Whats do you do with cops after the revolution?

[symtoms_of_humanity]

straightforward question, let me hear questions, because many would be unemployed an angry, and would resist losing thier jobs because they want power, and if it was a true communist or anarchist society would not have the cops, and what about the military would you keep it intact, or would you take the weapons stored and give them to the workers, so each man had at least one gun

[romanm]

Step 1. Take away their doughnuts.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

haha sounds like a plan

[violencia.Proletariat]

if theres armed resitance than the militias will fight them. since the military is mostly made up of proles they in theory would take their guns and join the militias

[symtoms_of_humanity]

But what if the cops happen to surrender, how do you re-intorduce them to do actual work, rather than police people and get paid for telling others what to do

[violencia.Proletariat]

erm, they go to the community workshop or infocenter and learn a new trade? or they can go live in the fucking woods and have orgy's for all i care.

[codyvo]

If they are a police officer than they must be a fit and intelligent man, at least you would think so, so their situation should be no differant than anyone else that is unemployed. And I think that anyone that is unemployed, should be offered a job as a general laborer for the government, someone that just does community service type things, or if they are not fit, then they can have an indoors job doing things that require little to no physical labor. And since it is impossible to have 0% unemployment immediately after the revolution, then we will have to have apt social welfare programs.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

I don't belive there should be a gov. i belive in Libertarian Commnism(anarchism) or communism without the gov. invovlved in any way, all power to the people

[novemba]

so who deals with the criminals? if someone needs to be apprehended who does it? (put this in the learning forum next time)

[More Fire for the People]

The answer is simple, fire them.

[Bolshevist]

Dissolve the police force, including the military, including the remains of the old state apparatus.

[silentprotest]

cops are human being like anyone else, let them chose who they wish to follow. if they follow the new ideology let them police it, if not, shoot them like you would an enemy.

[Organic Revolution]

most of them will be fighting against the revolution , i.e. counter revolutionarys. so most of them will die. sad thing for people to die.

[More Fire for the People]

A revolutionary society does not need police as the masses themselves are armed against enemies.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:28 AM
so who deals with the criminals? if someone needs to be apprehended who does it? (put this in the learning forum next time)
The community does it

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by symtoms_of_humanity+Jun 27 2005, 10:33 PM--> (symtoms_of_humanity @ Jun 27 2005, 10:33 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 05:28 AM
so who deals with the criminals? if someone needs to be apprehended who does it? (put this in the learning forum next time)
The community does it [/b]
Yeah well I think that maybe the criminals need to be dealt with in a proper manner not just shoot, beat, stab, hang, or w/e them. We need cops because they're actually trained in dealing with things. Granted there are corrupt ones but then again there is a bad with every good.

[More Fire for the People]

Proffesionalization of defense is the first step in re-establishing capitalism.
Who says a community can't arrest people (hello, citizens arrest?) and put them before a court?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:19 PM
Proffesionalization of defense is the first step in re-establishing capitalism.
Who says a community can't arrest people (hello, citizens arrest?) and put them before a court?
Hello but have you fuckin heard of maybe people will get TOO carried away with it (its also that way with cops sometimes but they do realize that they can lose their jobs so they stop before it goes too far)? There has to be training so people don't become to fuckin paranoid. Just because you may have been unjustly treated by the legal system doesn't mean you have make something of it. Granted I don't like them just like others don't but still they DO know more of the law then we do.

[More Fire for the People]

Arrest would be subjugation to law, you couldn't just walk up to someone and arrest them.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:39 PM
Arrest would be subjugation to law, you couldn't just walk up to someone and arrest them.
Well you have to arrest someone for a crime and what one crime maybe to one person maybe legal to another so thats out of the question.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

There would be no need for crime, no body would steal from another because they have what they need(idealily) and the one crimes would be like rape,murder and another major, I mean most of these laws are wrong and unjust, and its easy to prosocute a man for murder

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:12 PM
Step 1. Take away their doughnuts.
Actually, that's Step 2. Step 1 is taking away their guns.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:45 PM
straightforward question, let me hear questions, because many would be unemployed an angry, and would resist losing thier jobs because they want power, and if it was a true communist or anarchist society would not have the cops, and what about the military would you keep it intact, or would you take the weapons stored and give them to the workers, so each man had at least one gun
There's a lot to deal with here. The best place to start is with the transition from capitalism to communism: the workers' republic. A victorious proletarian revolution would have as one of its primary tasks the disarming and disbanding of the capitalists' police forces. More than likely, this would have to be done forcibly, since it's unlikely that the cops will either split or move wholesale over to a revolution that has as its chief goal the overthrow of the state they serve.

In the preparatory period before the revolution takes place, it will be necessary to organize and train a corps of proletarians as a self-defense force. These forces would be responsible for dismantling the armed bodies that enforce capitalist order, as well as making sure they do not regroup to stage a counterrevolutionary uprising against the revolution. These self-defense forces would have to be disciplined, capable of moving as a single unit and prepared to give their lives for the success of the revolution. They cannot be a rabble or undisciplined mob that could be easily swept from the streets by counterrevolutionary paramilitary detachments. For a time, they may also necessarily be a standing force, exclusively functioning as an armed body defending the revolution and the workers' republic.

Once the revolution has achieved a measure of stability, and the transition period has begun to move forward, these standing self-defense forces could (though not necessarily will) form a key part of an all-volunteer militia attached to the local workers' assemblies/councils. They could be organized neighborhood-by-neighborhood and/or workplace-by-workplace, and would function on an "on call" basis. It would not be a professional militia, permanently stationed at precincts, but a rotating volunteer force that comes together when needed. Those involved in the militia would be trained in the use of firearms and proper procedures for engagement with a potential criminal element. (Since most of the so-called "crimes" that exist today would no longer be on the books, and many others would likely fade out of existence, this job is much easier than it looks like.)

It is likely that certain fields of expertise often associated with capitalist police forces (e.g., forensic investigation) would exist in different forms during this period (and possibly even into communism itself). But there would be more of a scientific and medical emphasis than a criminal justice one.

The rotation of people involved in the volunteer militia would lead to a decentralization of the training in the use of firearms. We can expect that this will also lead to more and more workers keeping firearms and other associated weapons individually. Personally, I would encourage such developments. There is something to be said for a whole population that is schooled in the safe and proper use of weapons. I think George Orwell was right when he said that the rifle hanging in a workers' house is the symbol of democracy ... and that it is our responsibility to defend it being there.

In terms of the military, it will be necessary for a victorious revolution to either forcibly disband it, or win enough soldiers to the side of the revolution as to shatter the ability of the capitalists to control it. Unlike the police forces, however, I can see a need to maintain something of a standing military in the initial period after the revolution -- especially if a victorious workers' republic is isolated in a sea of hostile capitalist states. In the case of the U.S., for example, it may be necessary to have standing forces stationed at places along the border with Canada (or Mexico) to guard against counterrevolutionary provocations. But, for the most part, it would be more preferrable for members of such a military force to be akin to the current Armed Forces Reserve or the National Guard: on call, if needed.

As for the former cops and military brass, those that are willing to pledge they will not take up arms against the workers' republic, or support those who might, should be integrated into the workforce in areas that keep them as far away from the military arts as possible. I would even go so far as to prohibit them from serving in either the militia or the military -- even if they want to help as "specialists".

However, if they will not take that pledge,... well, they swing alone (or together, depending on how many of them we catch ;) ).

Miles

[redstar2000]

It may surprise some, but historically speaking it has been cops and not soldiers who have fought "to the bitter end" in defense of the old reactionary regimes.

And further, actually made up the bulk of the "first wave" of refugees from the new revolutionary order.

Depending on the practical situation, I therefore suggest that we should either execute or deport all cops. Their continued presence among us is just going to cause us nothing but grief and aggravation.

Soldiers, on the other hand, have been known to defect in significant numbers to the side of the revolution...especially if the revolution is, in part, the consequence of a disastrous imperialist war.

We don't know if this is the case with mercenary armies like the ones that are becoming fashionable in the capitalist countries now. My guess is that mercenaries will prove even more unreliable to the ruling class than conscripted soldiers...but, we'll see.

Notice an odd circumstance here: sailors tend to be the most revolutionary of all military branches; pilots tend to be the most reactionary. Something to remember when the time comes.

Another important reminder -- the most dangerously reactionary elements of the old order's military are the officer corps (including cadets at military academies). When Stalin executed those 12,000 Polish officers in late 1939, he knew what he was doing.

Just to give you an idea of what we can expect, the appeal of Christian fascism to American military officers is very significant and growing.

So, no half-measures here. When a military unit defects in a body to the revolution and wants to keep its immediate commanders, fine. Otherwise, get rid of them before they have the chance to get rid of us!

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

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The problem with deportation is that you give base to a large vicious hostile foreign movement which is quite familiar with you and thus able to fight you more effective. They can be hardcore lobbyists for war against you, are keen to serve as soldiers against you, they know the lands, culture language etc. Giving them a potential to be quite effective. As cruel as it sounds, the smartest option is excecution.

[Free Spirit]

Are we dreaming about a world revolution or planning and having realistic thoughts for these actions that are suitable for what there's offered for day and what we can do with it, as the communist force is smaller then our enemies to be realistic. Not that we should wait for it to grow cause "departure" would hopefully inspire others to join.
The demonstrations and the propaganda as a lot of us activist are a part of it's not "The Revolution" that we are talking about. My question is if we want a county to become under communism we would have to start somewhere... so how would we be dealing with this a spread out left-wing as we are. Would we lose less if we would be doing it together at one place or divided at different places, at same time or at different times? If it will be at any time at all!

[Free Spirit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:25 AM
There would be no need for crime, no body would steal from another because they have what they need.
There's always been people having what they need and that never stopped them from stealing. It's not like communism will take away everyone's "desires" after more then what they actually "need".

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:52 PM
I don't belive there should be a gov. i belive in Libertarian Commnism(anarchism) or communism without the gov. invovlved in any way, all power to the people
communism without the govt, im sorry, but you gotta a warped view of communism, never was govt in communism, communism is stateless

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:25 AM
There would be no need for crime, no body would steal from another because they have what they need(idealily) and the one crimes would be like rape,murder and another major, I mean most of these laws are wrong and unjust, and its easy to prosocute a man for murder
Yeah thats just the idealistic way of looking at it. Its kind of a Utopic like view in theory it sounds nice that there wouldn't be any crime to worry about buy its going to happen. Someone's not going to like whats going on and do something about it and in that case we need TRAINED professionals for the job. Thats all I am trying to get across.

[riverotter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:57 PM

It may surprise some, but historically speaking it has been cops and not soldiers who have fought "to the bitter end" in defense of the old reactionary regimes.

And further, actually made up the bulk of the "first wave" of refugees from the new revolutionary order.

Makes perfect sense, since, unlike the military, cops are the powers-that-be's force against it's own citizens (keeping them in line and brutalizing the ones most receptive to rebelling.) On the other hand, the military is largely made up of people from the underclass, which may be one big reason they often defect during a revolutionary crisis.




Depending on the practical situation, I therefore suggest that we should either execute or deport all cops. Their continued presence among us is just going to cause us nothing but grief and aggravation.

Not to pick on just you, as some other people made similar comments, but doesn't this kind of behavior go against communist morality? If the world we're aiming for is one in which humanitarianism and the value of life is upheld and cherished, shouldn't we act like that from day one?

This is not to say that these people shouldn't be dictated to (like the criminals they are) - the people deserve protection from those rabid dogs who would harm them - or even that some particularly horrible mass murderers be judged by the people and executed if they so decide. It's hard to be free if people like Milosevic, Pol Pot or Hitler weren't given their just reward for the horrors they inflicted. But I don't really see how executing any reactionary is going to advance us to a better future.




Just to give you an idea of what we can expect, the appeal of Christian fascism to American military officers is very significant and growing.

Abso-fucking-lutely. It's a very scary thing what's been happening in the military over the last few decades. Not to sound dramatic but it's being taken over by the Christian fascists - and they're trying to accelerate the pace of their takeover. Brrrr.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by riverotter
If the world we're aiming for is one in which humanitarianism and the value of life is upheld and cherished, shouldn't we act like that from day one?...But I don't really see how executing any reactionary is going to advance us to a better future.

The effect is probably more symbolic than anything else...to see the formerly powerful who once terrorized entire populations now subject to "popular justice" is a "good lesson".

When the Cubans tried and executed leading figures of the Batista regime in a packed baseball stadium, they knew what they were doing.

What we would want to avoid are the "secret executions" in the basement of some police building...that sort of thing does indeed stink of the old regime.

Let people hear, in large numbers, what those bastards did while they were in power...and let them see the blood and smell the gunpowder that tells them in a very definitive way that those bastards can never do it again.

It may also have a practical result...demoralizing those who were opposed to the revolution and encouraging them to "keep a very low profile" or even flee the country. (I think we should have a very "loose" exit policy; any ordinary person who wants to leave can do so with a minimum of paperwork.)

I think we have to accept the fact that the international capitalist class is going to label us as "bloodthirsty maniacs", etc. no matter what we do or don't do.

Therefore, we should decide these matters based on our own perceived interests without regard for the opinions of hostile capitalist media in other countries.

How much blood is "too much" will have to be decided at the appropriate time.

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

[riverotter]

I was also thinking about how the people themselves need to judge. I think it's more than symbolic. If what we're aiming for is a society in which everyone is equal, and everyone has power, we have to do things in a way which leads in the direction of the people themselves deciding.

In truly revolutionary countries, even the people most locked out of using their minds rose to the challenge when they finally got a chance to do more than slave away in the dirt. I'm thinking about that book, Fanshen, where the peasants themselves decided, and decided wisely, when they took part in people's courts.

Our job as revolutionaries is to be helpers in unleashing the real power - the power of the masses themselves. That's why I think a few particularly horrible mass murderers should probably be brought before the people's court.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Jun 29 2005, 05:26 AM--> (C_Rasmussen @ Jun 29 2005, 05:26 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 02:25 AM
There would be no need for crime, no body would steal from another because they have what they need(idealily) and the one crimes would be like rape,murder and another major, I mean most of these laws are wrong and unjust, and its easy to prosocute a man for murder
Yeah thats just the idealistic way of looking at it. Its kind of a Utopic like view in theory it sounds nice that there wouldn't be any crime to worry about buy its going to happen. Someone's not going to like whats going on and do something about it and in that case we need TRAINED professionals for the job. Thats all I am trying to get across. [/b]
Yea it is quote idealistic, and I see myself thinking that way alot, I guess its beause I just want to belive people are good, I know its bad to think that all the time, as for the warped view on Communism, yea I guess I was using the stero type of commuism, sorry about that one

[Led Zeppelin]

I completely agree with redstar2000.


Another important reminder -- the most dangerously reactionary elements of the old order's military are the officer corps (including cadets at military academies). When Stalin executed those 12,000 Polish officers in late 1939, he knew what he was doing.


:)

I do not support the killing of all cops, why not just fire them?

(maybe redstar2000 was being sarcastic?)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
I do not support the killing of all cops, why not just fire them?

Of course we will "fire them"...and never let them have any such function again. That's obvious. (Though we might retain the services of certain specialists -- people with expertise in forensics and pathology, for example.)

What is problematic is that cops (a category which must be understood to include prison guards) will probably form the core of any active counter-revolutionary current that may emerge. They have "everything to gain" from successful counter-revolution and "nothing to lose". It's to our advantage to get rid of as many of them as we can.

The easiest way to do that is to make it really easy for them to go into exile. Give them a free plane ticket if necessary.

What will really put us in an awkward spot is the possibility that no country will take them.

And while chewing on that, there is another and related difficulty which may give us even worse aggravation. Today, the private "security industry" is one of the fastest growing sources of employment in the advanced capitalist countries. Millions of workers are involved...and what they may be learning is not good.

They risk developing a "lite" version of the fascist police mentality. It would be useful to have some real data on the "job attitudes" of workers in this "industry".

I don't expect them to put their lives "on the line" to defend the old order like real cops -- but I'm concerned that they may be developing an "emotional identification" with authority that is distinctly anti-communist.

That's "trouble" for us.

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

[Led Zeppelin]

I have a question which i think you can answer.

Lenin said:

"We are not utopians, and do not in the least deny the possibility and inevitability of excesses on the part of individual persons, or the need to stop such excesses. In the first place, however, no special machine, no special apparatus of suppression, is needed for this: this will be done by the armed people themselves, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman from being assaulted. And, secondly, we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses, which consist in the violation of the rules of social intercourse, is the exploitation of the people, their want and their poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away". We do not know how quickly and in what succession, but we do know they will wither away. With their withering away the state will also wither away." Lenin 2. The Transition from Capitalism to Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)

But to say that all excesses will inevitably begin to "wither away" is utopian.

What if a person like for example Scot Peterson kills his wife (i'm not sure if marriage will still exist by then, this is just an example), do we not need a "special apparatus" to arrest and convict him?

A "special apparatus" of people with expertise in forensics and pathology.

If so, how can this be done, would we have to elect the leaders of this "special apparatus"?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
What if a person like for example Scot Peterson kills his wife (I'm not sure if marriage will still exist by then, this is just an example), do we not need a "special apparatus" to arrest and convict him?

A "special apparatus" of people with expertise in forensics and pathology.

If so, how can this be done, would we have to elect the leaders of this "special apparatus"?

I don't know who "Scot Peterson" is, so I can't comment on the specifics of his case.

There are some general points in this thread on communist legal theory...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36910

Basically, legitimate violence is in the hands of armed workers who serve in the militia on a volunteer and rotating basis...and it's "up to them" what to do in an immediate sense about, for example, a murder that happens "on their watch".

There's not much they can do about an act of random "street violence" unless they actually see it happen or, hopefully, bystanders will attack and disarm the killer on the spot.

In the case of someone whose spouse is murdered, yes, there will be a "crime scene" investigation, an autopsy, etc. But those people don't have any power to arrest anyone. All they can do is say "this is what happened as best that our science can tell".

It will be, most likely, the relatives and friends of the murdered spouse who will bring an accusation -- "her no-good husband did it". They will be the ones who have to get up in front of a large jury and "make a case" against the accused. And the accused will have to "defend himself" against the accusation...pointing out the "weak links" in his accusers' case.

"Arrest" is not even really necessary; failure to appear in court will likely be construed as admission of guilt and he will be convicted in absentia. He may then flee to some other city or some other country...but he will find life very hard without any "electronic credentials". If the jury voted to execute him, then he can never return...thus preserving the safety of the community.

And that is really the point: it's not "punishment" that we are concerned with, it's the freedom from random violence that is imperative. Whether we "kill the killer" or exile him is immaterial; the point is to stop him from ever doing it again.

(One "profession" that will not disappear in communist society: the private eye. These amateur detectives may be persuaded to investigate your case and accumulate witnesses and evidence to either defend you from a false accusation or assist you in prosecuting someone who you think committed a crime against you or someone close to you.)

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

[Led Zeppelin]

Interesting, there are a few flaws in your post though.


He may then flee to some other city or some other country

If i know my Communism correctly, there are no countries in the higher phase of Communist society.


If the jury voted to execute him, then he can never return...thus preserving the safety of the community.

What about hunting him down?

Also this gives rise to alot of other questions, define "community". Does "community" mean a city?

I oppose the notion that there is no relation between "communities" in the higher phase of Communist society. If there is no relation between them, that is, if "communities" have their own laws, economy etc. they will function almost exactly like nations. I thought it was our aim to get rid of borders, not make new ones.

[redstar2000]

On how communist society might be organized...

The Communal Polis - Identity and Organization in a Communist World (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098908960&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
What about hunting him down?

Probably not worth the resources...although a private eye might be willing.

It's a big world and there's lots of places to hide. Most violent criminals who "get caught" do so because they boast of their crime in the hearing of a police snitch or someone who is willing to turn snitch. Without police, there will be no professional snitches.


I thought it was our aim to get rid of borders, not make new ones.

It's a "delicate" question, to be sure.

Those who propose a "unified world" are faced with the problem of how to administer it in such a way as to avoid the problem of a global bureaucratic state apparatus. (I don't have to add that some don't see this as a "problem" at all...since they anticipate "running that apparatus" themselves.)

A complex network of autonomous city-states does involve the risk of violent conflict...even if they are all part of over-lapping federations established to meet regional or even continental/global needs.

Communism is, in some respects, going to be a tough job. Everything isn't just going to "fall into our laps".

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