Police

[h&s]

Right, I've been thinking recently (makes a change I suppose) about a post revolution society. As Communists its pretty much universely accepted that the army and police are tools of state oppression, and as a result they must be gotten rid of. I can imagine a society without an army, but I can't completely imagine a society without police. I accept that the vast majority of them need to go, but there are certain tricky situations that will still need to be dealt with. No matter how good education, welfare, etc. is, there will always be people who feel that they need more, and will steal. Even when money is disposed of, there will still be commodities that people will want to steal (TV's, etc), so how could we deal with this? Say the guy has a gun? At the moment the police can deal with this sort of threat, as they are trained to do so, but if they don't exist what could we do? Local people would not be trained to deal with that sort of thing. I suppose that certain workers could be trained and ready to leave their work the moment they are alerted, but then who would they be answerable to? And wouldn't that make these people police?
How would crimes be solved? Surely anyone who does work to solve the crime becomes police aswell?

[commiecrusader]

I think police will need to exist, but that they shouldn't have any form of 'political' side to it. They aren't answerable to the government, but to the people.

[YKTMX]

Even when money is disposed of, there will still be commodities that people will want to steal (TV's, etc), so how could we deal with this?

Why would you say that?

There would be no police in a communist society. Whatever "crime" (and let's face it, the whole concept of crime is a bourgeios conception) there is will be dealt with by the community.

Now, in a socialist society, where the state still exists, there may be some need for a body to protect the revolution from subversives (and by this I mean people attempting to blow up things, not people going to chapel or complaining about this or that policy).

[redstar2000]

The only crimes that I would expect to see in a well-established and viable communist society would be "crimes of passion" -- where human emotions "run amuck" in violent episodes, planned or spontaneous.

Most of the time, no specialized training is required to "solve" such crimes -- the criminal is standing over the corpse at the moment the crime is discovered.

Still, we cannot rule out the need for specialists in criminal forensics...and so there would be people who would do that kind of work, both as a public service and because they find it fascinating in and of itself.

They would not have the power to "arrest" anyone; only the local community council could decide that. But they would report to that council on their findings.

(The local militia would actually take the suspect into custody and hold him or her until trial or release).

----------------------------------------------

The Leninist concept of a "socialist society" is much different from communism and, in fact, strongly resembles what we have now. So, of course, there would be a (large) professional police force, jails, prisons, elaborate criminal codes, lawyers and judges, the whole disgusting package.

Ugh!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[YKTMX]

So, of course, there would be a (large) professional police force, jails, prisons, elaborate criminal codes, lawyers and judges, the whole disgusting package.


Lies.

Any proof that this is a part of "Leninism".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:51 PM

So, of course, there would be a (large) professional police force, jails, prisons, elaborate criminal codes, lawyers and judges, the whole disgusting package.


Lies.

Any proof that this is a part of "Leninism".
Lies???

It accurately describes all of the socialist societies established by Leninist parties since 1917.

Nor have I ever heard of anyone calling themselves a Leninist who claimed that such institutions would "not exist" in their version of a "transitional socialist society".

Indeed, I don't see how you can even have a class society without those organs of repression.

Of course, if it makes you feel better, then you can call them "people's police", "people's courts", "people's prisons", etc.

That used to fool a lot of people...but I don't think you'll get very far with it now. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

I can't completely imagine a society without police. I accept that the vast majority of them need to go, but there are certain tricky situations that will still need to be dealt with. No matter how good education, welfare, etc. is, there will always be people who feel that they need more, and will steal. Even when money is disposed of, there will still be commodities that people will want to steal (TV's, etc), so how could we deal with this?

You presume the motive for crime to be singularly hedonistic. Of course hedonism may play a part but there is far more to crime than that and I think that very few crimes are committed purely through hedonistic reasoning. More likely is that the criminal in question not only wanted to acquire a TV to better his life style but that prior to the stealing he had broken down the moral inhibitions or never developed the inhibitions that would require him to question such an act in the first instance. To detail all the possible motives for criminal activity would require a very long post. But certainly, it is likely that a society where there were no motives to commit crimes such as stealing could exist.

Personally, I think it is very difficult to contemplate the existence of such a society in the near-future since I would suggest that our current society is very far from that stage.

I view a large politicised and professional police force, elaborate criminal codes, lawyers and judges in the future. However, I don't think these things do much to prevent crime. But we can alter our environment in such a way that fewer and fewer people commit crimes.

[h&s]

You presume the motive for crime to be singularly hedonistic. Of course hedonism may play a part but there is far more to crime than that and I think that very few crimes are committed purely through hedonistic reasoning.
I also thought of people out to make from stealing. Like the current borgeoise - there will always be people out there to exploit others, prepared to steal things that are in short supply.
Anyway, seems like redstar answered my question pretty well.

[Saint-Just]

I also thought of people out to make from stealing. Like the current borgeoise - there will always be people out there to exploit others, prepared to steal things that are in short supply.
Anyway, seems like redstar answered my question pretty well.

Yes, exploitation would not occur in a society where it is not normal behaviour.

redstar2000 did not mention any laws by which an act would be judged as criminal or any alternatives to incarceration as punishment.

The party in your sig, as far as I know, does not talk about communism in any case. It talks about socialism in which private enterprise still exists albeit on a small scale with the largest industries having been nationalised.

[YKTMX]

Nor have I ever heard of anyone calling themselves a Leninist who claimed that such institutions would "not exist" in their version of a "transitional socialist society".

Indeed, I don't see how you can even have a class society without those organs of repression.


Of course we would have political police and ways to prosecute people who were subverting the workers' state. I wouldn't make them as powerful and autonomous and Lenin did, because I don't think it is required in an advanced society. As for professional judges; I'm not sure, certainly they wouldn't be the old bourgeois crowd we have now.

The point about the current "organs of repression" is that they consist of and are administered by the minority to oppress the majority. As this is reversed in socialism, they will obviously have a diffirent constitution than now.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 06:08 PM
The point about the current "organs of repression" is that they consist of and are administered by the minority to oppress the majority. As this is reversed in socialism, they will obviously have a diffirent constitution than now.
Organs of repression are still organs of repression. In all socialist examples that I have read about it has been the same as in capitalism: the powerful opressing the weak, none of this majority-minority shyte.

In a state where information is monopolised whether socialist, or capitalist, how does one exactly decide what is the minority and what is the majority?

[YKTMX]

Organs of repression are still organs of repression

I agree. I have no problem with repressing the remnants of the capitalist class, or religious leaders or any other counter revolutionaries. String them all up, if need be.


have read about it has been the same as in capitalism: the powerful opressing the weak

Absolutely. Except it's us who are the powerful now, and our goals aren't profits, or wars, or subordination. Our goal is freedom for the human race. And we will use our "power" to make sure that happens.


In a state where information is monopolised whether socialist, or capitalist, how does one exactly decide what is the minority and what is the majority?

Easy. All those who support the revolution are good. All those who oppose it are bad. In a revolutionary state, the good will be the majority. The minority will try to spread their old propaganda like "socialism is impossible" and "you need us to run things". We won't let them. That is your "monopoly". What a monopoly it would be.

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:50 PM
Easy. All those who support the revolution are good. All those who oppose it are bad. In a revolutionary state, the good will be the majority. The minority will try to spread their old propaganda like "socialism is impossible" and "you need us to run things". We won't let them. That is your "monopoly". What a monopoly it would be.
Maybe I'm a bit of a reactionary, but your absolutely insane if you think you can be so sure that a revisionist socialist state apparatus won't be extrememly easy for capitalist reactionaries to infiltrate.

[YKTMX]

but your absolutely insane if you think you can be so sure that a revisionist socialist state apparatus won't be extrememly easy for capitalist reactionaries to infiltrate

Who said anything about "revisionist"?.

Anyway, your point about infiltration is, I suppose, salient. That's why we need these institutions to be properly accountable and democratic; subject to control by local people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao
redstar2000 did not mention any laws by which an act would be judged as criminal or any alternatives to incarceration as punishment.

Indeed, I didn't even mention incarceration except pending a trial or a release.

With or without a written legal code, the vast majority of people regard unprovoked violence against another as a "crime"...and a threat to their own safety.

Someone who does that can indeed be imprisoned...but I think that is the most inhumane and barbaric form of punishment. Therefore, I recommend that the violent offender should either be exiled (if some place will take him) or humanely executed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:29 PM
The only crimes that I would expect to see in a well-established and viable communist society would be "crimes of passion" -- where human emotions "run amuck" in violent episodes, planned or spontaneous.

Most of the time, no specialized training is required to "solve" such crimes -- the criminal is standing over the corpse at the moment the crime is discovered.

Still, we cannot rule out the need for specialists in criminal forensics...and so there would be people who would do that kind of work, both as a public service and because they find it fascinating in and of itself.

They would not have the power to "arrest" anyone; only the local community council could decide that. But they would report to that council on their findings.

(The local militia would actually take the suspect into custody and hold him or her until trial or release).

----------------------------------------------

The Leninist concept of a "socialist society" is much different from communism and, in fact, strongly resembles what we have now. So, of course, there would be a (large) professional police force, jails, prisons, elaborate criminal codes, lawyers and judges, the whole disgusting package.

Ugh!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
How pleasant the military (nicely covered by the term 'militia') will be the 'police', nice Redstar, nice.

Thank god your not going to be in charge.

[redstar2000]

And thank you, Enigma, for another one of your useful and constructive contributions to the discussions on this board.

Other boards acquire trolls; we have our own.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Xanthor]

Police. hahahahaha. Who needs the police if you have media? Media can easially control the entire human race and in a way it does. The media tells people what to eat, wear, do, and think. Media is always around us billboards, movies, games, books, news. The media is better at controlling people then the military, police, ot any use of physical force can ever achieve. So I say don't worry about having a police orgianization just control the media and then you control the people. Look at the recent Russian election for example.

[PRC-UTE]

How pleasant the military (nicely covered by the term 'militia') will be the 'police', nice Redstar, nice.

Thank god your not going to be in charge.

Redstar2k's statement about militias is the standard communist approach to the question. It was de facto the method used by revolutionaries during the Spanish civil war, by the Makhnovist army in the Ukraine and by Irish paramilitaries during the last thirty years of war. Militias are public and open; not cliqueish and secretive like police forces typically are.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 03:57 AM
Police. hahahahaha. Who needs the police if you have media? Media can easially control the entire human race and in a way it does. The media tells people what to eat, wear, do, and think. Media is always around us billboards, movies, games, books, news. The media is better at controlling people then the military, police, ot any use of physical force can ever achieve. So I say don't worry about having a police orgianization just control the media and then you control the people. Look at the recent Russian election for example.
Which is why we will abolish advertising :P


The party in your sig, as far as I know, does not talk about communism in any case. It talks about socialism in which private enterprise still exists albeit on a small scale with the largest industries having been nationalised.
I don't want to get into this argument now, but most of the members of my local branch are communist, and thats all that really matters.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 23 2004, 11:35 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 23 2004, 11:35 PM)
Chairman Mao
redstar2000 did not mention any laws by which an act would be judged as criminal or any alternatives to incarceration as punishment.

Indeed, I didn't even mention incarceration except pending a trial or a release.

With or without a written legal code, the vast majority of people regard unprovoked violence against another as a "crime"...and a threat to their own safety.

Someone who does that can indeed be imprisoned...but I think that is the most inhumane and barbaric form of punishment. Therefore, I recommend that the violent offender should either be exiled (if some place will take him) or humanely executed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
What if, for example, this crime of passion is not a killing spree but perhaps a quite severe stabbing that does not result in any deaths. Do you think the perpetrator still needs to be exiled or humanely executed? If not, do they need a punishment at all and if so what punishment would you recommend.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao
What if, for example, this crime of passion is not a killing spree but perhaps a quite severe stabbing that does not result in any deaths. Do you think the perpetrator still needs to be exiled or humanely executed?

Yes.

Because once someone does something like this, we have no reliable way to predict if or when they may do it again with even more severe consequences.

To release such a person "back into society" is, at the present level of human knowledge, "rolling the dice" for his potential victims.

Someone with a demonstrated propensity to engage in unprovoked violence against others is a walking "time bomb"...and I don't think that should or will be tolerated.

There are, as I've noted elsewhere, very few "iron laws of history", but one of them surely is: if it has happened, then it can happen.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 03:28 AM
And thank you, Enigma, for another one of your useful and constructive contributions to the discussions on this board.

Other boards acquire trolls; we have our own.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Aww... Jeez, thats nice :wub: . When I have nearly 7000 posts of crap, do I get the right not to be called a troll, just like you?

Now answer the point, why do we want the the military, or as you put it a 'militia', controlling "law enforcement"? You do of course realise that the only differance between the military and a militia is that a militia is weekends?

[Saint-Just]

Quite possibly true redstar2000, and I would agree with you completely. However, in your kind of society I do not think that passion, in terms of sexual passion, would exist. I do not think crimes of passion would exist in your society.

I do agree with the idea that prison is ineffective and inhumane. I would suggest humane execution or exile as preferable. Although in the present age, as you pointed out, there are very few places to exile people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+--> (Chairman Mao)However, in your kind of society I do not think that passion, in terms of sexual passion, would exist. I do not think crimes of passion would exist in your society.[/b]

Well, I hope you're right! :D

But, for reasons that are not understood, there seem to be a few people who resort to violence when they can't "get their way" about something.

We have no way to predict who those people are...until one of them actually does it.

And then we must do something to keep them from ever doing it again.


Enigma
Now answer the point, why do we want the military, or as you put it a 'militia', controlling "law enforcement"? You do of course realise that the only difference between the military and a militia is that a militia is weekends?

I suppose there is a point buried in there somewhere.

First, the militia (which is not a professional military) does not "control" law enforcement...though it could arrest people who were caught "red-handed" committing a crime. Otherwise, the arrest warrant would normally be issued by the community council, work-place council, or some other body directly responsible to the people.

Second, there'd be people doing militia duty 24/7/365 -- just not the same people.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas