to be content with assuming that violence necessarily will cease to exist simply because some of its causal factors will be eliminated, while ignoring that other factors could arise.


As for genetics, some people apparently think genes encode behaviour. That is laughable; despite the claims of pop-sci authors, there are no genes "for" such-and-such behaviour (the same goes for hormones, including the eternally misrepresented oxytocin). Genes encode the production of proteins, and the presence or absence of certain proteins can influence the behaviour of an organism in a given situation. But the behaviour of an organism is always articulated in a certain material context, which in the case of human organisms is given by society and the material basis of the same.

Certain genes have been shown experimentally to increase the likelihood of certain behaviors, but this should not be taken to mean that genes are the sole cause of a behavior. You're arguing against a strawman. One might point out that the existence of such genes will increase the chance that such behaviors may arise in a socialist society. Again, we don't know specifically what other factors will be present, but it's not wrong to say it's more likely the behaviors will be present than a theoretical population that doesn't have the genes.


The problem is that repeated murder is an even more specific kind of act, and there is absolutely no reason to assume it would be a noticeable facet of life in a socialist society. As for making sure people "have adequate counseling", that's a given in a socialist society - unless you actually mean that you want to force people to get "counseling".

Well if by noticeable you mean on a societal level perhaps not. I'm sure it would be noticeable to the people living around the murderer whose lives are in danger. It's true that repeated murder is a more specific act than a single murder, but so what? It being "more specific" doesn't say anything about the likelihood that it will occur. And yes if someone poses a threat to others I imagine the community will decide to force them to get counseling.


The empirical status of "personality disorders" is very much in question, from the constantly changing definitions, selectively-applied diagnostic criteria, to high rates of comorbidity and so on.

This really doesn't negate anything I said, it's a red herring. The criminal population shows a much higher rate of personality disorders than the general population, too high to be due to random chance. The definition may be flawed, changing, and disputed, but there is still empirical evidence to suggest the behaviors of individuals with personality disorders have distinct enough behaviors to separate them from the general population. even with a slightly flawed definition, that the criminal population has highly disproportionate rates of personality disorders would suggest there is some meaning to it in the context of a discussion on crime.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nice try, but I wasn't saying that socialism would be like hunter gatherer society or another species, I used those to simply show that aggression manifests itself in different ways under different conditions, and is not unique to capitalism. Indeed, scarcity may be a cause of anti social behavior, but this isn't to say all acts of violence stem solely from this. As I said in my post, the exact way humans behave in socialism cannot be predicted. You seem to be content with assuming that violence necessarily will cease to exist simply because some of its causal factors will be eliminated, while ignoring that other factors could arise.

Except, of course, no one claimed that aggression is unique to capitalism. At the same time, "aggression" is not some supra-historic category. Aggression in feudalism is not the same as aggression in capitalism; and to the extent that aggression will continue to exist in socialism, it will be another thing entirely. The point is that there is no reason to assume that what we conceive of as "crime" in the present society will be reproduced in socialism.

Saying "well other factors could arise" is not convincing; it's a brazen appeal to ignorance. This sort of pseudo-argument is usually made by agnostics of all kinds: it might turn out that our theories are wrong, so we should assume they're wrong. Well, no, it blatantly doesn't work like that.


Certain genes have been shown experimentally to increase the likelihood of certain behaviors, but this should not be taken to mean that genes are the sole cause of a behavior. You're arguing against a strawman. One might point out that the existence of such genes will increase the chance that such behaviors may arise in a socialist society. Again, we don't know specifically what other factors will be present, but it's not wrong to say it's more likely the behaviors will be present than a theoretical population that doesn't have the genes.

Yes, it is wrong. Whatever factor we can trace criminal behaviour to in the present society will be absent in socialism. Again, you're appealing to some vague future unknown factors that will appear and save your theory.


Well if by noticeable you mean on a societal level perhaps not. I'm sure it would be noticeable to the people living around the murderer whose lives are in danger. It's true that repeated murder is a more specific act than a single murder, but so what? It being "more specific" doesn't say anything about the likelihood that it will occur.

Yes, it does. If a larger set of factors needs to occur in coincidence for someone to repeatedly murder as opposed to murdering once, then the probability of repeated murder is much higher. Looking at actual cases of repeated murder, it is even more obvious that they arise from factors, from institutionalised misogyny to profit, that would not be operative in socialism.


And yes if someone poses a threat to others I imagine the community will decide to force them to get counseling.

