No police?

[Global_Justice]

“No police?!” Yes, no police. What are the police really for? Well, when you live in a society where goods and services are restricted to a few, you end up with the many in need. When you have so many in need, you need to maintain order. However, if you live in a society where the needs of everyone in society are met, what need is there for police? If everyone’s basic needs — good food, decent housing, worthwhile education, etc. — are met, what basis is there for most of the crime in society?

from free peoples movement.

i find that ridiculous, don't get me wrong, i hate the pigs. but in a commist society police will still be needed. just because people don't have material "want" anymore, while this would eradicate theft, what about rape and murder?

rapists don't do it because they are poor, peodo's will still be peodo's even if they have decent housing, racists will still be racist, and if people get in fights, there will still be murders.

[STABD]

Its true man there wont be cops. Rape is a side effect of hierarchal society, they do it for the feeling of power. Racism is also another side effect of class warfare, when combined with low education. There might be an occasional murder or maybe u get mad and burn some ones house down, but this behavior is a product of environment, an environment that won’t exist after the revolution. If something like this does happen then we will be able to rehabilitate the subject.

[STABD]

Also if we did have some sort of police force to protect the people from them self’s then we would need some sort of head of this armed group, this would just be the logical path to make the force more efficient. Now you have a body with ability to govern. So of course there going to claim they deserve better treatment because they keep us safe. Now were back to square one.

[La Comédie Noire]

If there was a fight in public than the public would split the two people up, like a fight in school, and than they'd simplys ay stay away from eachother. As for rape, rape is a sexist act and we won't have sexism in a communist society.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that in communism, the masses would be the police -- if it was found that someone committed a sexist act, the masses would decide what to do with him or her. If someone murdered another person and the prevaling attitude was that the person should be shot as well, someone would shoot the murderer. Etc, etc, etc...

This could be completely wrong, c'est la vie.

[Hegemonicretribution]

This isn't a question about police in communism, because the presence of police would mean that you are talking about something else, socialism perhaps?

If you want to assert that crimes exist independantly from motive, please show how. If not, then the removal of the motive itself would prove far more effective than increasing the conflicts (and the problems arising from) by maintaining a police force.

[enigma2517]

I disagree. There is always going to be a very small minority of psychos that will commit sociopathic crimes.

From my limited knowledge of psychology, this is done to some sort of mental disorder, possibly with a strong physiological link as well.

However, the crimes that 80% of people are in prison for today (property/drug related) would be entirely eliminated.

Communists take human rights very seriously. If somebody is physically threatening you, or even worse, is actually committing violence against you then it is a very serious crime.

The solution? There are many but here's mine. First, some kind of neighborhood watch. Those types of groups are the most efficient at fighting crime because they are actually a part of the community and have the easiest access for surveillance. Secondly, some kind of worker's militia is needed. Whenever there is a violent criminal that needs to be apprehended, there needs to be an immediate access available to weapons. The people "on-call" at the time can be put on a rotating basis so you don't get the problems you usually do with coercive hiearchies. Lastly, foresenics labs (the people who really prevent/solve crimes) can still operate, they just can't issue any force.

I suggest you go to http://www.redstar2000papers.com/ and read the notes on crime and punishment in communist society.

[loveme4whoiam]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that in communism, the masses would be the police -- if it was found that someone committed a sexist act, the masses would decide what to do with him or her. If someone murdered another person and the prevaling attitude was that the person should be shot as well, someone would shoot the murderer. Etc, etc, etc...

Sounds a hell of a lot like mob rule to me, and we all know that that's not very effective when it comes to "innocent until proven guilty", or even "what evidence do you have?" Having read Redstar's first post on Crime and Punishment, I still think this.

This argument has pushed me further towards thinking that a transition period is needed, if only to avoid this very problem of kangeroo courts and lynch mobs. And as for releasing everyone currently encarcerated in the prison systems, I've very sorry, this is just fucking dumb. You want to release every hardened thief, rapist, murderer, and all the other dregs of society back into the public at a time when there has just been a (most likely) armed revolution?

I would indeed support an anmesty for people who have been convicted of certain "dubious" crimes (such as possession of illegal drugs and crimes against property, to quote Redstar), this I certainly agree with. But putting psychopaths and beastial (RD's words, and the truth) criminals into an environment where a) weapons are freely available, and b) people have been living in fear for however long a period (the revolution)? This is a terrible idea, and one which most definitely won't win any support for a popular revolution. If I were to go to a popular area and shout "Support Communism! We will declare an amnesty for all criminals!" people would immediately (once they'd figured out what amnesty meant, let's allow for the average intellect of the people in my area) point out the flaw that I have, and that'd be the end of that, forget any kind of rebuttal.

I am, however, having trouble coming up with a decent, workable system that would avoid the mod rule situation. I agree with Redstar et al, more emphasis must be placed on forensic evidence than witness testimony. The idea of a huge jury doesn't sound too bad either, since I guess you are right ("myth of the "unbiased juror") about this too. Perhaps chosen members of a local district could be elected to act as bounty hunters for those accused of crimes (when the situation arises. They'd be the delegates of the community), thus hopefully avoiding mass mobs of people going after the first guy who was seen at the right place at the right time.

As for punishment, I think violent criminals should be turned over to the justice of the victim/the victim's family. Criminals do not have human rights.

[Tormented by Treachery]

I agree with a lot of what you say, Love (sounds funny, heh). It's just that the original question asked about what would happen in communism, and that's what I think would be the system, not what I think the system should be.

Watch with that last sentence though, moving into the sphere of vengeance is careful ground.

[Ol' Dirty]

One major problem with humans is this: without outside pressure from others, we are "immoral", primal creatures. The main points of society are: to assist others in need and fulfill the needs of the group, increase the amount of surpluss food and material goods, so the people of the culture can spend less time getting food, so they have more time bettering their lives, and keeping people from the out- and in- side from hurting others. Although people may implemant the dominant beliefs of the society, if the whole poulation is immoral, there is nothing to save the society from crumbling, possibly making a corrupt despotism. Wtih police (if they serve their people, not the government, if the society has one), yoyu rarely have to worry about that. If the police is corrupt, then you're gone; but it's another way to prevent corruption.

Peace, bothers and sisters.

[YSR]

I must admit that I too have thought about this quite a lot. I really hate the police, but I am concerned about how we deal with murderers, rapists, et al.

I don't buy the argument that when the revolution comes, all this shit will stop. I don't have any grand moral reasoning, I'm not Hobbes here, but I just don't think that all of what we call "crime" is because of capitalism. Sure, a great deal is, but not all. Interpersonal conflicts that don't involve property are reasonably common.

And yet, setting up a police force and keeping prisons operating is obviously creating an authoritarian situation. Anyone here associated with the Anarchist Black Cross? Maybe you guys could help me with some solutions and explain your thoughts a tad.

[Tormented by Treachery]

In Theory there are about 10 threads on rape, murder, crime, et. al, and how they would be eliminated in a communist society.

By the way,


The main points of society are: to assist others in need and fulfill the needs of the group, increase the amount of surpluss food and material goods, so the people of the culture can spend less time getting food, so they have more time bettering their lives, and keeping people from the out- and in- side from hurting others.

You went through the pains of correct grammar, so since you seem to care about it, I imagine you won't mind that I point out it should read "from the out- and inside..." Just because it seems you want to know, not trying to be a dick or anything :).

[loveme4whoiam]

Watch with that last sentence though, moving into the sphere of vengeance is careful ground.

Good point :blush:. Still, "punishment is society's vengance." I don't know who I'm quoting there, hell, I may have made it up. Anyway, punishment is a less dangerous (to the movement, I mean) issue than the actual means of arrest in my opinion. BTW I didn't mean to specifically attack you TBT, just the scary system :D


If the police is corrupt, then you're gone; but it's another way to prevent corruption.

Now you're getting into all that "Who guards the guards?" stuff. As a standing force, I think the police would be a bad idea - any form of permenant power in the hands of one group is precisely what we are trying to remove, right? Besides, I don't think we'll need one. Like people above have said, the majority of crimes (theft etc) will disappear, leaving only the really nasty ones, unfortunately. It is for these that we'll need some kind of authority figure, both to detain the criminals and mete out punishment, and to make sure the people don't get too enthusiatic dealing out their own punishment.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:22 AM
BTW I didn't mean to specifically attack you TBT, just the scary system :D
No worries! :)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 4 2006, 09:25 PM
I don't buy the argument that when the revolution comes, all this shit will stop. I don't have any grand moral reasoning, I'm not Hobbes here, but I just don't think that all of what we call "crime" is because of capitalism. Sure, a great deal is, but not all. Interpersonal conflicts that don't involve property are reasonably common.

When the revolution comes there will still be the infastructure there, this phase is called socialism.

You are damn right that it won't just stop, but eventually, the vast majority at least, will. If you remove the motive for crime then there is only a small majority that will still commit "crimes." These may be these with a severe mental condition, and in these cases I think that getting them treated is the priority, not having them punished. I am not saying that a cure is guaranteed, however keeping them in a safe environment with adequate care should be.