Police in the new State ...

[The Grapes of Wrath]

This goes with my current brand of questioning regarding the functioning of the new socialist state (yes, I mean socialist) which I feel are important and need to be asked.

My question here is, what will be the functioning of the police? I assume we will have them, afterall, inequality will not have been destroyed, and there will still be crimes that do not involve proverty or property as motives, not to mention the need for public order and safety.

Will the police simply function as they do now? Will they have the ability to use deadly force (as in the United States, I am not aware of else where)?

How will they be organized? By cities and towns, or counties? or state/provincial/canton, whatever? Or will they be somehow national?

Will their regulations and structures be similar in nature? or will they be organized and regulated in accordance with local wants and needs? Will the Army take over and do these things if not the police? Will the "people" do this sort of task themselves?

Or do you think that police should not exist at all? Why not? ... is it really realistic to say that police are not needed especially in cities of millions? What would replace them then? What about other functions that police fulfill, besides the old "they are simply cronies of the capitalist classes and serve no other purpose"?

Some things to think on.

TGOW

[JazzRemington]

I think for the state-socialism teh police will function as a service that protects the actual people. Whereas capitalist police mainly focus on protecting capital and the capitalists, I think under state-socialism the police were servce to protect the actual people from murders, thugs, etc.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

and don't forget; protect the stateleadership against it's subjects or comrades (whatever they call them).

[redstar2000]

This is one of the strongest arguments against the traditional views of the "socialist state".

It would indeed have police (and jails and courts and prisons and lawyers, etc., etc., etc.)...all the old shit!

And those people and institutions would function just like they do now.

Which means your cops and your prison guards are sadistic fascist thugs, your lawyers and judges are corrupt arrogant bastards, etc.

If you want that, you don't need a revolution!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Grapes of Wrath]

the state-socialism


and don't forget; protect the stateleadership against it's subjects or comrades (whatever they call them).

I just want to clarify that I am not advocating authoritarianism or any form of "Stalinism," but simply socialism that exists within a state or country (nation-state if you will). Just clarifying.


This is one of the strongest arguments against the traditional views of the "socialist state".

It would indeed have police (and jails and courts and prisons and lawyers, etc., etc., etc.)...all the old shit!

And those people and institutions would function just like they do now.

Which means your cops and your prison guards are sadistic fascist thugs, your lawyers and judges are corrupt arrogant bastards, etc.

If you want that, you don't need a revolution!

As long as there is society, there is the need for law. As long as there is crime, there will be the need for law. As long as there is law, there will be the need for law enforcement. Police in some form. When there is crime, I would hope everyone has a fair chance with adequate defense and so forth. Liberalist due process is circumvented by capitalist money and such, socialism would hope to make that impossible, or at least, much much harder to do.

These institutions probably would function relatively the same. There will no doubt be some changes, especially in policy and in the authority of who will be supervising such actions.

I doubt crime will be much different under socialism. I doubt that highway accidents will be much different. I doubt people will stop speeding. I doubt that protecting the public from harm and serving the community will be less called for. In fact, I would assume it to be seen in a much greater light. I doubt that people are going to want to get off of work and "play cops and robbers" for a while.

"Sadistic fascist thugs" huh? ... harsh, very harsh. "Corrupt and arrogant" eh? ... Police are always sadistic and bad, they serve no purpose but to keep us in chains. Lawyers are all corrupt, none of them respect law a bit. Broad generalizations (and sarcasm) abound!

You don't seem to have a very realistic view of a future. I obviously don't have all the answers, but to me and what I am sure you would say are my limited intellectual abilities, you seem to be a bit utopian. Where would any form of protection come from? The citizens? I bet that when Joe Somebody gets off work he would rather sit down and let professionals do their job rather then wait to be called out for some sort of security duty where he might run into a situation he has not been trained for and nor does he want to be.

Are you saying that there would be no need for it? Will people simply hold hands and sing "koom-by-ya" all day? Will disputes not erupt? Will drunken college kids not get in fights? Will women not feel threatened?