Ah, yes, now the "people's" police can drag people off to "people's" psikhushkas, how marvelous and not at all a poor imitation of class society.


This really doesn't negate anything I said, it's a red herring. The criminal population shows a much higher rate of personality disorders than the general population, too high to be due to random chance. The definition may be flawed, changing, and disputed, but there is still empirical evidence to suggest the behaviors of individuals with personality disorders have distinct enough behaviors to separate them from the general population. even with a slightly flawed definition, that the criminal population has highly disproportionate rates of personality disorders would suggest there is some meaning to it in the context of a discussion on crime.

Of course it is relevant if the factor you're looking for is ill-defined. As for clinical psychiatry in particular, it has a knack for finding all sorts of alleged conditions that in retrospect turn out to be ill-defined, based on incorrect theories and so on.


Trying to debate 870 or his alter ego, Lucretia/Five Year Plan/Sandy Becker, is almost exactly like trying to debate someone from Stormfront. Anything contradictory to their ideological framework must be false; a fact becomes non-factual - just as often, an insidious lie devised by shadowy conspirators - simply by virtue of contradicting that framework. I think it's because that framework is so utterly essential to their identity that they begin to subconsciously recognize it as a sort of balloon that can be completely popped with just a small blow, and therefore no quarter can be given, no small allowances allowed whatsoever. The rigidity produced by this process - sort of like soaking the balloon in liquid nitrogen - makes any sincere dialogue impossible. I gave up trying to debate people on Stormfront when I was 15, because the futility of it became impossible to ignore, but unfortunately that mentality has mutated leftwards and migrated here.


Or perhaps I actually know something about psychiatry and the dubious scientific status of many alleged psychiatric conditions, and in particular their political use? But hey, if you don't want to "debate" me (I find it particularly interesting that ostensible leftists are so focused on debate, but whatever), then by all means, do shut up.

As for the rest, I don't know what's more hilarious, your attempts to give a psychological evaluation of someone you don't know (here's a hint: I'm much less reserved in informal speech), or your delusions about who's who. Here's a hint: Lucretia and Becker are two separate people, and the three of us are all separate individuals, and the two others are more socialists than you social-democratic kiddies will ever be. The thought that just because we share some political standpoints - obviously not all of them - that we're the same person is ludicrous. I might as well say you and Timmy-boy are the same person as you're both self-righteous, conservative, social-democratic pricks who bore me to tears.

[RedBlackStar]

This sort of pseudo-argument is usually made by agnostics of all kinds: it might turn out that our theories are wrong, so we should assume they're wrong. Well, no, it blatantly doesn't work like that..

Your argument has a similar problem: I think my theory is absolutely right, so I won't prepare for it to be wrong.

Simply saying that crime 'might not exist in a socialist society the way it does in our society' is no reason to not formulate ideas for how we would deal with the eventuality. It's dismissive of the ideas of others and degrades your own ideas.

[consuming negativity]

but why should he have to explain how a society would deal with a problem that won't actually exist specifically because that society is designed to eliminate aforementioned problem

"oh but what if jesus comes back?! what will socialism do then?!"

like i'm really not trying to butt in on someone else's discussion here but this style of argumentation annoys me

socialism does not have to work in your imagination it has to work in reality

its inability to deal with unicorns is a direct result of the fact that there aren't any

[RedBlackStar]

but why should he have to explain how a society would deal with a problem that won't actually exist specifically because that society is designed to eliminate aforementioned problem

The socialist society will only eliminate crimes born out of needs not being met, or the greed associated with capitalism etc. There are certain crimes which are results of phenomenon unspecific to Capitalism (eg: watch the film Se7en. The killer was a psychopath only motivated with the fact that he did not like the way society was; so killed in accordance to religion, which presented the model of his idea of society. This could still exist, unless you claim that a Socialist society will create a world where people don't have opinions of how things should be done anymore.)

