Why are many leftists so anti-police?

[SocialistMilitant]

Yes I understand some of the tactics, racial profiling, etc. are just inhumane. But some leftists actually think we are better off with no police, corrections officers, security, etc. I don't agree with it. What does everyone else think?

[Faux Real]

"You have the emergence in human society
Of this thing that's called the State
What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy
It is the po-lice department. It is the Army, the Navy
It is the prison system, the courts, and what have you
This is the State -- it is a repressive organization
But the state -- 'and gee, well, you know,
You've got to have the police, cause..
If there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to yourselves!
You'd be killing each other if there were no police!'
But the reality is..
The police become necessary in human society
Only at that junction in human society
Where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got"

This pretty much sums up my stance on why there shouldn't be police.

[Tatarin]

But some leftists actually think we are better off with no police,

The job of the police has almost always been to protect capitalism. The police would be replaced with a community militia. Most crimes, based on private property, would disappear.


corrections officers,

Why can't this be done in a community? There would of course be help for those who have committed crime...


security,

Security would automatically come with the opening of community and the reduction of alienation. It would come naturally as criminal gangs would slowly disappear.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:44 am
"You have the emergence in human society
Of this thing that's called the State
What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy
It is the po-lice department. It is the Army, the Navy
It is the prison system, the courts, and what have you
This is the State -- it is a repressive organization
But the state -- 'and gee, well, you know,
You've got to have the police, cause..
If there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to yourselves!
You'd be killing each other if there were no police!'
But the reality is..
The police become necessary in human society
Only at that junction in human society
Where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got"

This pretty much sums up my stance on why there shouldn't be police.
You don't happen to listen to Dead Prez, do you?
:P


-------------

Anyway, I think you, SocialistMilitant, have misunderstood the stance of revolutionary leftists on the pigs.
I'll only speak for myself here, as an anarchist.
I reject the police, because they're a repressive institution, which exists to defend the interests of the ruling class. That is the purpose of their existence under a capitalist system. Why should I support such an institution. It doesn't bring justice, does it? How can it? It exists to enforce the law; laws made by the ruling class to defend their institutions, and their system - a system, with its foundations on oppression and robbery.

But I suppose I should ask, why don't you just view an anarchist (or whatever) text on it to get an insight? And why do you support the police? What purpose does their existence serve in your opinion?

[manic expression]

Well, comrade, I also found this a bit confusing at first. However, if you involve yourself in revolutionary organizations for long enough, you'll definitely experience firsthand the precise reasons why we loathe the cops. Aside from oftentimes being habitual bullies (pushing people around and bossing them just because they have a gun and can use it without consequences), they make life much harder for anyone who's not in the "good old boys club" (ie minorities, leftists, people who dress differently from businessmen, youths, etc).

We don't JUST hate them because we all decided it on an internet forum, our dislike comes directly from real experiences we've had (experiences that you'll probably become acquainted with in time, as well).

Oh, and read the quote by rev0lt, it's spot on. The police force exists to protect private property and the capitalist system. If you look at the history of the modern police force, it started at around the 1850-60's: when capitalism really got going.

[Demogorgon]

Why are so many mice anti-cat? :lol:

[RNK]

We don't need police. What we need is armed popular defense; a "security force" run not by the state and the government (as the police are) but by the democratic rule of the people they protect.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In brief, leftists are anti-police because the police is anti-leftist.

It is important to realize that the police was created as - and to a large extent remains - a tool to enforce the will of the ruling class on society. Over time, the ruling class discovered that it is easier for the police to keep workers pacified if it puts on a more benevolent face and pretends to exist for the benefit of society. So, in addition to enforcing class hierarchy, the police took on the role of fighting crime. This happened relatively recently - less than a hundred years ago in most places.

Do we need a way to track down murderers, rapists and so on and to punish them? Yes, of course. But these are only secondary functions of the police; most police activity is dedicated to enforcing property rights, keeping mass protests in check, etc. In earlier times, breaking up strikes and beating up workers was a favourite police passtime.

[Edgar]

The police are agents of the bourgeoisie. Period. They exist to act as a front line buffer between the mases and the ruling class. They want to "keep the peace", which necessarily means protecting the capitalist status quo against those, like us, seeking to overthrow it. When the revolution comes, the police will not be on our side.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Some crime is committed by proletarians against other proletarians' meager possessions. This is a trend that the police pays a token heed too. But crime of this type is usually committed because the perpetrator needs what the economy has given to one and not the other. When the state is no more and capitalism is nothing but a standing joke among intellectuals, there will be no more private property to steal, no more economy giving an incentive for theft, and thus no more need for the token assistance that the police provides.

As for vandalism, treason, and violent civil unrest, it is obvious that, without national-capitalism, there will be neither need to commit nor to defeat them. Violent crime such as murder and rape will be dealt with by communal militias. If the perpetrator flees, nearby communes will be warned of the escapee.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:37 pm
Yes I understand some of the tactics, racial profiling, etc. are just inhumane. But some leftists actually think we are better off with no police, corrections officers, security, etc. I don't agree with it. What does everyone else think?
I think police are ****s :D surprise surprise. They protect the state and the rich whilst helping keep the working class in thier place. Over and above that personal experience reinforces that view.

Back in the late 80s I and a few friends formed an apolitical youth rights group. We did nothing illegal, indeed even had people sitting on a local council committee or two. Every member of that group who ever put thier name to paper was arrested, photographed, and fingerprinted on some trumped up charge, that was subsiquently dropped.

I've had my flat raided for nothing more than the fact I was a hunt sab. I've been stopped and searched numerous times because of the way I look. I've had friends convicted on dodgey evidence.

[Bilan]

Why do we insist on hasty generalizations? Why is this board so ridden with fallacies?

Well, actually, what he said was true. There would be a decline in property crime for the obvious reason that property would be held in common. It's kind of a logical outcome.


You will never convince anyone of anything if you take extreme positions such as this and make blanket statements. Clearly the police are at times appendages of the state but there are countless instances where they are not. Case in point, the New York Police Department's actions on 9/11 had nothing to do with "protect[ing] capitalism". These were men motivated to save lives, workers, bourgeoisie, whoever.

That's exactly right. The police, as well as hundreds of volunteers all did this, with the intentions of saving/rescuing anyone they possibly could.
That doesn't make the police, as an institution, any less repressive, and doesn't change the fact that they're an institution which exists to defend the interests of the state.


9/11 is a single example indicative of a general pattern; that there are no patterns. Declaring the police as an absolute evil almost solely associated with capitalism is a cop-out (pun intended).

The police are a product of the state.
They, as individuals, are not "evil". No one has said that.
What's been said is that the police are a repressive organization, which exist to defend the interests of the state, which, in most cases, is the bloody case!
There are exceptions, but that doesn't change what the institution is.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 09, 2007 03:11 pm

The job of the police has almost always been to protect capitalism. The police would be replaced with a community militia. Most crimes, based on private property, would disappear.
Why do we insist on hasty generalizations? Why is this board so ridden with fallacies?

You will never convince anyone of anything if you take extreme positions such as this and make blanket statements. Clearly the police are at times appendages of the state but there are countless instances where they are not. Case in point, the New York Police Department's actions on 9/11 had nothing to do with "protect[ing] capitalism". These were men motivated to save lives, workers, bourgeoisie, whoever. 9/11 is a single example indicative of a general pattern; that there are no patterns. Declaring the police as an absolute evil almost solely associated with capitalism is a cop-out (pun intended).
Compare and Contrast this to Police's, and the State as a whole, actions concerning Hurricane Katrina.

Ah, the rabbit hole gets deeper.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:37 pm
... some leftists actually think we are better off with no police, corrections officers, security, etc. I don't agree with it.
i take it youve never been on a big demonstration. :lol:

[RGacky3]

The problem is in my eyes that some leftists view people as enemies, not institutions and systems. Poliece are not nessesarily bad, many if not most of them become poliece to serve the community, with no idea of 'protecting the capitalist system' they don't see it that way. Now obviously the institution has a lot to do with protecting the system, but we should'nt transfer the hate to people.

[Comrade Rage]

It's true that when police join up or recruit, they are mainly thinking of protecting people or shaking them down. They don't take the class dynamic into thought, but they DO enforce it, and it's their actions that count.

I live in a rough area, so I do support them in terms of combating violence. When somebody gets shot (only about once or twice a year now) on my block I will call the police. I still see the need for a complete restructuring of law enforcement however.

[OrderedAnarchy]

The police are not solely in existence for the protection of the state.Sure, and the purpose of the army is not national security and foreign conquest.

Just because soldiers have saved people in the past does not imply that the army is not a tool of destruction, just as the actions of a few good cops do not justify the existence of the police. If there were no state, there would be no police; violent criminals would be punished by constitutional militias. like on 9/11, catastrophes would be dealt with by people motivated by their love for humanity to risk their lives and help save those of others.

[Tatarin]

Oppose authoritarian and unjust actions by the police but do not condemn the entire institution.

There is no other way than to call the police when it involves killing - exactly because they have the means to do so. You can't go out and act as the law, simply because you have no authority to do so - no matter how good and just your intentions are.


The police are not solely in existence for the protection of the state.

All forms of "security" exsits for the protection of something, and have always been. If the police wouldn't do anything for society, but everything for the state, we would have revolution pretty soon.

But when the very foundations of private property comes into the picture, what will matter most is the survival of those who gains from private property. Even if that must mean that hundreds or even thousands will die. Does that mean that every single cop out there will simply ignore everything? Of course not - but that would be breaking the rules.

[Fawkes]

Why are so many leftists so anti-police?
Because most of us have experienced first-hand the abuse of the police.

[RNK]

Oppose authoritarian and unjust actions by the police but do not condemn the entire institution.

This is a very infantile thing to say. The entire institution is built on authoritarian and unjust principles; it is a special group of armed thugs in the service of the state, carrying out what is in the state's best interest and it will never be otherwise because that is the definition of the police, the army, national security, etc.

It needs to be supplanted and abolished. The "special group" of armed men must be replaced by the "mass group" of armed workers, of popular militias, of security forces that are made up of the population, whose leaders are elected by the population, and so on and so forth; in essence, it must be answerable not to the state machine but to the people, directly, and in doing so it would lose its character of being "police" in the common sense and would certainly no longer be the institution we conventionally call the "police". So, yes, we must confront both the individuals and the instition as both go against the very concept of popular rule.

[Tower of Bebel]

The police is a product of the bourgeoisie's fear of the class struggle within the capitalist system. The police is there to protect the State, the State is there to protect the bourgeoisie. Destroying the capitalist State will make an end to the police force.

[SpikeyRed]

I just have a few relevant anecdotes too add and a point too make about individuals in the Police force.

At a recent meeting of my party, we had a discussion about the state, heavily focusing on 'The Police'. One of our main organizers made a good comparison. He was on a recent civil disobedience action to picket the launching dinner of a 'National Security' conference at Melbourne uni, which was featuring big buisness rep's and sessions such as 'The Threat of Muslim Population growth in Australia'. Within 20 minutes, 40 police turned up and threatened to arrest anyone who continued to picket, so that these racist Bourgeois could have their fancy dinner. Several months prior too that, the same Organiser, who lives in a set of flats in a very working-class neighborhood was robbed, along with the 3 other families on his floor. Flat's completely overturned and thousnads of dollars of possessions missing. The police took 6 hours to send one policeman too fill out a form and then go back to the station. I think the contrast is stark enough to draw your own conclusion.

At the North Fitzroy public housing estate, Atherton Gardens, groups of Vietnamese and Sudanese teenagers are brawling for control of the single basketball court, that must be shared between 3000 residents (due to lack of State-government funding), at late hours of the night\early hours of the morning. The Residents have asked for a police patrol to create a prescence and help prevent the fights, however the local police have refused to create that presence.

Finally, my first majorly negative experience with the police was on the way to the 2007 APEC summit in Sydney. The road convoy of a mini-bus and two sedans was pulled over into a secluded truck stop by a road block, and the 15 protestors surrounded by 40 Jump-suited 'Special Operations' police, 13 police vehicles, numerous, suited, 'APEC Investigation Squad' Detectives. 400km from Sydney, 'APEC' police, were conducting drug searches with sniffer dogs of protestors, conduction road worthies and searching vehicles etc etc. This was so blatantly an act of politically motivated intimidation and repression. One policeman told a member of our group that the police were looking for 'anything to trip us up on' and that they were 'going to find out where we were staying in Sydney and get us and then get us on the way back to Melbourne again' also that the police 'would be looking to smash us in Sydney [on the marches], had been told to smash us, and were going to smash us'. When the police found the diary of our main organizer on that trip, they went through it and took information from it.

I have a very negative attitude to the police as an institution, I agree with the general principles and idea's of community controlled and staffed militia to deal with violent crime and I wish too see the bringing down of the Capitalist state and the Police force with it.

However, I think it is important to see, and to attempt to draw out, the class divisions in the Police forces. When I was pulled over on my way to Sydney and talking to the average coppers who had only been told they were going on the operation that morning, who were only there to provide muscle power, all they wanted to do was get home and have their dinner, go and see their kids etc. Phrases like 'It's just a job mate' were common. Before you go flaming me that these people are class traitors, collaborators etc etc etc, just stop for a second. The average copper who signed up to 'protect society' and too have a job, while obviously not our best class ally, has the POTENTIAL to be useful and we should not write them all off as individuals. Lacking class consciousness is not a crime, and too deny class divisions within the police is ludicrous. In a revolutionary situation, it can be quite beneficial too be able to draw class division in institutions like the Police and the Military and to make the rank-and-file employee's in these institutions reject them and come to the side of the revolution. The Russian Revolution is a fantastic examlpe of this with the setting up of Soldiers soviets and the participation of Russian soldiers on the side of the working class.

In sum the points I want to illustrate is that the Police as an institution has the main role of protecting Private Property, the Bourgeois and their state, while using their role as protectors of the 'community' and such to pacify workers and too make people believe they are neccesary, usefull. I.E. trick the masses into consenting too their existence\actions.
However, as in most (if not all) Bourgeois institutions\companies, the police operate as class pyramid, with the support base coming from the labor of a rank-and-file layer, then progressing through too the top authority figures, and as Revolutionary-Leftists we need to illustrate this class division and win the support of the rank-and-file police to undermine the structure of the institution and thereby significantly weaken the Bourgeois state!

[blackstone]

Po-Po in action

TEANECK -- Three weeks after a half-dozen black middle school students received tickets for walking in the street after classes, some residents are still seething over what they call police harassment and racial profiling.

At the same time, however, school, town and police officials say they have taken steps to address concerns, improve communication and ensure that similar controversy is avoided in the future.

Last week a group of parents, teachers, administrators and residents of Hartwell Street -- where the tickets were issued, steps away from Thomas Jefferson Middle School -- met to discuss ways to reduce tension between students and police.

Antoine Green, the principal, said the school and the Police Department will work to increase interactions between individual officers and students, through small group sessions and informal gatherings, so that the children can become more familiar to the officers and vice versa.

He also said that any future effort to prevent jaywalking would be handled differently, with more parental involvement.

"I know that from a school perspective, we've dealt with the issue," he said.

Police are considering other ways to maintain pedestrian safety on Hartwell Street, which many of the school's students use to walk home, including the possibility of closing the street during arrival and dismissal hours, Township Manager Helene Fall said.

Mayor Elie Katz and Fall have met with Superintendent of Schools John Czeterko, members of the Board of Education and members of the parent-teacher organization to discuss the issue.

Still, plenty of anger remains among residents who see the ticketing -- and, even more so, the placing of students in police cars to be taken back to the school, at Green's request -- as a symptom of racial discrimination. Thomas Jefferson, like other Teaneck public schools, is predominantly black.

At a council meeting on Tuesday, several residents stood outside before the start, holding signs with messages like "End Racial Profiling" and "Equal Ticketing, Equal Policing, Justice For All!"

A number of residents spoke during the meeting, pushing the council to look into the matter further.

"I'm crushed and hurt by what I'm hearing tonight," said resident Ron Costello. "There's got to be a better way than this, because you are polarizing this town in a bad way."

Lonnie Cohen, another resident, asserted that the students' race was a factor.

"No other children would be treated like that except for black children, and you know it," Cohen declared.

Acting Police Chief Fred Ahearn and other town officials have rejected the notion that race was involved. The ticketing effort was a routine response to complaints from residents that has been used numerous times in other parts of town, they said.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:55 pm
received tickets for walking in the street after classes,
Eh?! Walking in the streets is an offence?!

Can people at least crawl, then?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:37 pm
Yes I understand some of the tactics, racial profiling, etc. are just inhumane. But some leftists actually think we are better off with no police, corrections officers, security, etc. I don't agree with it. What does everyone else think?
That police should be abolished; we don't need a corporation of specialists in applying violence against people.

They exist to protect capital; if capital no longer exist, they are useless.

What is really unsettling is that some of us seem to believe that the issue is a personal choice of individual policemen, instead of a social issue.

Luís Henrique

[blackstone]

rev0lt posted an excellent quotation from Omali Yeshitela, Chairmain of the African People's Socialist Party.



"You have the emergence in human society
Of this thing that's called the State
What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy
It is the po-lice department. It is the Army, the Navy
It is the prison system, the courts, and what have you
This is the State -- it is a repressive organization
But the state -- 'and gee, well, you know,
You've got to have the police, cause..
If there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to yourselves!
You'd be killing each other if there were no police!'
But the reality is..
The police become necessary in human society
Only at that junction in human society
Where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got"




The Chairman talks alot about the State and its functions in alot of his talks, lectures and presentations that he gives around the globe. Here's an excerpt about the State from a talk he presented at The African Socialist International 2006 Conference.


The State as an apparatus of oppression

In human society, we have seen that any time there is this contradiction in society that emerges between the haves and the have nots — and those who have have it as a consequence of expropriating value from those who do not have — there must be some instrument in order to maintain that order.

If you look in the United States, it’s common to see people standing in front of these little stores with Styrofoam cups begging for money that they might buy something to eat with on one hand. On the other hand, you will find supermarkets that are filled with food, sometimes overflowing. At the end of the day, if they have food left, they will take it and throw it away rather than give it to the people because if they give it to the people then the value of the food goes down from their perspective.

Now what is it that prevents the person with the Styrofoam cup begging for food from simply going into the supermarket with a shopping cart and getting everything they need to eat? It is the State in the form of the police.

In the United States, you find that a lot of people have no place to live. I’ve seen that in Ghana and other places, too. They sleep under bridges, in the bushes and other places. At the same time, you find there are abandoned houses all over the place. Empty houses.

What is it that stands between a homeless person with no place to stay and those empty houses that should otherwise be available? It’s the State in the form of the police.

There are hospitals where there are empty beds everywhere and sick people everywhere. What is it that stands between a sick person and one of those empty beds if you don’t have any money?

If you don’t have any money, you take yourself and get in one of those beds and see how quick the police will be there to get you out. It’s the State.

The point that I’m making is that the State is this organization that emerges that has to be there to protect the status quo. It is a repressive entity. It is there for repression. That’s the only purpose of the State.

[SocialistMilitant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:44 pm

corrections officers,

Why can't this be done in a community? There would of course be help for those who have committed crime...
What do you mean done in a community? How would that go about?

[Tatarin]

What do you mean done in a community?

Well, in essence, the community does the whole policing, and by it's own rules instead of the rules from a huge unseen institution that may not have the community's best in mind.


How would that go about?

Well, the community would first and foremost decide on what rules to abide to, and what to do of those who break those rules. The goal (or "a" goal) should be that ordinary people themselves follow and uphold the law of the community. If many don't care or let "crime" happen, then something is not right, and the best thing to do would be to assemble the community and think through it.

Secondly, a standing police force is not something we want. The community would be armed and fight crime as a group of people when it is necessary (like when there is a serial killer running around). Any standing armed force is, in my eyes, a sign that something is wrong in the society.

[AAFCE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm

What do you mean done in a community?

Well, in essence, the community does the whole policing, and by it's own rules instead of the rules from a huge unseen institution that may not have the community's best in mind.


How would that go about?

Well, the community would first and foremost decide on what rules to abide to, and what to do of those who break those rules. The goal (or "a" goal) should be that ordinary people themselves follow and uphold the law of the community. If many don't care or let "crime" happen, then something is not right, and the best thing to do would be to assemble the community and think through it.

Secondly, a standing police force is not something we want. The community would be armed and fight crime as a group of people when it is necessary (like when there is a serial killer running around). Any standing armed force is, in my eyes, a sign that something is wrong in the society.
I agree with this person.


What about Military though?
If we had a nice community going, and some clown show rolled up, and tried to invade, would the community just stick together and fight together?

Would there just be a already pre thought out miltia or what?


Sorry, im new to this :)

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by TheNewGuy+October 24, 2007 01:16 am--> (TheNewGuy @ October 24, 2007 01:16 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm

What do you mean done in a community?

Well, in essence, the community does the whole policing, and by it's own rules instead of the rules from a huge unseen institution that may not have the community's best in mind.


How would that go about?

Well, the community would first and foremost decide on what rules to abide to, and what to do of those who break those rules. The goal (or "a" goal) should be that ordinary people themselves follow and uphold the law of the community. If many don't care or let "crime" happen, then something is not right, and the best thing to do would be to assemble the community and think through it.

Secondly, a standing police force is not something we want. The community would be armed and fight crime as a group of people when it is necessary (like when there is a serial killer running around). Any standing armed force is, in my eyes, a sign that something is wrong in the society.
I agree with this person.


What about Military though?
If we had a nice community going, and some clown show rolled up, and tried to invade, would the community just stick together and fight together?

Would there just be a already pre thought out miltia or what?


Sorry, im new to this :) [/b]
Yes a militia under the control of the workers councils.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by ComradeR+October 24, 2007 04:00 am--> (ComradeR @ October 24, 2007 04:00 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:16 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm

What do you mean done in a community?

Well, in essence, the community does the whole policing, and by it's own rules instead of the rules from a huge unseen institution that may not have the community's best in mind.


How would that go about?

Well, the community would first and foremost decide on what rules to abide to, and what to do of those who break those rules. The goal (or "a" goal) should be that ordinary people themselves follow and uphold the law of the community. If many don't care or let "crime" happen, then something is not right, and the best thing to do would be to assemble the community and think through it.

Secondly, a standing police force is not something we want. The community would be armed and fight crime as a group of people when it is necessary (like when there is a serial killer running around). Any standing armed force is, in my eyes, a sign that something is wrong in the society.
I agree with this person.


What about Military though?
If we had a nice community going, and some clown show rolled up, and tried to invade, would the community just stick together and fight together?

Would there just be a already pre thought out miltia or what?


Sorry, im new to this :)
Yes a militia under the control of the workers councils. [/b]
Yeah, at this point its good to reference the EZLN and the Zapatistas.

The ‘Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee’ (CCRI) is the body that commands the army. This body (or indeed bodies as there are also regional CCRI’s) is composed of delegates from the communities.

Marcos, describing some of the decision making process..


"In any moment, if you hold a position in the community (first, the community has to have appointed you independent of your political affiliation), the community can remove you. There isn’t a fixed term that you have to complete. The moment that the community begins to see that you are failing in your duties, that you are having problems, they sit you down in front of the community and they begin to tell you what you have done wrong. You defend yourself and finally the community, the collective, the majority decides what they are going to do with you. Eventually, you will have to leave your position and another will take up your responsibilities.

.. strategic decisions, important decisions have to be made democratically, from below, not from above. If there is going to be an action or series of actions that are going to implicate the entire organization, the authority has to come from below. In this sense, even the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee isn’t able to make every decision. You could say that the EZLN is different because in most political-military organizations there is only one commander, and in the EZLN the Clandestine Committees are composed of 80 people, 100 people, 120 people or however many. But this is not the difference. The difference is that even the Clandestine Committees cannot make certain decisions, the most important decisions. They are limited to such a degree that the Clandestine Committees cannot decide which path the organization is going to follow until every companero is consulted" [15]

The first interview[6] with CCRI members in Feb. 1994 also included the first mention of this form of decision making. (The interviews questions are in bold):

"How did you decide collectively to rise up in arms?"

"Oh, that has been going on for months now, since we had to ask the opinion of the people and because it was the people’s decision. Since, why would one small group decide to jump into war? And what if the people don’t support them? What if the people haven’t spoken yet? Then you can’t struggle in that way.

"It was the people themselves who said ‘Let’s begin already. We do not want to put up with any more because we are already dying of hunger.’ The leaders, the CCRI, the Zapatista Army, and the General Command, if the people say so, well then, we’re going to start. Respecting and obeying what the people ask. The people in general. That is how the struggle began."

"How did you carry out your assemblies?"

"They are done in each region; in each zone we ask the opinion of the people. Then that opinion is collected from different communities where there are Zapatistas. And Zapatistas are everywhere in the state of Chiapas. They are asked their opinion, to say what they want: if we should start the war or not."

"Will the people also be asked whether they want to negotiate?"

"We cannot dialogue or negotiate by ourselves. First we have to ask the people. At the state level, where there are companeros, we have to consult about whether we are going to negotiate or not over there. If the people say so, we are doing what the people say. Why? Because we are fulfilling our commitment to the people. Because the people have lived with this for so many years: a life that is so hard, with every kind of injustice. Because of this, it isn’t easy to enter the dialogue so quickly. If the people go to dialogue, well fine. If not, ‘sallright. No. That’s why it is not easy."

So even the CCRI does not have the power to make major decisions, such as to choose between peace and war. These must instead be made through a ‘consulta’.

As shown, there would be a armed body under the direct control of the community. The exact structure is up to the community to decide.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I am only "anti-police" when they exist for the purpose of protecting bourgeois property and the bourgeois state-- they don't exist in the United States for any more of a reason that than.

Therefore, when the bourgeoisie have control over the state, they have control over the police, too-- so basically the police will defend only the bourgeoisie. I am not in favor of police existing purely for securing the interests of the bourgeois ruling class.