But of course! There will be a "new man." I am so dumb. ... But where is your new man? Will he be born and raised overnight? Short answer: NO! Long answer: NO! If you wish to create a "New Man," that is fine, it sounds like a plan to me. But you must realize that during the period of time before he is of "age," there will a need for order.

Some people are going to resort to crime regardless of who's in charge. We can't assume that crime and the need for some sort of public authority figures will simply evaporate into thin air and disappear. Police and authority represent a vital function in society.

Police are at best, a mixed blessing. However, there will be a need for at least some order in the future, at least awhile ... until your "New Man" becomes just that, a Man. In the mean time, I would let professionals do their job.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
As long as there is society, there is the need for law. As long as there is crime, there will be the need for law. As long as there is law, there will be the need for law enforcement. Police in some form.

The "have-nots" must, at all costs, be kept "in their place" and prevented from disturbing the comfort and security of the "haves".

That's about 99% of your precious "law"...and after the revolution, we'll use it for toilet paper.


I doubt crime will be much different under socialism. I doubt that highway accidents will be much different. I doubt people will stop speeding. I doubt that protecting the public from harm and serving the community will be less called for.

Yeah..."serving the community". Like a bull serves a cow.

What really doesn't change under the traditional concept of socialism is that there are still "haves" and "have-nots"...and the new "haves" need cops just like the present "haves" need cops.

This doesn't have anything to do with traffic problems or even protecting the ordinary person from crime.


"Sadistic fascist thugs" huh? ... harsh, very harsh. "Corrupt and arrogant" eh? ... Police are always sadistic and bad, they serve no purpose but to keep us in chains. Lawyers are all corrupt, none of them respect law a bit. Broad generalizations (and sarcasm) abound!

Well, you asked for it! Just because you don't like the message, you want to shoot the messenger?

You appear to take seriously the rhetoric of those who take part in organized repression...the wretched excuses they make for their disgusting behavior.

And YES, they serve no purpose but to keep us in chains!

After the victory of the great Petrograd revolution in February of 1917, the group that defended Czarism "to the bitter end" was the fucking police. It took several weeks to hunt them out of their sniper's nests and kill them. (They liked to get on the roofs and shoot randomly into revolutionary crowds.)


Some people are going to resort to crime regardless of who's in charge. We can't assume that crime and the need for some sort of public authority figures will simply evaporate into thin air and disappear. Police and authority represent a vital function in society.

Back to square one. To protect the "haves" from the "have nots".

It's pretty clear which group you think you will be in...revolution or no.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Grapes of Wrath]

The "have-nots" must, at all costs, be kept "in their place" and prevented from disturbing the comfort and security of the "haves".

That's about 99% of your precious "law"...and after the revolution, we'll use it for toilet paper.

I agree. Law needs to be changed, I never said we should just use the same exact set of laws we now have. I don't know what they would be, that is worth a discussion on its own.


Like a bull serves a cow.

"I scratch your back, you scratch mine" ... that is how a lot of things work in the world.


What really doesn't change under the traditional concept of socialism is that there are still "haves" and "have-nots"...and the new "haves" need cops just like the present "haves" need cops.

This doesn't have anything to do with traffic problems or even protecting the ordinary person from crime.

I can't really see inequality wiped out in a single stroke, that seems a little unrealistic. Wouldn't drastic consequences occur if everything moved to fast? I present (yet again, I know) the French Revolution. This is where socialism comes into play, but you know what that is so I will not waste time explaining.

If you are going to evaporate inequality in one brilliant stroke, the only way to do so is through rationing ... only allowing people to get a certain things at a certain number. The only way to do so, would be to have complete government control on everything, a.k.a. totalitarianism. So where there are lines get rationed products, there will be the need for police also. But police are not simply indigenous in totalitarian states, everyone knows that.

Socialism is the gradual pursuit of your "New Man."


Just because you don't like the message, you want to shoot the messenger?

What are you talking about? I never said anything about killing anyone for what they think or say. I didn't realize there was a victim present in this.


After the victory of the great Petrograd revolution in February of 1917, the group that defended Czarism "to the bitter end" was the fucking police.