[consuming negativity]

The socialist society will only eliminate crimes born out of needs not being met, or the greed associated with capitalism etc. There are certain crimes which are results of phenomenon unspecific to Capitalism (eg: watch the film Se7en. The killer was a psychopath only motivated with the fact that he did not like the way society was; so killed in accordance to religion, which presented the model of his idea of society. This could still exist, unless you claim that a Socialist society will create a world where people don't have opinions of how things should be done anymore.)

the plot you're presenting here is of a serial killer who doesn't like capitalist society. do i really need to explain why people who want to destroy capitalism are not a problem post-capitalism?

besides: if we're entertaining obviously fake-and-detached-from-reality movie plots as threats to a socialist mode of production and they're still falling short of providing a credible threat then i think this in and of itself sort of proves the point here

but serial killers and psychopaths are a part of society and are as much influenced by us as we are them. i legitimately don't think that serial killers will be much of an issue at all post-capitalism, because their sexual preferences and criminal acts informed by/are products of society as much as those of you or me or anyone else here.

which is not to make an assertion - i don't know. but this entire discussion is a bunch of people making predictions about shit that they can't possibly know but are attempting to deduce based on current circumstances and our limited knowledge of psychosociology and its give-and-take with the political economy

[Redistribute the Rep]

Except, of course, no one claimed that aggression is unique to capitalism. At the same time, "aggression" is not some supra-historic category. Aggression in feudalism is not the same as aggression in capitalism; and to the extent that aggression will continue to exist in socialism, it will be another thing entirely. The point is that there is no reason to assume that what we conceive of as "crime" in the present society will be reproduced in socialism.

This is exactly what I wrote... Did you bother to read?


Saying "well other factors could arise" is not convincing; it's a brazen appeal to ignorance. This sort of pseudo-argument is usually made by agnostics of all kinds: it might turn out that our theories are wrong, so we should assume they're wrong. Well, no, it blatantly doesn't work like that.

Well, for one I never claimed we should I assume this is wrong. I'm simply addressing the absurdity of assuming it is true that there will be absolutely no murder in socialism. Are you denying the possibility that other factors could arise? Most revolutionaries acknowledge that we cannot know exactly what a post revolution society will look like, this is reality. You'll notice in my posts I never exclude the possibility that you're wrong, there's just no reason to think you're right. Claiming definitively that there will be no murder in socialism is quite an assertion to make, to say the least.


Yes, it is wrong. Whatever factor we can trace criminal behaviour to in the present society will be absent in socialism. Again, you're appealing to some vague future unknown factors that will appear and save your theory.

Genes will be absent in socialism?

My "theory" is that we won't be able to know specifically what behavior will be like in socialism. Refer to my comments above, you use the same strawman here.



Yes, it does. If a larger set of factors needs to occur in coincidence for someone to repeatedly murder as opposed to murdering once, then the probability of repeated murder is much higher. Looking at actual cases of repeated murder, it is even more obvious that they arise from factors, from institutionalised misogyny to profit, that would not be operative in socialism.

Another strawman, nobody has denied that the chance of someone committing repeated murders is lower than committing a single murder. That the probability is lower in relation to a one time murder however doesn't mean it can be eliminated as a possibility entirely. The likelihood of someone who committed a murder in the past committing another murder, is more than that of someone who has never committed one. With that being taken into account, under the circumstance that a murder has occurred, one might find it necessary to restrain the perpetrator from doing this again.


Ah, yes, now the "people's" police can drag people off to "people's" psikhushkas, how marvelous and not at all a poor imitation of class society.

You can't possibly think this is well substantiated...




Of course it is relevant if the factor you're looking for is ill-defined. As for clinical psychiatry in particular, it has a knack for finding all sorts of alleged conditions that in retrospect turn out to be ill-defined, based on incorrect theories and so on.

You may be right that the definition is flawed, but the fact that personality disorders are found too disproportionately in criminals than the general population to be due to random chance remains. Surely then the definition is not completely meaningless, otherwise one would expect the instances of it to be similar in the Criminal population and the general population.





I was originally going to leave a response to the op about how one cannot determine exactly what socialism will be like, but decided to address your absurd claims to know definitively that violence will not occur at all. Of course, then you strawman the hell out of me...

[willwinall]

In a post-State society, where the revolution has been thoroughly successful across the globe there would be no immediate order. I can`t even begin o understand how this would occur with groups such as the Islamic state and Saudi Arabia. They are not just going to submit to a foreign ideology, so would you mind explaining how the world revolution would even start in these places?

[Tsiolkovsky on the Moon]

I do not think the "police" as a distinct organization will exist. As stated above, it would more than likely be a communal thing that arises when the need arises. If a crime happens, the community would recognize to have some sort of policing or investigative force to solve said problem. Remember that in socialism things are based on democratic planning, so a "policeman" (I used to term loosely) wouldn't have any extra-legal authority to do "whatever was necessary," rather a policeman or group would have the democratic consensus of the community to act upon.