Now, if the state was a worker's state and not a bourgeois state-- yes then the police are necessary-- but only when they serve the interests of the working-class and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[bezdomni]

The police are engaged in the day-to-day oppression of the masses. Their job is to enforce the status quo...so there is no possible way a person can be both a cop and a revolutionary in a bourgeois state.

I would be very surprised if more than a handful of cops (if even that) were to abandon their ranks and become revolutionaries in a revolutionary situation.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:09 pm
The police are engaged in the day-to-day oppression of the masses. Their job is to enforce the status quo...so there is no possible way a person can be both a cop and a revolutionary in a bourgeois state.

I would be very surprised if more than a handful of cops (if even that) were to abandon their ranks and become revolutionaries in a revolutionary situation.
that's why I hate police-- they defend the bourgeois state, and the bourgeoisie uses them as a tool in further exploiting the working-class.

[Marsella]

I am only "anti-police" when they exist for the purpose of protecting bourgeois property and the bourgeois state-- they don't exist in the United States for any more of a reason that than.

Therefore, when the bourgeoisie have control over the state, they have control over the police, too-- so basically the police will defend only the bourgeoisie. I am not in favor of police existing purely for securing the interests of the bourgeois ruling class.

Now, if the state was a worker's state and not a bourgeois state-- yes then the police are necessary-- but only when they serve the interests of the working-class and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You have just admitted that the police exist purely for the reason of protecting private property.

In a worker's 'state' what therefore, would be the purpose of the police force (apart from beating up dissidents)?

[Red Scare]

Modern Police=Fash

That sums up my positioning on the police.

They are simply there to protect the establishment by enforcing the laws of capitalism, that includes:
-Oppressing the poor and working class
-Crushing peaceful protests
-Tapping our phones and observing us so we do not slip up and question the government
-Taking away our right to riot :)
-Making sure we do not actually use free speech
-Murdering minorities and saying that they were attacked
-Being conservative bastards
-Cracking down on minorities and leftists that wanted to vote
-Kidnapping and torturing enemies of the state

Enough reasons for you?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 pm
Modern Police=Fash

That sums up my positioning on the police.

They are simply there to protect the establishment by enforcing the laws of capitalism, that includes:
-Oppressing the poor and working class
-Crushing peaceful protests
-Tapping our phones and observing us so we do not slip up and question the government
-Taking away our right to riot :)
-Making sure we do not actually use free speech
-Murdering minorities and saying that they were attacked
-Being conservative bastards
-Cracking down on minorities and leftists that wanted to vote
-Kidnapping and torturing enemies of the state

Enough reasons for you?
I completely agree with that. ^^


You have just admitted that the police exist purely for the reason of protecting private property.

In a worker's 'state' what therefore, would be the purpose of the police force (apart from beating up dissidents)?
the only purpose would be to eliminate threats to the worker's state (counterrevolutionaries, idiots defending the bourgeoisie, the former bourgeois ruling class.......)

[Marsella]

the only purpose would be to eliminate threats to the worker's state (counterrevolutionaries, idiots defending the bourgeoisie, the former bourgeois ruling class.......)

1. Shouldn't that be the job of the armed working class?

2. Do you really think that police officers are going to serve us?

3. If you had a choice between armed police officers and armed workers who would you choose?

4. Would a 'workers state' always have a police force, or only until said 'counter-revolutionaries' were destroyed?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:54 pm

the only purpose would be to eliminate threats to the worker's state (counterrevolutionaries, idiots defending the bourgeoisie, the former bourgeois ruling class.......)

1. Shouldn't that be the job of the armed working class?

2. Do you really think that police officers are going to serve us?

3. If you had a choice between armed police officers and armed workers who would you choose?

4. Would a 'workers state' always have a police force, or only until said 'counter-revolutionaries' were destroyed?
1.) yes, I am not advocating for police- however, I don't disregard the need for a standing army in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.) no, but a standing army can. (such as the red army which was appointed by the Council of People's Commissars during the time of the civil war) not to mention I see that as being necessary when trying to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats.

3.) I'd say that my above statement answers this question.

4.) not necessarily a police force, but an army serving to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats come the necessity.

a few questions--
1.) are you opposed to there being a vanguard? if so, why?
2.) do you view the "red guards" or the "red army" to have been necessary for elimination of counterrevolutionary threats? if not, why?
3.) when you speak of "armed working class" do you mean a state without a standing army but simply the working class eliminating threats themselves? and do you see a vanguard to be beneficial to a worker's state? if not, why?

this line of thinking seems to directly correlate with the idea of a vanguard not being of the interests of the working-class, so out of curiousity I ask these questions.

I see it to be necessary in regard to what needs to be done after the revolution for there to be a vanguard and for there to be a standing army appointed by the vanguard-- otherwise counterrevolutionary opponents will not be eliminated, at least not successfully.

[Marsella]

1.) yes, I am not advocating for police- however, I don't disregard the need for a standing army in the dictatorship of the proletariat.


How long does the dictatorship of the proletariat last?

Because the USSR had a standing army right up until its collapse.


1.) are you opposed to there being a vanguard? if so, why?

Yes, but I've explained by reasoning in other threads and I don't particularly want to side-step the purpose of this thread.



2.) do you view the "red guards" or the "red army" to have been necessary for elimination of counterrevolutionary threats? if not, why?

Firstly there is a big difference between the Red Guards and the Red Army.

The Red Guards were essentially armed workers.

The Red Army of course was essentially the former Russian Army taken over by good old Trotsky.

Secondly, the Red Army was peculiar to the circumstances of the WW1; the changed nature of armed warfare makes such an army redundant in fighting 'counter revolutionaries.' We aren't fighting trench warfare anymore.

Secondly, even if such a counter-revolution was attempted, it is almost impossible that it could defeat an entire armed population.

Of course if we depend entirely on the army and that army fails we are truly screwed.

Thus, the most effective option would be an armed militia of the working class.


3.) when you speak of "armed working class" do you mean a state without a standing army but simply the working class eliminating threats themselves? and do you see a vanguard to be beneficial to a worker's state? if not, why?

Certainly. We can never put our trust in the armed forces. They repeatedly show that they serve the reaction, especially now. Look at the German period of 1917-23 for an example.

I don't trust the US Army as far as I can throw them.

And if after all this we do put our trust in the defence forces, what happens when all is done? It is plausible in a revolutionary situation that an entire army could be withdrawn but if we rely on them they will continue to exist in post-revolutionary society.

And that is very undesirable.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

How long does the dictatorship of the proletariat last?

Because the USSR had a standing army right up until its collapse.
That cannot possibly be predicted in advance-- all depends on the circumstance.

And well, clearly, the worker's state was not in existence until it's collapse. After Stalin took power it simply dimished because of the bureaucracy. Therefore, the purpose of the standing army at that point was not the same as upon it's creation-- the difference being that after Stalin gained power it became a tool for the bureaucracy for the purpose of attaining their self-interested goals.


Yes, but I've explained by reasoning in other threads and I don't particularly want to side-step the purpose of this thread.
Fine, but remember that there is a significant correlation between the vanguard and the standing army-- at least with the arguments that have been given against both.


Firstly there is a big difference between the Red Guards and the Red Army.

The Red Guards were essentially armed workers.

The Red Army of course was essentially the former Russian Army taken over by good old Trotsky.

Secondly, the Red Army was peculiar to the circumstances of the WW1; the changed nature of armed warfare makes such an army redundant in fighting 'counter revolutionaries.' We aren't fighting trench warfare anymore.

Secondly, even if such a counter-revolution was attempted, it is almost impossible that it could defeat an entire armed population.

Of course if we depend entirely on the army and that army fails we are truly screwed.

Thus, the most effective option would be an armed militia of the working class.
The red army was only implemented as a way to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats during the time of the civil war. It wouldn't have been necessary if there weren't threats which needed to be eliminated. In order for the worker's state to be sustained such threats must be eliminated, otherwise it is impossible to ensure it's security.

I am simply arguing for the necessity of it during such times.


Certainly. We can never put our trust in the armed forces. They repeatedly show that they serve the reaction, especially now. Look at the German period of 1917-23 for an example.

I don't trust the US Army as far as I can throw them.

And if after all this we do put our trust in the defence forces, what happens when all is done? It is plausible in a revolutionary situation that an entire army could be withdrawn but if we rely on them they will continue to exist in post-revolutionary society.

And that is very undesirable.
The U.S. army serves in the interest of the bourgeois state-- it is controlled by the bourgeois ruling class (which I might add-- is in no way even comparable to an army seeking to defend the worker's state in the interests of the proletariat.).

I don't see the correlation or the problem you speak of-- and these are two entirely different 'states' you are speaking of.

In order for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be secured-- that cannot happen without a standing army-- there will be too many existent threats which seek to destroy the state.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+October 24, 2007 01:31 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ October 24, 2007 01:31 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 12:54 pm

the only purpose would be to eliminate threats to the worker's state (counterrevolutionaries, idiots defending the bourgeoisie, the former bourgeois ruling class.......)

1. Shouldn't that be the job of the armed working class?

2. Do you really think that police officers are going to serve us?

3. If you had a choice between armed police officers and armed workers who would you choose?

4. Would a 'workers state' always have a police force, or only until said 'counter-revolutionaries' were destroyed?
1.) yes, I am not advocating for police- however, I don't disregard the need for a standing army in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.) no, but a standing army can. (such as the red army which was appointed by the Council of People's Commissars during the time of the civil war) not to mention I see that as being necessary when trying to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats.

3.) I'd say that my above statement answers this question.

4.) not necessarily a police force, but an army serving to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats come the necessity.

a few questions--
1.) are you opposed to there being a vanguard? if so, why?
2.) do you view the "red guards" or the "red army" to have been necessary for elimination of counterrevolutionary threats? if not, why?
3.) when you speak of "armed working class" do you mean a state without a standing army but simply the working class eliminating threats themselves? and do you see a vanguard to be beneficial to a worker's state? if not, why?

this line of thinking seems to directly correlate with the idea of a vanguard not being of the interests of the working-class, so out of curiousity I ask these questions.

I see it to be necessary in regard to what needs to be done after the revolution for there to be a vanguard and for there to be a standing army appointed by the vanguard-- otherwise counterrevolutionary opponents will not be eliminated, at least not successfully. [/b]
Why is it necessary for the vanguard to appoint a standing army?

Earlier, i showed how the Zapatistas organize their armed wing, the EZLN.

The ‘Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee’ (CCRI) is the body that commands the army, in the case of the Zapatistas.

What that translates to is, delegates from the worker's councils and neighborhood/consumer councils of different municipalities are involved in the appointing process. No need for a vanguard, or vanguard party.


Why do you insist on a vanguard appointing people? It's not necessary.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Why is it necessary for the vanguard to appoint a standing army?

Earlier, i showed how the Zapatistas organize their armed wing, the EZLN.

The ‘Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee’ (CCRI) is the body that commands the army, in the case of the Zapatistas.

What that translates to is, delegates from the worker's councils and neighborhood/consumer councils of different municipalities are involved in the appointing process. No need for a vanguard, or vanguard party.


Why do you insist on a vanguard appointing people? It's not necessary.
I insist on it because it makes it less difficult to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats. it's also difficult to eliminate threats without a vanguard because without one there is limited organization-- threats can show up everywhere and it may be likely that they cannot be eliminated - and it is quite a bit easier for counterrevolutionary threats to manifest themselves than it would be with a vanguard and an army-- because its organized better and threats can be eliminated faster with such organization-- otherwise there's opportunity that you among others wont be aware of such threats and they may take opportunity as it comes to kill your comrades and by that time you may not be able to respond- and there's nothing preventing chaos from developing. that's just as bad as there being more than one vanguard.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 02:39 pm

Why is it necessary for the vanguard to appoint a standing army?

Earlier, i showed how the Zapatistas organize their armed wing, the EZLN.

The ‘Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee’ (CCRI) is the body that commands the army, in the case of the Zapatistas.

What that translates to is, delegates from the worker's councils and neighborhood/consumer councils of different municipalities are involved in the appointing process. No need for a vanguard, or vanguard party.


Why do you insist on a vanguard appointing people? It's not necessary.
I insist on it because it makes it less difficult to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats. it's also difficult to eliminate threats without a vanguard because without one there is limited organization-- threats can show up everywhere and it may be likely that they cannot be eliminated - and it is quite a bit easier for counterrevolutionary threats to manifest themselves than it would be with a vanguard and an army-- because its organized better and threats can be eliminated faster with such organization-- otherwise there's opportunity that you among others wont be aware of such threats and they may take opportunity as it comes to kill your comrades and by that time you may not be able to respond- and there's nothing preventing chaos from developing. that's just as bad as there being more than one vanguard.
I'm sorry, but that's all matter of opinion. You have yet to prove or give any substantial evidence that proves that a vanguard party makes it less difficult to eliminate counterrevolutionary threats.


it's also difficult to eliminate threats without a vanguard because without one there is limited organization-

How is there limited organization? Just because there is no vanguard, does not mean that society is disorganized. On the contrary, i posted how the Zapatistas organize themselves against threats or decide to mount an opposition. This is all done without a vanguard.


Otherwise there's opportunity that you among others wont be aware of such threats and they may take opportunity as it comes to kill your comrades and by that time you may not be able to respond

How would i not know? We are not living a society devoid of advanced technology and communication.

Example,

If commune A, is being attacked. Commune A will notify the Central Committee, which is made up of delegates of workers/consumers of all the different communes. This information will then be relayed to the militias of the communes, who then can gather to defend Commune A who is being attacked.

Where's the chaos?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 11, 2007 08:42 am
It's disappointing to see that so many lack a clear understanding of what exactly the police are: a vital part of the capitalist state.

A state is the forces of repression (especially armed bodies) used by one class to repress those it rules over.

When communists say we can't seize the capitalist state and use it for our ends (i.e. to reorganize society along socialist lines) we mean that we can't just take over the existing government, courts, police and military forces. Firstly, it's impossible; secondly, even if we could, we wouldn't be able to carry out our goals.

We must destroy the capitalist state and build a new, worker state in it's place.
I think it's more that some here are lacking in practical experience.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+October 24, 2007 03:19 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ October 24, 2007 03:19 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 11, 2007 08:42 am
It's disappointing to see that so many lack a clear understanding of what exactly the police are: a vital part of the capitalist state.

A state is the forces of repression (especially armed bodies) used by one class to repress those it rules over.

When communists say we can't seize the capitalist state and use it for our ends (i.e. to reorganize society along socialist lines) we mean that we can't just take over the existing government, courts, police and military forces. Firstly, it's impossible; secondly, even if we could, we wouldn't be able to carry out our goals.

We must destroy the capitalist state and build a new, worker state in it's place.
I think it's more that some here are lacking in practical experience. [/b]
yes, definitely.

I am not arguing for police though, I am arguing for a standing army-- there's a difference.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Communities can and will join in federations recognizing each community's autonomy. If the federalist body votes on something the community can simply not tolerate, it will have the right to remove itself, but it can likewise expect to not enjoy the same benefits. I'm not expert in speculation, but I see most federations allowing for the communities to decide the operations of their own protection, with agreements over how to handle certain situations [a murderer escaping to another community in that federation].

If for whatever reason there does exist a threat, the communities can come together in common defense.

I agree with what was said above. The police and courts must be destroyed before anything else can be done. [Note, I'm not advocating murder]

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 09:49 am

Now, if the state was a worker's state and not a bourgeois state-- yes then the police are necessary-- but only when they serve the interests of the working-class and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I am not arguing for police though, I am arguing for a standing army-- there's a difference.

Which is it? You are for the police or not for the police?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by TheNewGuy+October 23, 2007 05:16 pm--> (TheNewGuy @ October 23, 2007 05:16 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 04:32 pm

What do you mean done in a community?

Well, in essence, the community does the whole policing, and by it's own rules instead of the rules from a huge unseen institution that may not have the community's best in mind.


How would that go about?

Well, the community would first and foremost decide on what rules to abide to, and what to do of those who break those rules. The goal (or "a" goal) should be that ordinary people themselves follow and uphold the law of the community. If many don't care or let "crime" happen, then something is not right, and the best thing to do would be to assemble the community and think through it.

Secondly, a standing police force is not something we want. The community would be armed and fight crime as a group of people when it is necessary (like when there is a serial killer running around). Any standing armed force is, in my eyes, a sign that something is wrong in the society.
I agree with this person.


What about Military though?
If we had a nice community going, and some clown show rolled up, and tried to invade, would the community just stick together and fight together?

Would there just be a already pre thought out miltia or what?


Sorry, im new to this :) [/b]
The people of a community or federation of communities would be the militia. At least the people who want to participate in defense.

Communists really need to give up the idea of worker councils and what not. We are past the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the idea of workers and the modes of production aren't the same now. This isn't about workers this is about everybody.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by blackstone+October 25, 2007 11:19 am--> (blackstone @ October 25, 2007 11:19 am)
Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 09:49 am

Now, if the state was a worker's state and not a bourgeois state-- yes then the police are necessary-- but only when they serve the interests of the working-class and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I am not arguing for police though, I am arguing for a standing army-- there's a difference.

Which is it? You are for the police or not for the police? [/b]
No, I'm not arguing in favor of police.

However, I will say that of course there has to be some sort of armed body (and I don't think, that the such will be made up of simply workers, because it simply doesn't work. with a militia controlled by a large group, in such a situation it's likely that chaos will develop because in a time of revolutionary struggle that does happen, especially when there is no central power to organize it so that chaos won't develop in the process of attempting to eliminate threats to the worker's state. I don't think a militia controlled by many will successfully eliminate threats- especially given that threats within the militia are likely to develop which will eliminate the success of the militia in the first place.

[ComradeR]

Communists really need to give up the idea of worker councils and what not.
Only someone who is ignorant of what Socialism and communism is could say something like this. Socialism and communism is about the emancipation of the working class, this is archived by the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and installing workers control over the means of production and the creation of democracy. Workers councils are used to maintain this, what would you have in place of them?

We are past the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the idea of workers and the modes of production aren't the same now.
What really has changed? The means of production are still under the private ownership of the bourgeoisie who still exploit the proletariat. The only real difference now is that the working class in the "first world" have archived more rights and better living standards thanks to the struggles we have made, and also due to the labor aristocracy created by imperialism.

This isn't about workers this is about everybody.
Including the bourgeoisie? Of course it's about the workers, that's the whole point of communism, the emancipation of the working class.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Anyone can advocate against worker's councils, armed bodies and a vanguard but communist society can never be attained at all when the threats to it have not been eliminated and properly dealt with.

[spartan]

Why are so many leftists anti-Police?

Could it be because the Police are an instrument of the Bourgeoisie and used to uphold their laws which enforce their dominance over the Proletariat?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:35 am
Why are so many leftists anti-Police?

Could it be because the Police are an instrument of the Bourgeoisie and used to uphold their laws which enforce their dominance over the Proletariat?
Yes, that is my reason for opposing police-- though I don't agree that a standing army existing for the purpose of defending the worker's state is necessarily the same as a police force. These are two entirely different things.

[Dros]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the concept of the domestic police force. I think there is something to be said for having a professional CRIME fighting (as opposed to people fighting) force. However, in order for it to be effective it must be a communist police force, run by the proletariat as a class and in conjunction with the aims of socialism. While communism will inevitably reduce crime by ending certain forms of alienation and providing wealth to the poor, there will always be criminals. Thus, while I don't reject the notion of the police, I DO reject the modern institution of the police force because, like all facets of the bourgoisie system, it is a coercive structure designed to suppress the proletariat and to enforce bourgoisie supremacy over the means of production.

[Master_Morality]

From personal experience I would state that the modern police force (at least in the United States, and certainly in Mexico) is as stated a facet for the capitalist system in power. They may be in fact ordinary citizens who join the police force in order to provide safer communites. However they are drones of the system, at least in my hometown they act like drones as well. They enforce laws and policies of the corrupt government/legislature in Washington. It should be easy to be a "law abiding citizen" but for some reason I have had problems with this because of my use of psycotropic drugs. I won't get into it but those in power wish to squash this minority.

[Pawn Power]

this is why (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72513)


The Metropolitan police was today found guilty of a catastrophic series of errors during the operation that led to firearms officers shooting Jean Charles de Menezes dead on the London underground...De Menezes was shot seven times in the head by police who mistook him for one of four men...

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by drosera[email protected] 30, 2007 08:01 pm
I don't think there is anything wrong with the concept of the domestic police force. I think there is something to be said for having a professional CRIME fighting (as opposed to people fighting) force. However, in order for it to be effective it must be a communist police force, run by the proletariat as a class and in conjunction with the aims of socialism. While communism will inevitably reduce crime by ending certain forms of alienation and providing wealth to the poor, there will always be criminals. Thus, while I don't reject the notion of the police, I DO reject the modern institution of the police force because, like all facets of the bourgoisie system, it is a coercive structure designed to suppress the proletariat and to enforce bourgoisie supremacy over the means of production.
Are you arguing for or against police force-- or do you mean a standing army? (In regards to during the existence of a worker's state).

[Knight of Cydonia]

police, the army...i hate them both <_< well, mostly because they were just an instrument / puppets of the government...and i hate them because they were the one who shot some protestors and oftenly they got away.

and the bottom line is....me, as a leftist hate the police because they were such a government puppets asshole.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:22 am
police, the army...i hate them both <_< well, mostly because they were just an instrument / puppets of the government...and i hate them because they were the one who shot some protestors and oftenly they got away.

and the bottom line is....me, as a leftist hate the police because they were such a government puppets asshole.
police and army forces existent under the bourgeois state are to be eliminated, of course-- but even in a worker&#39;s state-- certain measures have to be taken to eliminate threats, and a standing army is one of them.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda
certain measures have to be taken to eliminate threats, and a standing army is one of them.
so are you trying to say that, the protestor, revolutionist, people who demand justice is a threat? i think the only good use of standing army is at a warzone.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Maya+November 05, 2007 08:31 am--> (Maya &#064; November 05, 2007 08:31 am)
Comrade Nadezhda
certain measures have to be taken to eliminate threats, and a standing army is one of them.
so are you trying to say that, the protestor, revolutionist, people who demand justice is a threat? i think the only good use of standing army is at a warzone.[/b]
No, but I am speaking in regards to revolutionary movement-- by saying that there is necessity for eliminating counterrevolutionary and bourgeois threats to secure the movement, therefore there should be an armied body to eliminate these threats effectively.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 06, 2007 12:07 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 06, 2007 12:07 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:31 am

Comrade Nadezhda
certain measures have to be taken to eliminate threats, and a standing army is one of them.
so are you trying to say that, the protestor, revolutionist, people who demand justice is a threat? i think the only good use of standing army is at a warzone.
No, but I am speaking in regards to revolutionary movement-- by saying that there is necessity for eliminating counterrevolutionary and bourgeois threats to secure the movement, therefore there should be an armied body to eliminate these threats effectively. [/b]
That armed body should never include the standing army.

If anything the first move would be to call for the abolishment of that army and probably execute a majority of the officers of the old standing army.

Because if we don&#39;t act ruthlessly towards those serial killer pigs then you can bet that they will take any opportunity they can to crush any real movement and ensure their status quo.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:43 am
That armed body should never include the standing army.

If anything the first move would be to call for the abolishment of that army and probably execute a majority of the officers of the old standing army.

Because if we don&#39;t act ruthlessly towards those serial killer pigs then you can bet that they will take any opportunity they can to crush any real movement and ensure their status quo.
It isn&#39;t possible for there to be an unorganized body of "armed workers" and I know this is exactly what you are implying based upon your previous responses-- but with the such, it is impossible to effectively eliminate counterrevolutionary and bourgeois threats-- as such threats will come to exist within the revolutionary movement.

[Marsella]

Why?&#33;

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:15 am
Why?&#33;
having a body of workers is chaotic. it is impossible that threats won&#39;t develop within it-- there is no way of knowing that all workers are favoring the revolutionary movement and not working to assist counterrevolutionaries in harming the progress of the movement-- therefore if a movement is to ensure that counterrevolutionary threats won&#39;t manifest themselves within the revolutionary movement having a centralized authority is not only a good idea but a necessary one.

[Marsella]

having a body of workers is chaotic.

It&#39;s called a revolution&#33; :lol:


t is impossible that threats won&#39;t develop within it-- there is no way of knowing that all workers are favoring the revolutionary movement and not working to assist counterrevolutionaries in harming the progress of the movement-

If we cannot trust the workers to favour the revolutionary movement then there will never be any hope&#33;

I mean really, you think that workers will betray the movement so therefore you cannot trust them is a very very anti-worker argument to say the least.


therefore if a movement is to ensure that counterrevolutionary threats won&#39;t manifest themselves within the revolutionary movement having a centralized authority is not only a good idea but a necessary one.

What about counter-revolutionary threats in your organisation?

I would rather a counter-revolutionary threat emerge in workers than in an organisation which has as much power as a centralized authority.

And this isn&#39;t to say anything about what becomes of that centralized authority after the revolution.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:32 am
It&#39;s called a revolution&#33; :lol:

If we cannot trust the workers to favour the revolutionary movement then there will never be any hope&#33;

I mean really, you think that workers will betray the movement so therefore you cannot trust them is a very very anti-worker argument to say the least.

What about counter-revolutionary threats in your organisation?

I would rather a counter-revolutionary threat emerge in workers than in an organisation which has as much power as a centralized authority.

And this isn&#39;t to say anything about what becomes of that centralized authority after the revolution.
I just say it&#39;s more effective-- and it&#39;s not "anti-worker" it has to do with the potential of the development of threats and the best way to prevent and deal with them so that they don&#39;t harm the revolutionary movement itself.

What you are arguing for is not by any means centralized-- it is a scattered movement which is too large to possibly function for the same efforts all the time- therefore there needs to be a centralized authority functioning in favor of it.

[TheCagedLion]

I think the major problem with most people in the police, is that they are uneducated about their own role in society.

There is a lot of propaganda going around, that the police protect the people - and this is whats get people to join.

But to be fair, they actually do protect the people, they just protect them from problems created by capitalist-society