So because some Russian police fired into some crowds in 1917, the whole institution is defunkt? That stands against reason.

No where near everyone is altruistic, whether we like it or not. Again, we can't assume that crime, rape, hatred, fighting, and other such things are going to be eliminated. There will be "haves" and "have-nots" for a good portion of socialism, again, whether we like it or not.

Until these groups are eradicated (which would happen over time, probably through education and the changes in economy, etc) police will indeed exist ... and not only that, but I'm sure there will be some form of police existing even after this. You can't move forward 10 Years in 10 Days.

You can't just lump everything into "good" or "bad," life is just not that simple. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you can be blind to its positive aspects. I don't like paying taxes, but they provide a service by maintaining roads and the like, but they also pay for things I strongly disagree with. The same is for police ... hence the mixed blessing.


It's pretty clear which group you think you will be in...revolution or no.

Umm, are you trying to guilt me into believing what you believe or something? This sounds like childlike namecalling to me ... "well, I know you are but what am I?"

You are indeed a perplexing individual redstar. You do not advocate authority of any kind and you refuse to see the good side in anything that you do not like. You seem to despise the state as well and everything to do with it. You seem to have very Anarchist ideas and yet still claim to be "re-thinking the communist project." Why don't you just call yourself an Anarchist, there is no shame in such a thing.

I have been given no argument to move from my initial position. My original subject and questions on this thread still stand.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
You can't just lump everything into "good" or "bad," life is just not that simple. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you can be blind to its positive aspects.

The reason I "don't like something" is usually because it has no positive aspects.

I can see you back in 1865...arguing that slavery has its "positive aspects" and must be "gradually" abolished.


You are indeed a perplexing individual redstar. You do not advocate authority of any kind and you refuse to see the good side in anything that you do not like. You seem to despise the state as well and everything to do with it. You seem to have very Anarchist ideas and yet still claim to be "re-thinking the communist project." Why don't you just call yourself an Anarchist, there is no shame in such a thing.

And it would make dismissing my arguments all the easier, wouldn't it?

There's little that's "perplexing" about your views...I might well legitimately ask why you don't just call yourself a bourgeois liberal.

Oh, I forgot, there is that "shame" thing, isn't there?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Grapes of Wrath]

This is getting very frustrating. You don't want to think about my views at all, but simply dismiss them with no real reason why. "Cops are evil people and judges are all corrupt." These are not legitimate reasons, they are just broad generalizations.


The reason I "don't like something" is usually because it has no positive aspects.

Again, the world is not black and white. Unfortunately, things are not that simple.


I can see you back in 1865...arguing that slavery has its "positive aspects" and must be "gradually" abolished.

Hmm, that makes me think a little. Maybe, if a "gradual" abolishment had been implemented, it would have saved 600,000 lives. Maybe stability would have been maintained and the gradual implementation of the freed slaves would have saved them from Jim Crow. Then again, maybe not, that is all speculation and beside the point of this discussion.


And it would make dismissing my arguments all the easier, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't. This is just my attempt to understand your ideas. You seem to advocate Anarchism in what you say so much, but then you say you are a communist. It is just puzzling. I suppose it wasn't needed in my last response, I think I was just talking outloud.


There's little that's "perplexing" about your views...I might well legitimately ask why you don't just call yourself a bourgeois liberal.

Nah, I don't consider myself a bourgeois liberal. I guess you could say I am a skeptical, realistic and cautious socialist who wants to learn from and avoid the mistakes of the movement in the past ... if that is even a title that one can call themselves.


Oh, I forgot, there is that "shame" thing, isn't there?

Shame? Shame for what? The fact that I want to explore all the angles first? That there are good and bad things now, and they should be explored, that everything is due its weight and measuring? Then shame me away ... because I don't feel any shame.

And now for my final rant of this reply:

Every single thread I have started you (redstar) have commented on and eventually attacked me personally in some way. You have a very bad habit of attacking the person who writes any response or thread that you don't like. Branding them with titles, namecalling ... all instead of answering legitimately to their questions or comments. You tend to dismiss the person when you get back-talk or they defend views which you do not like. I am not personally hurt by what you say about me, I couldn't really care less, I just notice that this forces others to be dismissive and hostile towards you, which effectively ends the meaning of the thread itself and the original goal.

