The Police

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:23 AM
They defend the state, they are no different than the police.
I agree that we should not sympathise with soldiers just because they come from poor back grounds, but I don't agree that they are l"no different" than the police.

Some may argue that it's an irrelevant distinction to make, but as EL KABLAMO has already said, we will need these poor soldiers to help defend our revolution when the time comes, which historically they have always done.

The army is an organised mechanism essentially used to defend the country from foreign invaders or wage imperialist wars. They are not trained for homeland protection and in are rarely used to "defend the state."

The police are fundamentally different, especially in a revolutionary situation. The police historically have always been counter-revolutionaries and although a few may come over to the revolution the majority of them, including those from poor backgrounds would rather betray their class than allow the state to be overthrown.

The police are ideologically trained. They are taught and it is their specific role to defend the state and maintain the system of capitalism. The police force and the secret state police forces are the real threat to class struggle and any revolution.

Whereas a soldier will lay down his arms when his family are being attacked, the police are trained to kill their family if necessary to exact their duty and have to illusions: They will do it.

[Ian]

No policeman would kill their family, that is stupid.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:00 PM
No policeman would kill their family, that is stupid.
Why do you waste your time with these pointless fucking posts.

Anyway, I can assure you, if a poliecman is faced by rioting workers who had taken up arms against the state and the person on the front line happened to be his son he's trained to shoot. It's their ideological duty. The state is far more important than his son.

It's the sacrifice they believe they should make if it means protecting the law.

[Ian]

... What the hell can you say to that? I'm still getting over the first post...

Like anyone with a few months training is going to shoot their kid, you can go on all you like about my posts, but to my credit I don't make sweeping, generalising and bizarre comments that police would kill their family

[Hiero]

Fuck off you would know TAT.

[Ian]

That has to be up there with the stupidest things ever said on Che-lives/revleft.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:06 PM
... What the hell can you say to that? I'm still getting over the first post...
Yes, you seem to get confused quite easily...

Historically police men have betrayed, murdered and coerced anyone who has got in the way of the state and their duty. You tell me why it would be any different?


Like anyone with a few months training is going to shoot their kid, you can go on all you like about my posts, but to my credit I don't make sweeping, generalising and bizarre comments that police would kill their family

I generalised yes. Maybe not all police would kill their off spring, but I wouldn't put it passed them.

As for my assertion being bizarre, I agree. It certainly is bizarre. But it goes to show just how ruthless the state will be in preserving it's control.

[Ian]

Don't pretend it has historical precedent, you are deranged if you think a cop would kill their son in a riot.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're naive if you think they wouldn't. It's certainly not guaranteed, but it's also not without historical precident.

I also find the first part of TAT's statement equally naive: ".. a soldier will lay down his arms when his family are being attacked." That is certainly not guaranteed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:32 PM
Don't pretend it has historical precedent, you are deranged if you think a cop would kill their son in a riot.
If you're going to attack my posts or anything I say, at least understand what it is I'm talking about.

First of all there is historical precedence, that's why I said it. Secondly, I'm talking about revolution, which is a compltely different situation to riots. Not to mention the overwhelming tension that would have built up over a sustained period of class action.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:29 PM
You're naive if you think they wouldn't. It's certainly not guaranteed, but it's also not without historical precident.

I also find the first part of TAT's statement equally naive: ".. a soldier will lay down his arms when his family are being attacked." That is certainly not guaranteed.
Historically speaking rank-and-file soldiers have always turned their guns on their officers come revolution.

The police however are a different story all together.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:08 PM
Fuck off you would know TAT.
...?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Feb 6 2006, 02:18 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Feb 6 2006, 02:18 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 02:08 PM
Fuck off you would know TAT.
...? [/b]
Im saying there is know way you could know. I doubt you know what goes on at police training, but i guarantee that they are not told to kill their own family if their family goes all revolutionary.

Police have no ideology in western capitalist societies, they are not trained to defend the state. Cops are trained to defend the law which is based on bourgeoisie ideology. The only time cops would be told that their role is to protect the state would be if there was a situation where the state was in danger of being overthrown.

But regardless of any situation police are not that well trained ideologicaly to make such a commitment to kill their own family for the sake of the state. Police are probally less trained then the army.

I think someone has been reading to much Orwell.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Hiero+Feb 5 2006, 12:08 PM--> (Hiero @ Feb 5 2006, 12:08 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 02:18 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 02:08 PM
Fuck off you would know TAT.
...?

But regardless of any situation police are not that well trained ideologicaly to make such a commitment to kill their own family for the sake of the state. Police are probally less trained then the army.

[/b]
Lets look at the type of people who become police. People who dont mind beating the shit out of people on a constant basis. In a riot there wouldnt really be much of a way for a cop to identify their family members. So he would be the shit out of anyone he can get his hands on in that situation, because thats what he is trained to do. It's the same kind of culture in military families. You know the slogan "love it or leave it", I wouldnt doubt for a second that those military fathers would either take their son out or completely or cut all ties off with them if they were against America.

[YKTMX]

Police have no ideology in western capitalist societies

Are you trying to sound naive?


Bolzaneto detention centre outside the city was said to be a real lager: policemen kicking and beating, and keeping people spread-eagled against the wall, threatening girls with rape by truncheon, singing fascist songs, and forcing prisoners do repeat them, a doctor ripping body piercing off a face'



takes on genoa (http://monde-diplo-friends.org.uk/ourarticles/Sept01art5.html)


What about institutional racism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lawrence/Story/0,2763,941167,00.html) in the Met?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:14 PM
i guarantee that they are not told to kill their own family if their family goes all revolutionary.
Of course they're not told that now, what's would be the point? In a revolutionary situation however, things change. The situation becomes unbearable for the authorities to control.

Do you honestly believe that when the time comes the state would not call upon the police to fight anyone who defied that law? And it's their duty to defend the state.


Police have no ideology in western capitalist societies, they are not trained to defend the state. Cops are trained to defend the law which is based on bourgeoisie ideology

Bourgeois ideology designed to protect capitalism. This bourgeois ideology is centralised into a state mechanism in order for it to be "realised" in the context of defending property and the system of control which perpetuates exploitation.


The only time cops would be told that their role is to protect the state would be if there was a situation where the state was in danger of being overthrown.

:huh:

Well yeah...exactly...


Police are probally less trained then the army.

That's complete rubbish!

In my experience of confrontation with the state the police have been extremely well trained and violent. YKTMX brings up Genoa as a prime example, but you can take any example of anti-capitalist demonstrations and you see that the police are heavily armed, heavily trained and capable of detaining riots very easily.

The British police are experts at it.

The police and the army are trained in two completely different forms of defence. The police are trained to defend the state where as the army are trained to protect foreign interests etc.

Historically the police have betrayed their class, whereas the army have always joined the side of the proletariat.

[Ian]

Takes a few months to become a fully fledged cop, takes a lot longer than that to become a soldier.

[Hiero]

Do you honestly believe that when the time comes the state would not call upon the police to fight anyone who defied that law? And it's their duty to defend the state.

You weren't saying that, you were saying the police are a trained to kill love ones and would do so when the situation arose.

I was saying that when the situation arose the police would be asked to do this.


Do you honestly believe that when the time comes the state would not call upon the police to fight anyone who defied that law? And it's their duty to defend the state.

Well i did say that in my above posts.


In my experience of confrontation with the state the police have been extremely well trained and violent. YKTMX brings up Genoa as a prime example, but you can take any example of anti-capitalist demonstrations and you see that the police are heavily armed, heavily trained and capable of detaining riots very easily.

Im talking about the ideological training needed to kill your own family. Many police in training would turn away from the police force if that was the case.

Also you are talking about police that are trained for protests. At a G8 protest they get the best police. This is a special unit. The average cop's training wouldn't be that intense.

But anyway how violent and well trained they are does not mean they would shot their own family, you pulled that out of now where.

[Ian]

Do policeman also attach Belgian babies to their bayonets? or nail kittens to church doors?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:00 PM
Do policeman also attach Belgian babies to their bayonets? or nail kittens to church doors?
But only if they have no donuts at hand.

[coda]

too funny, LH

In the US, Cops are kinda dirty in that they don't have loyalty to anybody and wield their own brand of law and order. They generally play on the winning side of whatever benefits them most. how many cops can be bribed out of a traffic ticket? and yes, with no more than a Creme donut dangled in their face. in my own area, they got their own drug dealing and prostitution ring going on. They confiscate the drug contraband for themselves and resell it on the streets and the prostitutes have to keep giving them kickbacks to keep working.

A prime example of how they defect from the State was the Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. When the State was completely broken down, mass loads of Cops AWOLed abandoning their posts and some were looting along with the people while still in uniform! New Orleans was stating they didn't even have a police force anymore.

It's been standard in the US, that when any kind of large population control is needed where people are going to be killed, they call out RashChris's group, The National Guards, to do the job.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2006, 08:59 AM
The police and the army are trained in two completely different forms of defence. The police are trained to defend the state where as the army are trained to protect foreign interests etc.

Historically the police have betrayed their class, whereas the army have always joined the side of the proletariat.
Well also the context of the jobs. One rarely goes into the Army thinking it to be permanent; its 4-6 years and I'm out. Whereas Police work is a career.

The regular Archie Bunker slob when in uniform doesn't hold any real power, just a gun. They can't arrest anyone, interrogate, confriscate, or beat anyone up and have the chance of getting away with it.

Furthermore in revolutions police are one of the embodiments of antiquated insititutions, which are to be demolished, and replaced.Even, if the individual cop were to see no advantage in being a part of the counter-revolution; by fleeing they have furthered the process of fragmentation.Whereas the millitary grunts have the potential to be among the mobilzed sector of the prolitariat, because they were never really state power to begin with.

[Hiero]

If cops were able to be trained so well that they could kill their faimly to protect the state, then there would be no corrupt cops.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:00 AM
Do policeman also attach Belgian babies to their bayonets? or nail kittens to church doors?
In a section of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park called the "panhandle" there is (or used to be) a feral cat colony (like the one at the old coliseum in Rome, only smaller).

People in the neighborhood put out food for them in the park...just like people in Rome do.

In the early 1980s, it was learned that police in that district thought it "lots of fun" to enter the park and shoot the cats!

As you might imagine, this was rather a big scandal in California.

Shooting unarmed civilians is one thing -- it's what cops do -- but shooting cats is simply outrageous!

And they were actually ordered to stop doing that!

On a more serious note...

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

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

[Janus]

In the early 1980s, it was learned that police in that district thought it "lots of fun" to enter the park and shoot the cats!
Hmm... that is somewhat sick and sadistic. In our town, we have a program to neuter the feral cat population, not kill them.

But I agree that the police are fundamentally different from the armed forces. Simply put, the police have always been known to be counter-revolutionary because they really have nothing to lose. Their best bet lies in reinstating the old regime just like the career officers do. So I suppose that Stalin knew what he was doing when he murdered those Polish officers in Katyn.

[La Comédie Noire]

Every bit of contact I have had with the police has left me both nervous and angry. They are taught to be Intimidating and violent while having no respect for other people. Is it any wonder why it is a felony to assualt an officer but only a misdemeanor when harming an old women? :huh:

Juvinille courts and cops go hand and hand when talking about needless beuarucratic bull shit. People aren't criminals they are made into criminals by these vicious desk jockeys with badges. :angry:

After all it is their job to make arrests, it is what they get paid to do, so they make sure they do it all lot in quick sucession.

So no matter what some backwards ass relative tells you, the cops are not your friends .

[Amusing Scrotum]

Before people start getting carried away with the possibility of soldiers coming to our aide, consider what their "mentality" is like....


Originally posted by BBC News
A Russian conscript who was badly beaten and tortured by fellow soldiers has been flown to an intensive care unit at a military hospital in Moscow.

At least six men were involved in the attack on Private Andrei Sychyov, whose injuries were so severe his legs and genitals had to be amputated.

[....]

Pte Sychyov contracted gangrene after he was forced to squat for several hours on New Year's Eve, then tied to chairs and beaten, according to investigators.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4691036.stm

[Janus]

That was a case of hazing gone too far. Hazing seems to be a pretty common occurence in many armed forces institutions.
What is almost as shocking is the fact that one Russian general hired out his troops as laborers in order to reap profit. Bourgeois wage slavery extended even into the Russian military. With that in mind, these types of incidents simply reflect the major problems within the Russian army.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 7 2006, 11:19 PM
Before people start getting carried away with the possibility of soldiers coming to our aide, consider what their "mentality" is like....
"Coming to our aide"
No, we teach them what to do, they take it or leave it.

As with hazing, it is on rare instances, and if it does happen the perpertrators recieve punishment; it is against millitary law.

If you don't want the millitary to come to our side, goodluck finding the technical capibilities when raising an army.

You seem to always be against any possibilities of the troops joining, or helping to start the revolution. As in the case of Iraq, though you don't support American Imperialism, you want America to set up insititutions, and you want the American government to get this done as soon as possible so they can send the troops home--your asking the imperialists to bring a peace that they can't ever bring.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+--> (EL KABLAMO)If you don't want the millitary to come to our side, goodluck finding the technical capibilities when raising an army.[/b]

Why would we need to "raise an army"?


Originally posted by EL [email protected]
You seem to always be against any possibilities of the troops joining, or helping to start the revolution.

I think these are the first posts I've made on the subject, at least that I can remember.


EL KABLAMO
....you want America to set up insititutions, and you want the American government to get this done as soon as possible so they can send the troops home....

It would be beneficial to the Iraqi's if America set up "institutions" - water, electricity, hospitals, etc. - and then was forced out, but that doesn't appear to be happening.

Indeed whether they set up institutions or not, they should leave.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 8 2006, 08:07 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 8 2006, 08:07 PM) Why would we need to "raise an army"?
[/b]
I think misued the term "raise an army". However in my observation, it seems that your theory would require that, even if you are in some kind of decentralized-spider-program, you're a council, soviet, ect--of that organization is millitarized group; where as previously you were an organized group fighting for pay battles, and rights (labour union): You have fermented into a milliant group.

Because you don't have a good sized section of the millitary on your side the problem is that you don't have the technical capities, nor the access to important information, and the fighting force could be much more broad.


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected]
I think these are the first posts I've made on the subject, at least that I can remember.

I remember getting into it with you when the CC was deciding if ComradeOm should be allowed access. (No offence to you ComradeOm, but because of your stance on the war in Iraq, many suspected you of being a reformist).


Armchair Socialism
It would be beneficial to the Iraqi's if America set up "institutions" - water, electricity, hospitals, etc. - and then was forced out, but that doesn't appear to be happening.

Indeed whether they set up institutions or not, they should leave.

I see what you're getting at here, but if I remember correctly that debate was pretty hazy, and it turned into an "agree to disagree situtation" or that we just didn't understand eachothers argument. If I rememer correctly it wasn't a question if that you were against trying to start a revolution through mass revolts of American and British troops, its just that you didn't see it as happening. I'm guessing that because you're a pro-revolution Communist, and supporter WCP of Iraq--you have disbelief that peace will reign suppreme once the troops are brought home.

Off topic:
I hope I don't sound too much of a pea-brained redneck, but when morale is low (which will happen) should comrades sign up into the service to agitate revolts?

I think it would be a good idea if it were on a larger scale, but it would be too easy for circles to be found out.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+--> (EL KABLAMO)Because you don't have a good sized section of the millitary on your side the problem is that you don't have the technical capities, nor the access to important information, and the fighting force could be much more broad.[/b]

I suppose, but I personally doubt whether the revolution itself, or the post revolutionary society, would really need those "technical capabilities" to be successful.

They may help, but I don't think they'd be essential.


EL KABLAMO
I remember getting into it with you when the CC was deciding if ComradeOm should be allowed access. (No offence to you ComradeOm, but because of your stance on the war in Iraq, many suspected you of being a reformist).

I do remember that debate, but unfortunately I can't see the "Shredder" at the moment to see the whole debate. However I'm pretty sure I was arguing on ComradeOm's behalf for his entry to the CC and if I remember correctly I was also annoyed that a certain member had "edited" certain posts to keep the "juicy" parts.

The latest posts I've made on the issue are here....

http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=95234#95234

....I must admit I've taken a "sharper" stance on the whole issue of the last few months.

Hope that helps. :)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 8 2006, 07:55 PM
As with hazing, it is on rare instances, and if it does happen the perpertrators recieve punishment; it is against millitary law.
While I agree with your main point - that it is important to bring soldiers to the side of revolution - I would caution you about believing too much in bourgeois law. There is often some subtext hidden in laws that makes them function in direct contradiction with what they state. And I think this is the case with hazing. It is forbidden not so that it won't happen, but so that soldiers learn to do illegal things without being caught. And, of course, to foster a "healthy environment of manly comradely rivalry", as they might put it.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> ( Armchair Socialism)I suppose, but I personally doubt whether the revolution itself, or the post revolutionary society, would really need those "technical capabilities" to be successful.[/b]

Consider that they can nape us of the face of the planet, and we can't nape them back. But then again if they did use such weaponry on us, if they are victorious no one would be around to do the menial work.

Could you elabourate please, I'm interested as to why you don't see it as essential.


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected]
....I must admit I've taken a "sharper" stance on the whole issue of the last few months.

It does seem that the only way Iraq can develop the conditions for Communism is by having their own Capitalism seperate from American Imperialism, that is along as Iraq has the rule of oil over America.

Seeing as though were probably closer to a Communist revolution than Iraq, and we both know the only way the troops will be sent home, is if they send themselves home through death or revolt. The troops are in a deadlocked sitation, this will create low morale, I think that in the future this could be step towards revolution. What do you think?


Luis Henrique
It is forbidden not so that it won't happen, but so that soldiers learn to do illegal things without being caught. And, of course, to foster a "healthy environment of manly comradely rivalry", as they might put it.

When they come knocking on our door, we're going to have instill some measure against hazing, and manly rivalry. It can be done.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Feb 9 2006, 07:20 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Feb 9 2006, 07:20 PM)Could you elabourate please, I'm interested as to why you don't see it as essential.[/b]

Well during the revolutionary process itself, I expect that there will be a huge General Strike coupled with workers taking hold of factories - locking their bosses in their offices etc. - I think people will take to the streets and take part in "pitched battles" with the Police etc.

There will, in my opinion, be to no "war type" fighting.

That being said, in America it could be different. Compared to Western Europe, the amount of weapons in America is staggering and this could escalate the revolution into a huge Civil War and in that case the Army would be beneficial.

However, if it did come to this, then I suspect the Army would launch a Franco style coup and in this situation "we" will draw recruits from the general population and not the Army - because they will be fighting against "us".

As for after the revolution, if needed I think local militias and not "Standing Armies" would do a fine job. Normal people conducting "guerrilla warfare" seem incredibly hard to defeat - just look at Iraq!


Originally posted by EL [email protected]
It does seem that the only way Iraq can develop the conditions for Communism is by having their own Capitalism seperate from American Imperialism, that is along as Iraq has the rule of oil over America.

That's my opinion as well. :)


EL KABLAMO
....I think that in the future this could be step towards revolution. What do you think?

Quite possible, but I'd say that this would be more likely if there was a strong American Left (like during the 60's).

Right now I think disillusioned soldiers will just vote Democrat. :(

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2006, 09:51 PM
Normal people conducting "guerrilla warfare" seem incredibly hard to defeat - just look at Iraq!
True, but they have ex-Republican Guard officials, and I'm sure they have spies. Plus they have the inhospitable terrian for guerilla warfare.

In the United states as Che' pointed out, the only place where it could occur would be in the Rocky Mountains. So Guerilla Warfare is out of the question.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Feb 9 2006, 10:18 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Feb 9 2006, 10:18 PM)
Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 9 2006, 09:51 PM
Normal people conducting "guerrilla warfare" seem incredibly hard to defeat - just look at Iraq!
True, but they have ex-Republican Guard officials, and I'm sure they have spies.[/b]

To be honest, I'm pretty dubious about the claims that large parts of the former "Republican Guard" are making up the resistance. Certainly given the "ethnicity" of some of the resistance groups, I don't think the "Republican Guard" would be very welcome. :lol:


EL KABLAMO
So Guerilla Warfare is out of the question.

Poor phrase on my part. I was thinking more along the lines of the type of warfare used by "La Resitance" during the Second World War.

I suppose that'd be called Urban Guerrilla Warfare.

[Janus]

I suppose that'd be called Urban Guerrilla Warfare.
I agree, the revolution will begin in the cities and that type of asymetric warfare would be best suited. That is also the type of fighting going on Iraq.


In the United states as Che' pointed out, the only place where it could occur would be in the Rocky Mountains.
This seems to contradict Che's plan for a people's war. There are few people who live in the Rocky Mountains so a government force could easily isolate them. I would think that the Everglades would at least be better than the Rockies. The Seminoles waged successful warfare against a superior force for nearly 20 years and some are still there today.