[Illegalitarian]

Not everyone with a personality disorder such as psychopathy, schizophrenia etc are violent killers. You people watch too many scary movies.


Speaking of signs of mental disorders.. I-... I think I agree with 870? Is that.. I.. I don't even know what to say. I need to take a shower now :unsure:


That being said, the idea that there will be no murders, rapes etc is utopian nonsense and should be treated as such. You can give the magical "socialism'll fix it" answer, but there will still be jealousy, pettiness, rage, and yes, to a degree, certain mental disorders that will make people more prone to violence, and those people will of course have to be dealt with.

[RedBlackStar]

You can give the magical "socialism'll fix it" answer, but there will still be jealousy, pettiness, rage, and yes, to a degree, certain mental disorders that will make people more prone to violence, and those people will of course have to be dealt with.

Just envisioning a cheesy 90s sitcom called 'Socialism'll Fix It' Starring Marx, Engels, Bakunin and Kropotkin having whacky Cartoon Adventures and cooking up Socialist style solutions


I do not think the "police" as a distinct organization will exist. As stated above, it would more than likely be a communal thing that arises when the need arises.

That was my thought until it occurred to me that these types of investigations require a fair amount of experience to be quick and successful

[Tsiolkovsky on the Moon]

That was my thought until it occurred to me that these types of investigations require a fair amount of experience to be quick and successful

I can't imagine a socialist society would move on without retaining some of the more useful information we have discovered throughout history. As such, I believe there is bound to be someone in a socialist society that has experience in these matters, not to mention information on this subject would likely be readily available. But you do raise an interesting quandary by pointing out that investigations generally require a lot of know-how and experience.

[RedBlackStar]

As such, I believe there is bound to be someone in a socialist society that has experience in these matters, not to mention information on this subject would likely be readily available.

I agree comrade, the problem is how can we trust this person or persons? The demand for 'investigators' will likely decrease massively, due to immense reduction of crime and the total disappearance of 'need-based' crime; as such the level of people in society with this knowledge will decrease as the former police turn their attention to more productive things. This gives the small group who maintain 'detective work' a high level of power and it will be difficult to keep them democratically accountable.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Your argument has a similar problem: I think my theory is absolutely right, so I won't prepare for it to be wrong.

Simply saying that crime 'might not exist in a socialist society the way it does in our society' is no reason to not formulate ideas for how we would deal with the eventuality. It's dismissive of the ideas of others and degrades your own ideas.

That is quite a strange thing to say. First of all, how does one "prepare" for this or that aspect of the socialist society? The state withers away, not by any conscious decision of the workers' authorities, but because its functions progressively become unnecessary. It might be the case that the workers' militia of the transitional period will never be formally abolished; it will simply become disused, like the office of Lord High Steward or Lord High Admiral has become disused in Great Britain.

Second, yes, unsurprisingly, I think that my statements are true. If I did not, I would not make these statements. I think, furthermore, that I have sufficient reasons for holding they are true, as I have argued in this thread. And in light of that, it makes no sense for me to "prepare" for something I consider impossible - no more than it makes sense for me to prepare for R'lyeh rising from the sea.


The socialist society will only eliminate crimes born out of needs not being met, or the greed associated with capitalism etc. There are certain crimes which are results of phenomenon unspecific to Capitalism (eg: watch the film Se7en. The killer was a psychopath only motivated with the fact that he did not like the way society was; so killed in accordance to religion, which presented the model of his idea of society. This could still exist, unless you claim that a Socialist society will create a world where people don't have opinions of how things should be done anymore.)

I don't think anything in the movie suggests that the killer was a psychopath. People on RevLeft really have an unhealthy obsession with psychopathy.

Even if we ignore that Se7en is a movie (I mean, really?), you are once again comparing class society to socialism. In socialism, there will be no religion, no ideologies of "sin" and "decadence", and most importantly, what little (as the tasks of the public power will be technical and administrative) disputes about social policy will exist will be resolved in different ways - particularly since the socialist society will be "democratic" ("democratic" in inverted commas, as democracy is generally understood as a form of class society), relying on social consensus instead of the barely concealed rule of capitalist cliques.

It's also fairly obvious that the methods people use to try and change society vary according to the mode of production. I haven't seen any noble confederations recently, have you?


This is exactly what I wrote... Did you bother to read?

I did. I wonder if you did the same, as you're claiming that "you wrote" that there is no reason to assume crime will continue to exist in the socialist society, whereas you spent the last post trying to prove that it will.


Well, for one I never claimed we should I assume this is wrong. I'm simply addressing the absurdity of assuming it is true that there will be absolutely no murder in socialism. Are you denying the possibility that other factors could arise? Most revolutionaries acknowledge that we cannot know exactly what a post revolution society will look like, this is reality. You'll notice in my posts I never exclude the possibility that you're wrong, there's just no reason to think you're right. Claiming definitively that there will be no murder in socialism is quite an assertion to make, to say the least.

Of course we can not know what the post-revolutionary society will look like exactly. I don't know if the chancery of the world assembly will have three people or not, if the planning board will have nine or twelve sections and so on. At the same time, socialism means something; it is not, as people on RevLeft often imply, an empty placeholder term for whatever comes after the revolution. I know that socialism will not be a federation of communes, will not have a market and so on.

And yes, as I have no good reason to suppose some vague factors that would lead to the return of forms of class society such as crime would exist, I don't think such factors will arise.


Genes will be absent in socialism?

Genes are not a causal factor when it comes to crime; there are no genes "for" crimes although some genes might increase the likelihood of behaviour that is seen as criminal in certain social circumstances. But it is the circumstances that determine behaviour, not genetics.


Another strawman, nobody has denied that the chance of someone committing repeated murders is lower than committing a single murder. That the probability is lower in relation to a one time murder however doesn't mean it can be eliminated as a possibility entirely. The likelihood of someone who committed a murder in the past committing another murder, is more than that of someone who has never committed one. With that being taken into account, under the circumstance that a murder has occurred, one might find it necessary to restrain the perpetrator from doing this again.

Which misses the point entirely; repeated killing is even more a creature of class society, always connected to either profit or some form of bourgeois ideology. As such, it would not exist in socialism even if "regular" killing would (and it wouldn't).


You can't possibly think this is well substantiated...

As we have seen, many people on RevLeft have a minor obsession with psychopathy, and the suggestion that in socialism, coercive mental "healthcare" will be a thing of the past is treated like a personal affront. So yes, it does sound remarkably like the psikhushkas and other coercive mental "hospitals" of the period of class society.


You may be right that the definition is flawed, but the fact that personality disorders are found too disproportionately in criminals than the general population to be due to random chance remains. Surely then the definition is not completely meaningless, otherwise one would expect the instances of it to be similar in the Criminal population and the general population.

That would only follow if reports about ill-defined and nonexistent phenomena had a sort of random distribution; they don't, necessarily, as showed by the example of "N rays".

I mean, radical criticism of psychiatry should hardly be controversial on the "home of the revolutionary left" but there you have it.

[Tsiolkovsky on the Moon]

This gives the small group who maintain 'detective work' a high level of power and it will be difficult to keep them democratically accountable.

I believe those few who have these skills would be working for the betterment of all in most cases. Socialism would have instilled in individuals a desire for the betterment of society as a whole so we can only assume these individuals would have that ingrained socialist responsibility. Also, if detective work is the only thing these individuals can bring, I doubt a community is going to have need of them for too long :laugh:

[synthesis]

as such the level of people in society with this knowledge will decrease as the former police turn their attention to more productive things. This gives the small group who maintain 'detective work' a high level of power and it will be difficult to keep them democratically accountable.

I don't think this has to be the case. There are lots (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/reddit-internet-solving-fighting-crime) of people who enjoy participating in the solving of crimes, or just detective work in general, in their spare time and I'd hypothesize that this wouldn't be any less the case in a communist society, given that people could fully participate without having to also enforce the bullshit laws.

I'd also argue that "the former police" would be basically non-existent, given that they're the first line of defense against revolution, and the individuals that did defect probably wouldn't be the types to just decline to redistribute their knowledge and expertise.

The thing that stumps me is how child abuse cases would be treated in this scenario, given the need to keep the identity of the kids a secret and the need to make information about a crime public in order for it to be dealt with.

[RedBlackStar]

The thing that stumps me is how child abuse cases would be treated in this scenario, given the need to keep the identity of the kids a secret and the need to make information about a crime public in order for it to be dealt with.

That's an extreme conundrum.

Possibly have a small group, made up of volunteers with expertise, assigned to this responsibility? Or perhaps if society was organised in a Syndicalist structure 'detectives' would be organised somewhere in that? Just shooting ideas.