I'm sure I have no right to say these things to you, and I am not trying to be detrimental in anyway, but just voicing my observations. I'm also aware that someone will say "if you can't stand the heat, don't play with fire." But that is fine, I am not whining, I am just voicing my frustration at the eventual hijacking of the subject.

So, let's quit this dismissive/namecalling/title making crap and concentrate on giving well thought out and concrete answers. You will not win over anyone by trivializing what they say and think. But that is just my opinion.

I'm sure I'll catch hell for this. I'm sure someone will say I am a weakling, but I don't believe so. Oh well.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
Every single thread I have started you (redstar) have commented on and eventually attacked me personally in some way. You have a very bad habit of attacking the person who writes any response or thread that you don't like. Branding them with titles, namecalling ... all instead of answering legitimately to their questions or comments. You tend to dismiss the person when you get back-talk or they defend views which you do not like.

Every single thread?

Well, maybe you're right...I rarely remember who starts a thread.

But, of course, I do attack people that I think put forward bad ideas...or at least I say a lot of things that are received as personal attacks even if I didn't intend that.

There've even been times when I explicitly said that "what follows is not an attack on you personally" and still got accused of making a personal attack.

So? Now I just say what I think and don't worry about the hostile reactions...I know there will always be some no matter what I say.

Naturally, I disagree with you about my "legitimate answers" -- I think they are always relevant and "to the point". Everybody thinks that about their own posts.

When someone puts forward really rotten ideas, I do "dismiss them"...as irrelevant to the revolutionary process. Is there any particular reason why I "shouldn't" do that?


I'm sure I have no right to say these things to you...

Good grief. Who do you think I am...Bob Avakian???

You "have the right" to say anything to me that you damn well please.

Anybody does!

If I don't like it, I'll talk back!


Again, the world is not black and white. Unfortunately, things are not that simple.

Some questions are indeed complex and call for substantial investigation, discussion, etc.

Others are quite simple and "black and white".

The matter of slavery, for example, on which you characteristically waffle, is just such a "black and white" question. It was not only correct to militarily crush the Confederacy, the Union did not go far enough. Specifically, the former slave-holders should have been rounded up and summarily executed! And their land holdings and other wealth should have been divided up among the former slaves.

In modern capitalist societies, the social role of the police makes them fascists even if they didn't start out that way. In your version of "socialism", things would work exactly the same way.

In my "utopian" version of communism, there would be no professional police (or any of the rest of that crap) at all. Not because "new men" would be angels...but because order and security -- like everything else -- would be directly in the hands of the revolutionary working class as a whole.

Frightening, isn't it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Grapes of Wrath]

In my "utopian" version of communism, there would be no professional police (or any of the rest of that crap) at all. Not because "new men" would be angels...but because order and security -- like everything else -- would be directly in the hands of the revolutionary working class as a whole.

Now, this is on the general topic which I was questioning.

I don't want a mirror image of a current police force. I don't think many do, but they do function properly in some things and I think you should be able to admit that as well.

Now, to better understand your whole ideas ... tell me why this is not a police force of some kind? What will this "revolutionary working class order and security force" look like? Will it be voluntary? Will it rotate from person to person?

How do you make sure everyone is on the same page and knows the laws? Where will the responsibility be? Where do they get trained? How will laws be administered?

What is the matter with professionalism? You have mentioned the dangers of having professional police (at least a few), what are some disadvantages in having a non-professional force? What are some advantages?

See, I look at my family, and I look at my friends, and I look at my neighbors, and I don't see them as police. They are technicians, electricians, cashiers, secretaries, construction workers, accountants, cubicle-slaves, etc ... not police.

Will everyone be trained in such matters? Will someone come home from work as a teacher and instead of spending time with their family or grading papers, be called off to investigate a murder? Or would their be professionals to do this? Would they not, then, be professional police?

They do not have the training, the mindset, nor the know-how to be the police. I don't think they would want to be police either. It just seems to me that the people will be spread so thin ... what with work, commitee work, family, food, research, education, and not to mention sleep. I don't really see investigating crime and patrolling the neighborhood as a desired event to add to that list. I can see a lot of people upset with such a thing. Or am I way off? What will happen with the people who refuse to participate?

I can't help but think that some form of professionalism is in order. It offers stability, efficiency and know-how. Red-Guard (as in Mao's) non-professionalism seems a bit frightening and akin to mob rule.


Frightening, isn't it.

No, it doesn't. It just seems a bit too "koom-by-yah" to be feasible and realistic. But if you wish to believe it, go ahead. Who am I to stop you?

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath
I can't help but think that some form of professionalism is in order. It offers stability, efficiency and know-how. Red-Guard (as in Mao's) non-professionalism seems a bit frightening and akin to mob rule.

The idea is hardly one of giving teenage males weapons to shoot at one another or at random persons on the street.

But otherwise, it would feel to you like "mob rule".

That's what communism is...at least in the eyes of those who believe they have "something to lose" if the present social order were overturned.

I have, as it happens, written some speculations on this subject...but until my site comes back up, I can't provide any links.

I will do so at the earliest opportunity.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[NovelGentry]

The problem with police and military (although I will openly admit I'm in favor of what many would call a "military" here) is the alienation that occurs. By making a separate body and giving them control over the people you have already put them in a position above the people. The cop can arrest you, but you cannot arres the cop. This alienation is not always visible, and I don't think it's conscious within the individual officers in society, but the cause is frequently flexed.

What I favor is domestic security forces, "community police" if you will, to which all are open to become a "member" of. Much like the worker's militia, formed for domestic secuirty against foreign attack. This is not a "profession" -- it's something people should be doing, as well as working.

I like the idea of Cuba's CDRs which give power to the people even abridging the power of the national government. A very similar, but probably more extensive role could be taken. That is to say, the entire community takes part in the CDRs and electing a community representative. This person does not make laws governing the community, but moreso is responsible for organizing and pulling together the community on necessary tasks.

The idea of "states" like the states of the US, is a foolish idea to begin with. Artificial borders need not be set, and what is deemed "legal" can be determined extremely locally within the grasp and reach of the community. Federal police (an FBI if you will) are not necessary either -- the role of the state, in my eyes, is one of representing the nation on the foreign playing field. Domestically speaking the state would also play a organizational role, one like a giant CDR. But again, these CDRs would not decide law, etc... legislative power, what is to be placed, can be decided and enforced by the workers.

The state, as a body, falls into the organizational role only, the thinking, determination, and execution, would still be up to the general population. The state becomes a body by which all of this is coordinated -- and EVERYONE, in essence, or every working class person, becomes a portion of the state -- the state becomes an extension of the will of the people, and the state itself is precisely what it is meant to be, a tool.

This tool is of course weilded by the working class as a whole.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I don't think many do, but they do function properly in some things and I think you should be able to admit that as well.

Indeed - this is I think this needs to be discussed and clarified.

The big question, I think, is do cops "function properly in some things" as cops, or are the things that they're doing right functions that don't be attached a narrow proffesional (read: authoritarian) structure?

The social role of police is to defend the interests of a ruling clique - whether in a supposed "socialist state" or in existing capitalist one. The useful role of police is situational - protecting people from assault, directing traffic in emergencies, etc.
However, it seems to me that one doesn't need to be a cop to provide any of these situational services - one just needs to have a bit of relevent training (martial arts, first aid, whatever).

[redstar2000]

As promised...

The Social Role of the Police (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082819752&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083339099&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communist Society -- Some Brief Reflections (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083719642&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This is one of the strongest arguments against the traditional views of the "socialist state".

It would indeed have police (and jails and courts and prisons and lawyers, etc., etc., etc.)...all the old shit!

And those people and institutions would function just like they do now.

Which means your cops and your prison guards are sadistic fascist thugs, your lawyers and judges are corrupt arrogant bastards, etc.

If you want that, you don't need a revolution!

Interesting. What's your alternative?

[redstar2000]

Did you read the links?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif