No Police? WHAAAT?

[R_P_A_S]

on the post by the Communist League I read somwhere in there about not having police. because if you think about it we need police because people have more than others and that creates greed or the need to have more etc etc etc.

Ok so no police needed when it comes to those circumstances. But what about
domestic Violence, Rape!, etc. etc. who will deal with that?

[amanondeathrow]

because if you think about it we need police because people have more than others and that creates greed or the need to have more etc etc etc.

In a truly communist society, where economic divisions have been abolished completely, police will not be practical.

Crime, as we know it today, is a result of these economic divisions and they will both die out together. There will be few crimes for police to solve, so why have them?

During the socialist faze, however, some form of law enforcement will be necessary. This law enforcement will be in the hands of the proletariat and will be conducted according to the interests of the masses.

Police will probably be organized differently, not having the extreme hierarchy that characterizes today's police force.

Once the road to communism has been fortified, police will no longer have a purpose and the remaining peace keeping will be in the hands of the community in general.


But what about
domestic Violence, Rape!, etc. etc. who will deal with that?

Domestic violence and rape are also results of capitalism and will no longer exist on the scale they currently do.

[R_P_A_S]

alright come one now. we cant blame it all on capitalism. a guy can hit his wife just out of being drunk and being an asshole. dont have to be because of capitalism

[anomaly]

So the wife tells some people in the commune and the community decides on the punishment. Or perhaps it will be a randomly selected jury. In which case the accused will present his case, the accuser his, and the jury decides.

If the crime committed is rape or murder, we find out who dunnit, and summarily execute him/her.

[LoneRed]

and thats life under anarchism


No thank you

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:02 AM
and thats life under anarchism


No thank you
Not exactly comrade, during the primitive Communist period in history there was a similar system. Under the various barbarian constitutions the gens of the victum, would get together with the gens of the perpertraitor and decide a course of action.

So the system that anomaly is talking about is possible, though since we're out of tribal living the body of organization would have to be a bit different.

I don't know if execution is necessarily an anarchist idea, but I'm against that and I think perpertraitors should be "reformed", otherwize we'll just be going down the slipperly slope and people might be killed for just cheating at a soccor match.

We should be able to have better facilities to treat rapists and murders, there should be greater wealth, and there won't be a spending of most of the wealth on persuing theives.

[chimx]

Domestic violence and rape are also results of capitalism and will no longer exist on the scale they currently do.

wow. you would be great working as an operator at a domestic violence hotline: "what? your boyfriend hit you? i'm sorry ma'am, you can't blame him. its captalism's fault."

naive.

[EusebioScrib]

What was the CL talking about? Police in Communist or Capitalist Society?

In regards to having police in Capitalist society:

To call for the abolishment of a police force (or some go for other bullshit like the prison system or w/e else) is just stupid. You can't pick and choose what part of the system you don't want. It's all or nothing. All are interconnected and you need to dismantle it all to dismantle one part of it.

In regards to having police in Communist society:

As we think of Communism, no we don't need it. Yet it's up to the workers to decide what's necessary. Perhaps we will need some sort of security force, but I think it's safe to assume that they will literally "serve the people." They will be delegates (accountable), not repsentatives (not accountable).

It's foolish to discuss what Communism will look like. It's up for whomever is present to decide. We need to start building our alternatives and dual-power now, not making a plan for the future society.

[Armed_Philosopher]

Originally posted by Dee's [email protected] 15 2006, 11:13 PM


During the socialist faze, however, some form of law enforcement will be necessary. This law enforcement will be in the hands of the proletariat and will be conducted according to the interests of the masses.

Police will probably be organized differently, not having the extreme hierarchy that characterizes today's police force.

Once the road to communism has been fortified, police will no longer have a purpose and the remaining peace keeping will be in the hands of the community in general.

[QUOTE]But what about
domestic Violence, Rape!, etc. etc. who will deal with that?

Domestic violence and rape are also results of capitalism and will no longer exist on the scale they currently do.
"This law enforcement will be in the hands of the proletariat and will be conducted according to the interests of the masses. "

According to the interests of the masses? Im sure Bushs domestic spying is also "in the interests of the masses". That kind of talk scares me.

"Police will probably be organized differently, not having the extreme hierarchy that characterizes today's police force. "

How about not having any hierarchy outside of a community council. Perhaps it should become the responsibility of all community members to act as their own "police" with education on how to go about doing this. We dont need professional police at ANY stage of the revolution. Communities can be educated on how fufill this poisition themselves, and if special positons are needed they can be on rotation by volonteer and community approval.



"Domestic violence and rape are also results of capitalism and will no longer exist on the scale they currently do."

No, thats just not true at all. Its not the same thing and domestic violence will never go away simply by moving to a socialist economy.

[amanondeathrow]

wow. you would be great working as an operator at a domestic violence hotline: "what? your boyfriend hit you? i'm sorry ma'am, you can't blame him. its captalism's fault."

naive.

I am not saying that a man is not responsible for hitting his wife, that is just insane. The conditions that allow domestic abuse to take place are created by capitalism.

Communists recognize that most social ills are inherently linked to capitalism and will fade away with it. I don't see how this is naive.


According to the interests of the masses? Im sure Bushs domestic spying is also "in the interests of the masses". That kind of talk scares me.

Obviously Bush's law enforcement is not in the interest of the masses. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the masses will be the ones who decide the way laws will be enforced, unlike our current system. It should not scare you.


How about not having any hierarchy outside of a community council. Perhaps it should become the responsibility of all community members to act as their own "police" with education on how to go about doing this. We dont need professional police at ANY stage of the revolution. Communities can be educated on how fufill this poisition themselves, and if special positons are needed they can be on rotation by volonteer and community approval.

You may be correct and a socialist society may be organized along these lines.

However, just after the revolution it will probably not be pragmatic to not have a police force at all. Counter revolutionaries will still pose a threat to the new government and it would be necessary to have an organized way to round them up and prevent them from resurrecting capitalism.


No, thats just not true at all. Its not the same thing and domestic violence will never go away simply by moving to a socialist economy.

So what is domestic violence caused by?

[chimx]

Communists recognize that most social ills are inherently linked to capitalism and will fade away with it. I don't see how this is naive.

most

[amanondeathrow]

Great response chimx

[Armed_Philosopher]

"However, just after the revolution it will probably not be pragmatic to not have a police force at all. Counter revolutionaries will still pose a threat to the new government and it would be necessary to have an organized way to round them up and prevent them from resurrecting capitalism."


What exactly do you mean by this? If you are talking about the mega-corporations attempting to become the new rulling power in the absence of their protectors, then I totaly agree with rounding them all up and executing them. Such people should be hung from the lamp posts for public display.

However, if you are talking about "rounding up" the working class proletariat who have previously associated with Capitalism by doing grunt labor simply because they dont know any better and dont currently agree with the economic model you are presenting, and making an entire segment of the working class population into criminals for their beliefs, then I think thats sick and you need to be stoped.

I also worry that some of these terms have a more compassionate definition for the masses, and a more secretive and less compassionate definition for the inner cirlces of the Vanguard.

[Armed_Philosopher]

As Anarchists, I highly suspect we would be perhaps even higher on the list of ideological threats then working class capitalists even, dangerous because we are also socialists and can appeal to some of the same target audiance, especialy at revolutionary moments. That is why having a police force that answers to the Vanguard that looks out for the proletariat is such a scary thought, while localized community councils are a little easier for me to feel comfortable around.

I think we should abandon use of the term "police". Perhaps we can have an all volonteer "Community Guard", black block style, organized from within the community where all actions of volonteer members can be discussed by the community itself in council.

[amanondeathrow]

However, if you are talking about "rounding up" the working class proletariat who have previously associated with Capitalism by doing grunt labor simply because they dont know any better and dont currently agree with the economic model you are presenting, and making an entire segment of the working class population into criminals for their beliefs, then I think thats sick and you need to be stoped.

Only those who actively pose a threat to the dictatorship of the preliterate should be disposed of.

Most members of the working class have been associated with the ruling class; if they did not then they would starve to death.


I also worry that some of these terms have a more compassionate definition for the masses, and a more secretive and less compassionate definition for the inner cirlces of the Vanguard.

Arguing over what terms to use is pointless. What is necessary is protecting the DOP from counterrevolution. I could care less if that sounds compassionate to the ruling class.

[amanondeathrow]

As Anarchists, I highly suspect we would be perhaps even higher on the list of ideological threats then working class capitalists even, dangerous because we are also socialists and can appeal to some of the same target audiance, especialy at revolutionary moments.

If you had the interests of the working class at the top of your list then you would be an active participant in the revolution. If you attempted to destabilize it with your idealism, then you would inevitably be a target.


That is why having a police force that answers to the Vanguard that looks out for the proletariat is such a scary thought, while localized community councils are a little easier for me to feel comfortable around.


Any police force would answer to the working class, which would be in complete control of the government.

There would be no vanguard, in the anarchist sense of the term, which "looks out" for the working class. The working class would be the vanguard.


I think we should abandon use of the term "police". Perhaps we can have an all volonteer "Community Guard", black block style, organized from within the community where all actions of volonteer members can be discussed by the community itself in council.

What ever form or name it will take, there will most likely be some kind of law enforcement organization during the societies faze. With out it the DOP will probably not survive.

[Armed_Philosopher]

"If you had the interests of the working class at the top of your list then you would be an active participant in the revolution. If you attempted to destabilize it with your idealism, then you would inevitably be a target. "

Yeah, talk like that can mean alot of diferent things. What would be concidered "destablizing the revolution"? Refusing to participate in a State controled market? Refusing to disband a militia and join the Red Army? Refusal to participate in the Societies phase of Communism and creating our own societies in our own vision?


Im just glad we outnumber you these days.

[amanondeathrow]

Yeah, talk like that can mean alot of diferent things. What would be concidered "destablizing the revolution"? Refusing to participate in a State controled market? Refusing to disband a militia and join the Red Army? Refusal to participate in the Societies phase of Communism and creating our own societies in our own vision?

You can do what ever you want, as long as it does not harm working class power.

It’s doubtful that a locale militia will harm the working class, seeing as they would be the ones involved. But if the militia becomes counter revolutionary and attacks the working class, or appears to be about to do so, then actions must be taken.

State power will be in the hands of the working class and the class as a whole will run the economy for its benefit. This will inevitably lead to communism because it is in the interest of the working class to abolish all economic differences. If you refuse to participate in this economy, that is your choice. But if you actively oppose socialism then you are an enemy of the working class, its quit simple.

This does not mean that there should be iron order in a socialist society. What ever is necessary to fortify the road to communism, must be implemented. If that seems too extreme to you, then may I ask what your alternative is?

[Comrade-Z]

I think this CrimethInc. article from the latest issue of Rolling Thunder does a pretty good job of explaining why we don't want police.


LOVE COPS. PUNCH THEM IN THE FACE.

"Anarchism is a philosophy that advocates for complete liberty, freedom, and equality.
The nuances are myriad and complex. Regardless of their intellectual or social merit, though, it is not necessary for the law enforcement professional to completely understand them all to confront the challenges posed by their advocates."(1)
--Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 28:201--223, 2005: Anarchist Direct Actions: A Challenge for Law Enforcement, by Randy Borum (University of South Florida) and Chuck Tilby (Eugene, Oregon Police Department); available online.


I must say we're surprised at you, dear readers. We thought in inevitable that the directive on the back of our first issue ("PUNCH COPS IN THE FACE," accompanied by a photo--yes, from an action some of us organized, not just some Greek riot porn downloaded off the internet--of someone doing exactly that) would draw at least one angry, critical letter. Perhaps inciting violence against police officers is no longer all that controversial, as everyone now recognizes it to be a necessary part of the struggle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or perhaps our critics have given us up as fanatical beyond hope of reform. Apparently we're going to have to work harder, if we are to shock people out of complacency(2) and into helping us fill our Letters section! In the meantime, we may as well go over some of the typical objections raised to such notions, since even if all of you are confirmed cop-punchers you still probably rub shoulders occasionally with people who are not.

Criticism of anti-police sentiments usually falls into one of five categories. The first such argument is that the police, as our fellow workers, are also exploited members of the proletariat, and should therefore be our allies. Unfortunately, as anyone who has tried to do anything in the real world knows, there is a vast gap between "should" and "is." The police exist to enforce the will of the powerful; anyone who has not had a bad experience with them is likely either privileged or submissive. Today's police officers, at least in North America,(3) know exactly what they're getting into when they join the force; people in uniform don't just get cats out of trees in this country. Yes, most take the job because of what they feel to be economic necessity, but needing a paycheck is no excuse for obeying orders to evict families, harass young men of color, or pepper spray demonstrators; those whose consciences can be bought are everyone else's enemies, not potential allies.

This argument could be made a little more persuasive if it was couched in strategic terms, rather than Marxist abstractions: for example, "Every revolution succeeds at the moment the armed forces refuse to make war on their fellows; therefore we should focus on seducing the police to our side of the barricades." But again, the police are not just any workers; they are the ones who have most deliberately chosen to base their livelihoods and value systems upon the prevailing orders, and thus are the least likely to be sympathetic to those who struggle against hierarchy. This being the case, it makes sense to focus on opposing the police, not on seeking solidarity with them. So long as they serve their masters, they cannot be our allies; by publicly deriding the police as an institution, we encourage them to cease to be police officers, so we can find common cause with them.

The second argument is that the police can win any confrontation, so we shouldn't invest ourselves in strategies that involve confronting them.(4) It may seem that, with all their guns and armor and equipment, the police are invincible, but this is an illusion. They are limited by all sorts of invisible constraints--bureaucracy, public opinion, their own need to avoid inconvenient escalation. This is why a motley crowd armed only with the tear gas canisters shot at them can hold off a larger, more organized, better equipped force; contests between social unrest and military might are not played out according to the rules of military engagement. Those who have studied the police, who can predict what they are prepared for and what they can and cannot do, can usually outsmart and outmaneuver them. Such small victories can be inspiring for those who chafe under the hell of police repression, as well as instrumental in accomplishing concrete goals. In the collective unconscious of our society, the police are the ultimate bastion of reality, the force that ensures that things stay the way they are; to fight them and win, however temporarily, is to show that reality is negotiable.

The third argument is that the police are a mere distraction from the real enemy, not worth our wrath or attention. Alas, state power is not just the politicians; they would be powerless without the millions who do their bidding. When we contest their control, we are also contesting the submission of their flunkies, and we are sure sooner or later to come up against those of the latter who insist on submitting. That being said, it's true that the police are nor more integral to hierarchy than the oppressive dynamics in our own communities; they are simply the external manifestation, on a larger scale, of the same phenomena. If we are to contest hierarchy everywhere, rather than specializing in combating certain forms of it while leaving others unchallenged, we have to be prepared to take it on both in the streets and in our own bedrooms; we can't expect to win on one front without fighting on the other. We shouldn't fetishize confrontations with uniformed foes; we shouldn't forget the power imbalances in our own ranks--but neither should we be content merely to manage the details of our own oppression in a non-hierarchical manner.(5)

The fourth and most despicable argument is that we need police. According to this line of thinking, even if we aspire to live in a society without police in the distant future, we need them today, for people are not ready to live with each other in peace without armed enforcers. As if the social imbalances and submissiveness maintained by the violence of the police are peace! Opponents of the police need not even answer this charge, however. It's not as if a police-free society is suddenly going to appear overnight, for good or for ill, just because someone spray paints "Fuck the Police" on a wall--if only it was so easy! The protracted struggle it is going to take to free our communities of police repression will probably go on as long as it takes us to learn to coexist peacefully; indeed, no community incapable of sorting out its own conflicts can expect to triumph against a more powerful occupying force. In the meantime, anti-police sentiments should be seen as objections to one of the most advanced and egregious forms of conflict between human beings, no arguments that without police there would be no conflict at all; and those who argue that the police sometimes do good things bear the burden of proving that those same good things could not be accomplished at least as well by other means.

The final and most nuanced objection to militant resistance is the pacifist critique of violence itself. According to this account, violence is inherently a form of domination, and thus inconsistent with opposition to domination; those who engage in violence play the same game as their oppressors, thereby losing from the outset. This perspective is not shared by the editors or publishers of this journal. In our view, in some cases violence enforces unequal power dynamics, while in other cases it contests them--that is to say, there is such a thing as self-defense. For those whose value system is still descended from Christianity, no engaging in immoral behavior is the top priority, at whatever cost; for the rest of us, who are free of superstitious prohibitions, the most important thing is what will work, in a given context, to make the world a better place. Sometimes--to name an obvious example, in the struggle against Nazi Germany--this may include violence.

To make this clear: yes, cops are people too, and deserve the same respect due all living things. The point is not that they deserve to suffer, or that we have to bring them to justice--that’s Christian morality again, dealing in currencies of superstition and resentment. The point is that, in purely pragmatic terms, in order that other people not have to suffer, it is necessary that the police be opposed by whatever means necessary. Perhaps the only compelling argument that could be made against tour last issue’s cover design is that it included the playful line “If you crave revenge...” Though it can be empowering for those who have spent their lives under the hell of oppression to contemplate finally settling the score with their oppressors, a real liberation struggle does not focus on exacting revenge but rather on solving problems so that all might have better lives. Therefore, while it may seem sometimes be necessary to set police on fire, this should not be done out of a spirit of vengeful self-righteousness, but from a place of careful thought and compassion--if not for the police themselves, then for all those who would otherwise suffer at their hands.

One could make the argument that a magazine cover encouraging people to fight the police does more the publicize disapproval of them than to cause actual assaults; what a text says literally and the effects it has in the real world are very different things. In that case, the real purpose of such a magazine cover would be to delegitimize the authority of the police and demoralize individual police officers. One could even argue that, in doing so, such a magazine cover was doing a service not only for those who suffer police oppression, but also for the families of police officers and even for the officers themselves--for not only do police officers have a disproportionally high rate of domestic violence and child abuse, they also get killed, commit suicide, and become addicts with alarming frequency. Anything that encourages police officers to quit their jobs is in their best interest, as well as the interest of their loved ones and society at large. Therefore, we can implore, with confidence and no small degree of compassion:

LOVE COPS. PUNCH THEM IN THE FACE.


(1)--This is convenient both for police administrators who know their officers to be too stupid to understand anarchist ideas, and for those who fear they are not.

(2)--To be fair, this is a tall order, as we have to compete with the mind-numbing violence of the police and the mind-numbed response of liberals and pacifists who would oppose it with mere petitioning.

(3)--To the credit of the police outside the so-called First World, they sometimes are more connected to the struggle of the oppressed. Your humble editor once visited a shantytown outside Montevideo in which, among a thousand impoverished families, there lived a police officer who couldn't afford to pay rent with his meager salary. When the police came to evict the place and its residents responded by erecting an enormous burning barricade in the highway, his neighbors had to hide him so his fellow officers wouldn't recognize him.

(4)--I once heard an aging liberal make this argument in a meeting hastily called to carp about an anarchist engagement with the police in which the anarchists had gained the upper hand. You could cut the irony in the air with a knife. Some people are thrilled when the Zapatistas or others far away in space, time, and culture confront and defeat their oppressors, and gladly use the photographs from those engagements to illustrate their publications, but oppose doing anything of the sort here in the heart of the beast, where the powers that would destroy the Zapatistas and others are most deeply rooted.

(5)--Not to make an ad hominem attack, but just as there is a sort of person who would rather physically fight external enemies than acknowledge his own shortcomings, there is another sort who prefers the comparatively safe project of critiquing his radical comrades to the risky business of confronting the armed enforcers of social inequality.

And then there's this delightful song by David Rovics:


Butcher For Hire
David Rovics

If you wanna have a protest in the USA
You wanna speak your mind in the American Way
If there are some rich white men with whom you disagree
And thought you have the right of assembly
There's a man that you should know
'Cause he will follow you wherever you go

(Chorus)
John Timoney, butcher for hire
He's a brutal thug and a dirty liar
He's a cop among cops, a man among men
And, oh my God, he's back again

And he'll protect our freedom in his own special way
By smashing in your face today
He'll spray tear gas in your eyes
He'll look into the camera and tell lies
And if you complain the deal is raw
He will declare martial law

(Chorus)

He'll ban dancing, he'll ban art
He'll ban medics on go-carts
He'll ban meetings, he'll ban signs
He'll ban circles, he'll ban lines
He'll stand up upon his throne
And say "go back to your free speech zone"

(Chorus)

But someday he'll meet his end
He's already half-way round the bend
He'll take stock of what he's done
Stare at the notches on his gun
He'll look into the mirror and at his poor wife
And say, "Oh my God -- I've been a scumbag my whole life"

(Chorus)

[rouchambeau]

Domestic violence and rape are also results of capitalism and will no longer exist on the scale they currently do.

That isn't true at all. Domestic volence and rape have existed looooooooong before captial.

[R_P_A_S]

cant have anyone on power trips. those people who want to be the "community guards" have to be very simple people who don't want the attention, the title heroe, or anything that sets them above the rest of the community. the people can all take turns. sort of like a night watch thing. every 8 hours or something.

[amanondeathrow]

That isn't true at all. Domestic volence and rape have existed looooooooong before captial.

For as long as rape and abuse has existed, there has been some form of economic exploitation. Whether it was slavery, feudalism or capitalism and this exploitation was, and still is, the root cause for most domestic abuse and rape.

There is usually not a direct and obvious link between the relations of production and abuse, but the situation created by the former is what allows the latter to exist.

Sure, not all rape will disappear with economic exploitation, but the majority of it will.

[C_Rasmussen]

I dont really like the idea of having cops around. They kinda make me a tad nervous and also the laws are pretty fucked if you ask me but what happens if theres like two teens fighting or something? How would the communist society deal with that? Would they let it play out or what? I'm just thinking minor things right now.

[anomaly]

Probably. Or some people would run and stop it. They don't have to be cops.

The popo causes more problems than it solves.

That's why I say fuck, fuck, fuck the police...fuck, fuck, fuck the police...yea fuck em

[Armed_Philosopher]

If two people choose to fight, then its realy nobodies buisness but their own.

If one person attacks another, then its the obligation of all responsible community members to protect each other wether they happen to be on watch or not.

[Floyce White]

Y'all are seriously deluded if you think police protect ordinary folks from violence. Read up on the Women of Juarez and rethink your position.

Police are paid by the rich to protect the property claims of the rich.

[rioters bloc]

in an ideal world, patriarchy would also cease to exist, along with capitalism. so domestic violence and rape, which is overwhelmingly perpetrated against wimmin, would decrease dramatically.

i'm currently writing an article on state-sanctioned terror (in the form of police, military, etc) so i'll post that up on revleft once it's done (hopefully by the weekend). for now, why not try some malatesta? http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/...punishment.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/crime_and_punishment.html)

[Zingu]

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the “freedom of the state”.

Karl Marx

(Too little time to post a full explanation, but I hope that gets the idea across, I have to run :ph34r: )

[Armed_Philosopher]

Capitalism and Patriarchy are both serious problems, but they are not the sole root of domestic violence.

I dated a woman who was bi, and I later found out that she used to beat up her ex-girlfriend. Obviously this was not patriarchy, and its not exactly matriarchy either.

These tendencies will never go away. We need to look out for each other, but it makes no sense at all to wait for these characteristics to disapear befor we begin to live free. It will never happen. However, the police and the state do not prevent these things, and often only increase them.

These problems will not cease to exist, so we will have to deal with them the best we can without reliance on an oppressive police force.

I support the idea of a community watch, but I dont think we need a police force.....Post revolution, I think most citizens will have a degree of paramilitary training anyway, so most citizens should be compotent watchmen/women.

[amanondeathrow]

Police are paid by the rich to protect the property claims of the rich.

I doubt anyone here would disagree with you, but I think you misunderstand the argument.

Modern police are subordinate to the ruling class therefore they are the enemy of the proletariat. Under a socialist government any "police" would both be controlled by and composed of the working class.

After capitalism is overthrown it is an undeniable fact that counterrevolutionaries will pose a threat to the DOP, anyone who says otherwise is naive. There will also be symptoms of capitalist society prevalent, such as rape and murder, which the public must be protected from. Without some peacekeeping force, in what ever form or structure it will take, must be established.

[Armed_Philosopher]

"Modern police are subordinate to the ruling class therefore they are the enemy of the proletariat. Under a socialist government any "police" would both be controlled by and composed of the working class."

This is no diferent in any of the Authoritarian Communist nations. The Vanguard does not = the proletariat.


"There will also be symptoms of capitalist society prevalent, such as rape and murder"

Rape and murder has existed since befor Capitalism. How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you say stuff like this?

[amanondeathrow]

This is no diferent in any of the Authoritarian Communist nations. The Vanguard does not = the proletariat.

There have never been any "communist" states, there have only been degenerate, highly regulated economies that call themselves "socialist". A few have come close to achieving socialism, but most make the mistake of not concentrating power in the hands of the working class. Instead, these states are lead by bureaucratic pseudo managers, who eventually constitute another class that the police serve the interests of.

In a properly functioning socialist system the "police", or what ever you want to call them, will be controlled by a government of working class people only. Logically the "police" would then serve the interests of working people, which is the development of communism and the protection of the revolution.


Rape and murder has existed since befor Capitalism. How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you say stuff like this?

Yes and the rapes and murders of ancient time were the result of the class nature of those societies, just as feudal rapes were an inevitable result of the feudal system.

I don't see how anyone can take someone who does not understand the class nature of history and society seriously.

[Janus]

Crime, as we know it today, is a result of these economic divisions
Economically motivated crime but not all crime.

I'm pretty sure that the CL is talking about police after the revolution in which any type of established police force will be dissolved. The general populace can take up these duties themselves as a police force would be a threat and perhaps be used by a certain group to their advantage.

[amanondeathrow]

Economically motivated crime but not all crime.

Crime doesn’t have to be directly motivated by economics to be caused by it.

The conditions that violent crime flourishes in, either poor crime or white collar crime, are created by capitalism and its class structure. Are you saying that humans are violent because of their "nature"?


I'm pretty sure that the CL is talking about police after the revolution in which any type of established police force will be dissolved.

The current police force will defiantly be abolished because it is just another arm of the ruling class. I don’t think anyone would argue other wise, unless the police force was some how involved in the revolution in a positive way, which is not very likely.


The general populace can take up these duties themselves as a police force would be a threat and perhaps be used by a certain group to their advantage.

This will probably eventually happen, however people cannot be expected to fend off counter revolutionaries immediately after the revolution.

There must be some way that the working class can organize it self in to its own "police" and enforce the laws which it has created to develop communism.

[Janus]

Are you saying that humans are violent because of their "nature"?
No, I'm saying that the belief that crime will simply vanish after the revolution is quite idealistic. Thefts will dissappear because there would be no reason to steal anything in a communist society. However, what about domestic abuse, murder, or rape. Capitalism is responsible for many of the problems that we face today but it isn't responsible for all of it.


This will probably eventually happen, however people cannot be expected to fend off counter revolutionaries immediately after the revolution.
The people can establish their own militia to deal with the counter-revolutionaries, they don't need a police force to do it.

[amanondeathrow]

No, I'm saying that the belief that crime will simply vanish after the revolution is quite idealistic.

I am saying the same thing, that’s why we need some form of organized law enforcement. Crime will still be prevalent after the revolution because there will still be remnants of capitalist generated culture.


However, what about domestic abuse, murder, or rape.

Why do people commit murder? Usually it has something to do with theft in one way or another. Rape and domestic abuse are both related to the sexist aspects of capitalism. I agree that not all violence will vanish during communism, but the majority of our social ills are a result of economic inequality. You can argue all you want about a violent "human nature", but there is no evidence to back it up.


The people can establish their own militia to deal with the counter-revolutionaries, they don't need a police force to do it.

Sounds great. But it all depends on the specific conditions of the revolution. Counter revolutionaries may pose too serious a threat to not have some nationally organized "police" (or workers militia ext.).

As I have said before "police" will not be organized or act the same way they currently do.

[Janus]

I agree that not all violence will vanish during communism, but the majority of our social ills are a result of economic inequality.
I agree as well yet you said earlier that all crime as we know it will vanish. Crime is not always caused by economic inequality. Certain anti-social people or pedophiles enjoy crime for its "thrill".


You can argue all you want about a violent "human nature", but there is no evidence to back it up.
Where are you getting this from? I have never supported human nature or at least the capitalist's analysis of it.

[amanondeathrow]

I agree as well yet you said earlier that all crime as we know it will vanish. Crime is not always caused by economic inequality. Certain anti-social people or pedophiles enjoy crime for its "thrill".

From the beginning I have agreed that there is some violence that will still exist during communism, but compared to the crime we have today it will seem like nothing.


Where are you getting this from? I have never supported human nature or at least the capitalist's analysis of it.

I did not mean for this to be directed towards you. There were others in this discussion who said that much violence is not related to capitalism.

[Janus]

From the beginning I have agreed that there is some violence that will still exist during communism, but compared to the crime we have today it will seem like nothing.
Ok, I understand. :) Your statement that crime as we know it will end just caught my eye. Perhaps I took it out of context a bit.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think in a post-revolutionary society there would be police, firemen, and etc.. but they would be different. They would be the community volunteers rather than people who are paid. Hopefully there would be little crime as there is almost no incentive and when you steal you steal from everyone around you which is not a good idea.

[Martin Blank]

For the record, here is the passage that is being questioned:


As well, communism is a society without a state. Now, when we talk about a “state,” we are not talking about councils and assemblies that debate issues and adopt policy. When we say “state,” we mean the armed organizations that enforce “order” (the rulers’ “order,” that is), like the police and military.

“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?

Sure, there may be times here and there that may require some kind of investigation or enforcement unit, but those times would be relatively few and far between, and could easily be handled as they come up.

— “What is Communism?”, Communist League statement

Miles

[Janus]

Hopefully there would be little crime as there is almost no incentive and when you steal you steal from everyone around you which is not a good idea.
As mentioned above, there would be no incentive for economically motivated crime.

[Floyce White]

Of course the many petty-bourgeois leftists on this site are frightened of having no police. Tough.

Dee, it is very humble of you to look at my grey beard and imagine yourself so experienced in politics and life in general that you will suggest to me that I am the one who misunderstands.

Rioters Bloc, please use a spell checker. Writing the word "women" spelled as "wimmin" is a sign that you hate men so much that you cannot even write the word. It's feminist sexism: blaming men for sexism or any other social problems. It's a pro-capitalist, anti-working-class attitude.

Men don't cause sexism. Capitalists both women and men are the source of sexism.

If you persist in using that spelling, you simply paint yourself as a left-wing nut.

[Janus]

Of course the many petty-bourgeois leftists on this site are frightened of having no police.
I don't think that they are talking about the modern police that we have now. Most of them simply use the term because of its popularity but I think what they are saying is that the "policing" will be done by the people themselves.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 17 2006, 02:54 AM
you simply paint yourself as a left-wing nut.
http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/67/dd/1012677-movie-resized200.jpg

[Floyce White]

Chimx, this is the third time now you have addressed me with condescention.

Do you not remember my reply last time (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48056&st=0&#entry1292044578)?

Chimx, you have proven yourself to be an anti-communist provocateur.

Funny how the moderators of this Web site are quite happy with anti-worker condescention, anti-communism, and outright trolling, but snap to give banning points for anti-liberalism.

I wonder who is the moderator of this forum anyway? Oh yes. That's right. An avowed anti-revolutionary.

[anomaly]

It sounds like Floyce is the only revolutionary here!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It sounds like Floyce is the only revolutionary here!

Yarrrr, he would fit snug into a North Korean military uniform :lol:

Under communism, no one should be able to have unjustifiable authority over another person. A police officer has this, because they have powers to enforce this. They can arrest you and so on.

In a communist society this could be done in a far more democratic way, without the need for giving one person, or group authority to enforce societal values on other people.

If someone commits some kind of crime, a police officer wouldnt be necessary.

[The Bitter Hippy]

here here! just a quick problem from an uninformed new-guy though:

suppose we are long into th blissful communist utopia, and there is no exploitation or abuse, but one person- perhaps out of a mental disorder, perhaps out of jealousy in love, or some other petty strife that could continue in a communist society- kills another person. Currently we have trained specialists to solve murders. Would there be detectives, forensic scientists and pathologists around? they are not exactly front-line bobbies, and have little or nothing to do with oppressing people (all they do is find individual killers), but they are still police (or at least they are so closely linkedto police work that the difference is negligible).

I'd appreciate some insight?

[Armed_Philosopher]

I think investgations are important for the simple fact that its important to know the truth. Investigators dont have the same level of oppressive power however compared to police. Sure they can fuck up your evidence, but they cannot activly participate in the physical supression of people.

I think a community guard should be 100% volontary, and on rotation, and subject to the will of the local citizens. If the people object to the practices of a bully, then he can no longer participate as a guard.

I also think rehabilitation should be the focus instead of punishment. Not that its always possible to deal with violent criminals without hurting them, but the priority should be on keeping people safe, and not on inflicting judgement.

[amanondeathrow]

Floyce White

Of course the many petty-bourgeois leftists on this site are frightened of having no police. Tough.

Have you actually read any of this discussion? No one is afraid of not having unnecessary authority terrorizing the working class. Logical people are afraid of a revolution being overthrown by rightists and having no organized way to defeat them.

You can call them police or worker's militias, but some kind of organized force must exist, under the control of the DOP, to safeguard socialist development. Reactionaries will be organized and if they are not countered with a force just as powerful, they will restore capitalism.

Once the need for this organization is gone, then it will cease to exist and communism will have been established safely.


Dee, it is very humble of you to look at my grey beard and imagine yourself so experienced in politics and life in general that you will suggest to me that I am the one who misunderstands.

I don't think many people on this board are experienced, including you.

Just because I recognize the danger counter revolutionaries will pose after the revolution does not make me "petty-bourgeois". I could be wrong and maybe the right will be silent after the revolution and we can move directly to communism, but until the revolution happens this seems like the most logical theory.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:10 AM
I think we should abandon use of the term "police". Perhaps we can have an all volonteer "Community Guard", black block style, organized from within the community where all actions of volonteer members can be discussed by the community itself in council.
That sounds preferable. The word "Police" is filled with bad omens as it is, and smaller democratically chosen militias would be preferable to an actual police force as understood today.

[KC]

Dee, it is very humble of you to look at my grey beard and imagine yourself so experienced in politics and life in general that you will suggest to me that I am the one who misunderstands.

Yes, becuase there is a causal link between old people and intelligence! :lol:

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:31 AM
It sounds like Floyce is the only revolutionary here!
no way dood! i wanna be the most revolutionary here.

i noes. let's play the "who's more working class game" anomaly: I work in the hot oil fields of western dakota for 14 hours a day. the CPUSA collects my sweat as secret proletariat elixir to be consumed by newer members. i wear carharts regularly.

[Floyce White]

Janus: "I don't think that they are talking about the modern police that we have now. Most of them simply use the term because of its popularity but I think what they are saying is that the 'policing' will be done by the people themselves."

Janus, I want to say this very clearly. Let us break cleanly from the filthy Internet habit of using the debaters' trick of insinuating that "misunderstanding" prevents clear discussion, and its cohort of pretending to not have used a debaters' trick (plausible deniability is itself another debaters' trick). I don't think you're trying to obfuscate, so let us be direct with each other. I will say what I think rather than guess what others think, and leave it to others to state clearly their own opinions. I hope you will be amenable to this approach.

Now, to the issue.

The police is the state. A police force of vigilantes is a fascist state.

Communism means no police of any kind. People will no longer be slaves with a slave mentality. They will act spontaneously, of their own accord and initiative, as they see fit. People will not tolerate any semblance of the old order, and will physically destroy organizations of "security" or "defense" (read: "offense") or other such euphemisms for organized violence. Such forces always serve only one purpose: treating people, places, and things as or as not belonging as the method/goal of accumulation of belongings.

The many posters here of petty-capitalist family origin are completely in favor of various methods of replacing the current state/police with a different state/police. They do so to better advance their own property interests. It is their class nature. They will always do so no matter what they say they are doing or believe themselves to be doing. Also, leftist Internet message boards are a magnet for anti-communists, agents provocateur, and right wingers posing as left wingers--they are certainly promoting fascism with leftish verbiage.

Let us have no illusions. Leftism is unprincipled opportunism. Leftists today may be willing to promote fascism tomorrow as an acceptable substitute for socialism or anarchism or radical liberalism--if it helps advance their familial property interests. Leftists may be willing to accept fascism as another way to beat down their class enemy: the tenants and employees. Working-class posters here who repeat what is "popular" among the radical bourgeoisie--are being used as a public convenience.

Of course leftists are not opposed in principle to vigilantism. Leftists have no principles, and such is radicalism that it does not distinguish between the ideological dressings of anti-government sympathy. It's motto: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Every advocacy of small specialized bodies of organized violence is advocacy of class society. A semi-vigilante police force ("Committee for the Defense of the Revolution") under socialist capitalism (DOPE/LOCO) is a fascist, radical-rightist form of organization adapted for socialist, radical-leftist goals. Vigilantism is radicalism--not communism. And it is pure word twisting to say that vigilantism is "not" vigilantism.

Armed Philosopher, "citizen's watch," "paramilitary training," and "community guard" are vigilantism. It would be far more accurate if you would use the word "parapolice." What's more, I must oppose your use of the word "citizens," as if there should be "non-citizens."

Before the achievement of the future world communist society--while there is still class struggle going on--the method of the working class is mass direct action--not special violent organizations. I said so in my October 1, 2002 article Communism Means Communes (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A18), and in hundreds of discussions of this exact issue, the theory has been overwhelmingly vindicated.

Dee, I hope this also answers your questions about my take on the issue.

anomaly: "It sounds like Floyce is the only revolutionary here!"

We are not on a first-name basis. That's Comrade White to you. Or, if you are not a communist, you may call me Mister White.

bloody capitalist sham: "Yarrrr, he would fit snug into a North Korean military uniform."

After you have helped organized a couple thousand anti-war protests as I have, and after you've been a public resister of draft registration as I have (while non-registrants are being arrested as vocal opponents were then), only then you may have earned the right to critique my personal take on anti-violence. Until then, you're just blowing hot air.

Khayembii Communique: "Yes, becuase there is a causal link between old people and intelligence!"

Ha ha! Now that's funny! Oh man it's true too! I used to be able to do integrals in my head, but now I'm too slow!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by FLOYCE
That's Comrade White to you.
Boy, I bet you're popular with proletarians with that kind of sentiment! :lol:

[chimx]

imma break this down nice n' easy. yeah yeah, police are the enforcers of laws of capitalist governments, etc. etc. so fuck 'em.

two winters ago there was this really sad dog sitting outside my door at night. She had icles growing from her whiskers. now, the humane society was closed already, so i called the police and they came down and picked the dog up for me so she would be warm for the evening.

does that make me as counter-revolutinary as "Mr. White" seems to think? of course not. the reality of the situation is that police fulfill roles in our community that are not limited to "the defense of property and capitalism". just because we want to get rid of police doesn't mean we want to get rid of people picking sad pathetic dogs up from my door step.

domestic violence, opportunism, and what-have-you need to be handled the same way as the pathetic dog story. the communities involved need to create institutions to deal with these (hopefullY) rare occurances. this does not mean the advocacy of policing agencies. it would also be sheer lunacy for any of us to sit here and dictate the manner in which these sort of institutions will form. that's for the communities to decide when the time comes.

k thx.

[amanondeathrow]

The police is the state. A police force of vigilantes is a fascist state.

No. A police force controlled by a corporatist ruling class is a fascist state.

A "Community Guard" or "People's Militia" controlled and organized by a State controlled by the working class is an arm of a socialist state.


Communism means no police of any kind. People will no longer be slaves with a slave mentality. They will act spontaneously, of their own accord and initiative, as they see fit.

Most people who call themselves communists would agree, but they would also recognize the threat posed by reactionaries during the socialist faze.

How can you expect to achieve a free communist society, which includes all you have mentioned, if the revolution is not safeguarded?

Capitalist will counter the revolution in an organized fashion; we must defend it in the same way or see another revolution sent to the dust bin of history.


The many posters here of petty-capitalist family origin are completely in favor of various methods of replacing the current state/police with a different state/police. They do so to better advance their own property interests.

Yes I am trying to protect my and the working class's property interests as a whole. That is the nature of working class power. If I wanted to protect the ruling class’ property I would become a capitalist and oppose all revolution.

Stop trying to discredit pragmatic revolutionaries by accusing them of things you know are not true.


Let us have no illusions. Leftism is unprincipled opportunism. Leftists today may be willing to promote fascism tomorrow as an acceptable substitute for socialism or anarchism or radical liberalism--if it helps advance their familial property interests.

How the fuck does supporting working class control of the state advance the ruling class's property interests?

Maybe you are one of the Fascist posters you spoke of early, trying to make communism look illogical.


Every advocacy of small specialized bodies of organized violence is advocacy of class society.

You give support for a return to class society when you oppose fighting the reactionaries.

If we don't defend the revolution in an organized manner, there will be no communism.


Before the achievement of the future world communist society--while there is still class struggle going on--the method of the working class is mass direct action--not special violent organizations.

You can't expect every man women and child to fight against the counter revolutionaries.

Who will feed them?

It would be good to have as many people as possible serving in the "Para police", but having everyone will just not be pragmatic.

Maybe there could be some kind of rotation.


...only then you may have earned the right to critique my personal take on anti-violence. Until then, you're just blowing hot air.

It doesn’t take a lot to reveal the illogical nature of Ghandite non violence.

[chimx]

why do you keep talking about "socialist faze" malarky. we are talking about real communism god damn it.

[amanondeathrow]

why do you keep talking about "socialist faze" malarky. we are talking about real communism god damn it.

Because you cannot expect to reach real communism without going through a socialist faze, where the working class consolidates its power and protects the gains of the revolution.

[Floyce White]

Dee: "Capitalist will counter the revolution in an organized fashion; we must defend it in the same way or see another revolution sent to the dust bin of history. . . .

"If we don't defend the revolution in an organized manner, there will be no communism. "

You really ought to read someone's writings before arguing with him. As I said in my article Communism Means Communes (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A18):

"When the revolution begins and the commune is formed, the lower class takes the initiative and moves from defense to offense. The slogan 'defend the revolution' is exposed as a provocation to snarl revolutionary advance."

If we sit back and wait for anti-worker forces to attack, we will lose. There is no other possible outcome for a "defensive revolt." It is a flawed theory. For workers' revolution to be sucessful, it must be truly massive and extremely aggressive. Whatever defense will occur, will be of the type "defense within the offense."

Dee: "Stop trying to discredit pragmatic revolutionaries by accusing them of things you know are not true."

I don't see why you take this personally. Computers cost money. Internet access costs money. Working-class people are on the Internet far less because, for many of them, access is at work or school for very limited periods. And many lower-class people with home computers who can afford Internet--have pokey phone modems and therefore accomplish far less reading and posting. Most political activism in developed countries is currently by the petty bourgeoisie, and this carries over into political message boards. Thus, most of the posters here are petty bourgeois. Do you have some big disagreement with this analysis?

Dee: "How does supporting working class control of the state advance the ruling class's property interests?"

Your definition of the state is in error.

Dee: "Maybe you are one of the fascist posters you spoke of early, trying to make communism look illogical."

You, not I, propose a "defensive revolt."

[Armed_Philosopher]

Authoritarian Communism doesnt have the muscle to take over the US. Either you will have to adapt to the reality of that, or you will get wiped out. You simply dont have the muscle to claim total control of the country.

If the US were to fall, regional autonomous systems would be developed out of nessesity.

If you try and create a national state for the US, you will get wiped out, because there are not enough people who agree with the philosophy of Authoritarian Communism or Dictatorships.

[amanondeathrow]

If we sit back and wait for anti-worker forces to attack, we will lose. There is no other possible outcome for a "defensive revolt."

A people's militia would not "sit back" until they were attack, they would use their intelligence to hunt down reactionaries and prevent a counter revolution.

Workers would be forced to fight a defensive battle if they were not organized.


For workers' revolution to be sucessful, it must be truly massive and extremely aggressive.


Exactly. I don’t understand why we disagree, we both want the revolution to be lead by working class and we both want them to always have the best possible means to fight an offensive battle against reaction.

You can call it what ever you want but the workers must be organized or they will have to fight a defensive war against the well disciplined reactionaries, and will most likely loss.



Dee: "Stop trying to discredit pragmatic revolutionaries by accusing them of things you know are not true."

I don't see why you take this personally.

I take it personally because it was directed against me and others who understand the important role organized worker will play it achieving communism.

You seem to have no other choice but to attack the personal economic circumstances of someone you don’t even know.


Your definition of the state is in error.

A state is the institution one class uses to protect its interests from another class.

How is this "in error"?


Authoritarian Communism doesnt have the muscle to take over the US. Either you will have to adapt to the reality of that, or you will get wiped out. You simply dont have the muscle to claim total control of the country.


"I" am not trying to take total control of the country; it is the job of the working class as a whole. If you consider this authoritarian then so be it, but I assure you the working class has enough among its ranks to gain complete control.


If the US were to fall, regional autonomous systems would be developed out of nessesity.

And if these systems are not organized together in some fashion then reactionaries will have any easy time wiping out one after the other.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 18 2006, 05:04 AM
I don't see why you take this personally. Computers cost money. Internet access costs money. Working-class people are on the Internet far less because, for many of them, access is at work or school for very limited periods. And many lower-class people with home computers who can afford Internet--have pokey phone modems and therefore accomplish far less reading and posting. Most political activism in developed countries is currently by the petty bourgeoisie, and this carries over into political message boards. Thus, most of the posters here are petty bourgeois. Do you have some big disagreement with this analysis?
"petty bourgeois" was a term applied to proto-capitalist artisans within europe during the period of industrialization. to apply the term today is to misconstrue its historical significance. if you want to call people "middle class" or "privleged", then fucking say it and stop beating around the bush with anachronistic terminology.

[Floyce White]

Dee: "Exactly. I don’t understand why we disagree, we both want the revolution to be lead by working class and we both want them to always have the best possible means to fight an offensive battle against reaction."

Here is what I think we're disagreeing about:

1. "...we both want the revolution to be lead by working class..."

a. The method of leaders and followers reproduces the society of masters and servants. I oppose the concept and practice of "leadership."

b. The working-class rebellion is not just "lead" by the working class, it is wholly done by the working class. Upper-class persons are the enemy. Their role in the revolt is that of the opponent.

2. "...fight an offensive battle against reaction. . . . And if these systems are not organized together in some fashion then reactionaries will have any easy time wiping out one after the other."

I discussed in depth the definition of the word "leftism" in my third post at RL (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=42555&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291971763). Reaction (rightism) is a form of procapitalism, but so is progress (leftism). Both are equally enemy camps. The battle is against both reaction and progress. If the enemy on the right flank is attacked while ignoring the enemy on the left, the progressives "will have an easy time wiping out one after the other."

Dee: "I take it personally because it was directed against me and others who understand the important role organized worker will play it achieving communism.

"You seem to have no other choice but to attack the personal economic circumstances of someone you don’t even know."

All capitalists are the enemies of all working-class people. The statement was directed against the capitalists who post here. If you are not of upper-class family origins, the statement was not directed against you. If you are, it was.

If you read the post again, you will see that I was responding at length to a remark made by Janus. The passage in question clearly says "they" and not "Dee."

Dee: "A state is the institution one class uses to protect its interests from another class.

"How is this 'in error?'"

Again, you really should read someone's writings before arguing with him. I addressed this exact and specific issue in my essay Communism Means Communes (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A18). In that article I said:

"Terrorism by special small bodies is the method of struggle of the propertied. Direct mass action is the method of struggle of the dispossessed. Police, courts, and jails are not classless forms that could be filled with any class content. Their opposite--the self-mobilization of the working class--is also not a classless form that could 'follow' hierarchical 'leadership.' The strategy of arming a special body to rule over others cannot be reconciled with the strategy of the masses arming themselves to end the system of rulers and ruled. Before, during, or after the revolution, to subordinate working-class struggle to the functions of governmental bodies is unrepentant liberalism."

Also, in What Is Communism and How Can We Achieve It? (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A13) I said:

"The whole point of overthrowing the state through revolution is not to secure reforms, not to 're-form' the state, but to create favorable conditions to rapidly shatter all forms of class society."

Furthermore, in this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=42974&hl=&view=findpost&p=1291995757) I showed that the concept that lower and upper classes equally fight for "self-interest" is sophistry. The dispossessed lower class does not "protect its interests" because it has no property interests to protect.

[Janus]

I want to say this very clearly. Let us break cleanly from the filthy Internet habit of using the debaters' trick of insinuating that "misunderstanding" prevents clear discussion, and its cohort of pretending to not have used a debaters' trick (plausible deniability is itself another debaters' trick). I don't think you're trying to obfuscate, so let us be direct with each other. I will say what I think rather than guess what others think, and leave it to others to state clearly their own opinions. I hope you will be amenable to this approach.
Sure, comrade.

What I was saying is that I don't think anyone here is talking about a conventional police, which we have now, when they use the word police in the context of a post-revolutionary society. Many of us are using it because there aren't many other words that could describe the type of force that would be necessary.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:34 PM
and thats life under anarchism


No thank you
You are a complete and utter idiot. You're a mini-Miles who comes of with crazy, random anti-Anarchist bullshit. You should remove the CL logo, you're just giving them a bad image. You have posted idiotic things in the past but I let them slip but I honestly can't believe you posted that. I just can't.

Anyway RPAS :)

Under Capitalism violent crimes like beating, etc are considered crimes against the state, not against the victim. This is an obviously incorrect view of the crime. Under a Socialist system (although we can't be certain), justice would be administered by worker's militias or some other collective - the victim would be rallied around and the perpatrator banished from the community

On Janus' comment about Anarchism/Socialism reducing violent crimes I can't agree - much of violent crime is motiveless. I still agree with the basic premise that a lot of crime would be eradicated under Socialism and rape would decrease I feel that some crimes are inexplicable :(

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:15 AM
t would also be sheer lunacy for any of us to sit here and dictate the manner in which these sort of institutions will form. that's for the communities to decide when the time comes.
Actually yeah :lol:

That's what I meant to say

[Messiah]

I just wanted to comment on the ide of executions and the death penalty in general. I'm against it, regardless of if we're talking about a socialist society or not. My point is, under revolutionary principles, does it not stand to reason that excoumincation from the community makes more sense than execution? We have no right to ever claim anyone has voided their right to life, even if they have killed someone else. However we do have the right to refuse them our aid and community support. Thus, the effective boycott any and all resources to the individual who has been convicted of the crime seems to make more sense me. We won't kill you, but we're not going to have you in our community any longer.

[LoneRed]

but where would they go? to a different socialist society in some other continent? because if all societies kick them out, wouldnt it just be death by default?

[Janus]

P.R., there's no reason why you needed to flame LoneRed above.


On Janus' comment about Anarchism/Socialism reducing violent crimes I can't agree - much of violent crime is motiveless. I still agree with the basic premise that a lot of crime would be eradicated under Socialism and rape would decrease I feel that some crimes are inexplicable
I never said they would reduce violent crimes. I said that a communist society would get rid of economically motivated ones, which include violent crimes as well. Crimes can usually be traced particularly in people who have had troubled lives and other disorders.