So I've been reading on communism....

[SouthernBelle82]

So I've been reading a lot lately on communism and I generally agree with pretty much everything except for the fact of getting rid of states simply because I don't see that happening here in the States. I understand why the goal but I just don't see it happening here. So I guess that's all I really have to say.

[Dros]

You have to understand how and more importantly when that happens. Communists do not believe in the immediate destruction of the state apparatus (as anarchists do). Instead, Communists invision a transitional system, called socialism, that would have a state (although a radically different state, a Dictatorship of the Proletarait) and begin to transform class relations, production relations, social relations, and ideology as an intermediary phase. Once the revolution has progressed to all countries and the aims of socialism have been fullfilled, a state as such will no longer be necessary and will "whither away." So you are correct that it is impossible for the state to disappear instantaneously anywhere (US or otherwise) and that it will take a long time (decades, centuries) before this process is completed.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:52 pm
So I've been reading a lot lately on communism and I generally agree with pretty much everything except for the fact of getting rid of states simply because I don't see that happening here in the States. I understand why the goal but I just don't see it happening here. So I guess that's all I really have to say.
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch."-Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:11 am
You have to understand how and more importantly when that happens. Communists do not believe in the immediate destruction of the state apparatus (as anarchists do). Instead, Communists invision a transitional system, called socialism, that would have a state (although a radically different state, a Dictatorship of the Proletarait) and begin to transform class relations, production relations, social relations, and ideology as an intermediary phase. Once the revolution has progressed to all countries and the aims of socialism have been fullfilled, a state as such will no longer be necessary and will "whither away." So you are correct that it is impossible for the state to disappear instantaneously anywhere (US or otherwise) and that it will take a long time (decades, centuries) before this process is completed.
Oh sure. Before I considered myself socialist but I've been reading a lot more about communism and am finding myself agreeing with alot. However I'm also a realist ya know?

[Kitskits]

The correct way to find out why the state will be no longer needed in communism is to find out for what reason the state is needed in the first place i.e. how the state arose. It's pretty much pointless to start explaining (primitive communism, appearence of classes and private property, the state bla bla) without any backup so

Please some comrades give him some book links for that matter.

[mikelepore]

I think the classless society of the future will always have the kind of "state" implied by the need for law and enforcement, because, even after we no longer have the kind of crime that is today caused by poverty, we will still have the kind of crime caused by defects in some people's brains.

However, such a system would still be stateless in the technical sense that Marx used -- that a state is a mechanism of a ruling class for suppressing a ruled class.

[kromando33]

Well people don't like to say this much, but by definition socialism is capitalism turned on it's head, the revolutionary proletariat overthrow the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois' and replace it with their own dictatorship. During this 'worker's state' transition to communism, called socialism - instead of the proletariat being repressed by the bourgeois it's other way around, the proletarian socialist state represses the bourgeois and reactionary tendencies.

This socialist process is violent and repressive, who would doubt that, it's class warfare after all, we are not negotiating or compromising with the capitalists but at war with them, and as Marx says this will result in the victory of one class or the contending ruin of both.

We Marxists must therefore not shy away from class struggle (socialism) and must be unflinching in our aggravation of rotten reactionism from our society, only once these element contradictions are destroyed can communism be achieved.

[RNK]

Yes, the term "statelessness" is not some insane Mad-Maxian anarchy where nobody has any responsibility and the rule of law is replaced by violent coercion and complete chaos. "Statelessness" by the Marxist definition implies the removal of the apparatus of the modern state which lends to the oppression and exploitation of all living in it. There will still be elected bodies of men and women who organize and manage society via democracy (see: universal suffrage). Your garbage will still be taken out twice a week and there will still be "police" patrolling the streets -- they will simply be under new management, the management of the masses, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie, democracy without the bourgeois, without monopolization of state power; "true democracy".

[Asoka89]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:29 am
Well people don't like to say this much, but by definition socialism is capitalism turned on it's head, the revolutionary proletariat overthrow the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois' and replace it with their own dictatorship. During this 'worker's state' transition to communism, called socialism - instead of the proletariat being repressed by the bourgeois it's other way around, the proletarian socialist state represses the bourgeois and reactionary tendencies.

This socialist process is violent and repressive, who would doubt that, it's class warfare after all, we are not negotiating or compromising with the capitalists but at war with them, and as Marx says this will result in the victory of one class or the contending ruin of both.

We Marxists must therefore not shy away from class struggle (socialism) and must be unflinching in our aggravation of rotten reactionism from our society, only once these element contradictions are destroyed can communism be achieved.
Quick question: I thought Marx was saying either we overthrow the bourgeois or we both parish, referring to the need to establish a worker's state (dictatorship of the proletariat), i didnt think he was talking about counterrrevolution after the worker's state was formed.

[Kitskits]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:49 am
Yes, the term "statelessness" is not some insane Mad-Maxian anarchy where nobody has any responsibility and the rule of law is replaced by violent coercion and complete chaos. "Statelessness" by the Marxist definition implies the removal of the apparatus of the modern state which lends to the oppression and exploitation of all living in it. There will still be elected bodies of men and women who organize and manage society via democracy (see: universal suffrage). Your garbage will still be taken out twice a week and there will still be "police" patrolling the streets -- they will simply be under new management, the management of the masses, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie, democracy without the bourgeois, without monopolization of state power; "true democracy".
Dictatorship of the proletariat means socialism, not communism. In communism there is no proletariat simply because there are no classes.

In socialism there IS a state, a workers state that suppresses the bourgeois.

Don't mix up socialism with communism. In communism there will certainly not be any cops patrolling around your house because property crimes and revolutions won't exist, so the cops will not be needed in any possible way. The crimes because of other than money, property, revolutionary or counter-revolutionary reasons will be handed by the masses. i.e. if someone kills another man because of sex jealousy stuff, the people will organize a group of non-professional "cops" to bust him.

If someone doesn't accept as his goal a stateless society he is not a communist, he is a socialist.

[Holden Caulfield]

it obviously a progession this is what we dont need to lose sight of, if a revolution happened in say Britain today and communism was declared it wouldnt work, and counter revolutionary forces would be a danger,

communists, socialist, anarchists, should defeat the bourgoise opression and then through councils of workers, and steady (yet much faster than usualy) devolution could a true-left wing state be allowed to form,

i dont think its healthy if we bring in somebody new to communism (or whatever) straight into 'factional' disputes

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:42 am
The correct way to find out why the state will be no longer needed in communism is to find out for what reason the state is needed in the first place i.e. how the state arose. It's pretty much pointless to start explaining (primitive communism, appearence of classes and private property, the state bla bla) without any backup so

Please some comrades give him some book links for that matter.
Just to correct you I'm actually a female. The screen name should be a give away.... "belle" is female.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:49 am
Yes, the term "statelessness" is not some insane Mad-Maxian anarchy where nobody has any responsibility and the rule of law is replaced by violent coercion and complete chaos. "Statelessness" by the Marxist definition implies the removal of the apparatus of the modern state which lends to the oppression and exploitation of all living in it. There will still be elected bodies of men and women who organize and manage society via democracy (see: universal suffrage). Your garbage will still be taken out twice a week and there will still be "police" patrolling the streets -- they will simply be under new management, the management of the masses, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie, democracy without the bourgeois, without monopolization of state power; "true democracy".
Oh I think I get it now with what you mean by "stateless." I can agree with that. So instead of one person making the decisions you'd have a congress like setting to do that and national referendums?

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Kitskits+December 31, 2007 12:21 pm--> (Kitskits @ December 31, 2007 12:21 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 09:49 am
Yes, the term "statelessness" is not some insane Mad-Maxian anarchy where nobody has any responsibility and the rule of law is replaced by violent coercion and complete chaos. "Statelessness" by the Marxist definition implies the removal of the apparatus of the modern state which lends to the oppression and exploitation of all living in it. There will still be elected bodies of men and women who organize and manage society via democracy (see: universal suffrage). Your garbage will still be taken out twice a week and there will still be "police" patrolling the streets -- they will simply be under new management, the management of the masses, or the dictatorship of the proletariat, ie, democracy without the bourgeois, without monopolization of state power; "true democracy".
Dictatorship of the proletariat means socialism, not communism. In communism there is no proletariat simply because there are no classes.

In socialism there IS a state, a workers state that suppresses the bourgeois.

Don't mix up socialism with communism. In communism there will certainly not be any cops patrolling around your house because property crimes and revolutions won't exist, so the cops will not be needed in any possible way. The crimes because of other than money, property, revolutionary or counter-revolutionary reasons will be handed by the masses. i.e. if someone kills another man because of sex jealousy stuff, the people will organize a group of non-professional "cops" to bust him.

If someone doesn't accept as his goal a stateless society he is not a communist, he is a socialist. [/b]
Cops will still be needed. Maybe not to patrole but there's always going to be gangs and crimes committed. You think crime is going to magically disappear? Newsflash: as long as there is freewill there's still going to be crime. Officers are there to protect the peace and keep order etc. Now maybe they won't have to patrole neighborhoods and whatnot so much but officers are always going to be needed. What happens when someone robs a store or murders or rapes someone? What are you going to do then?

[Dros]

Cops will still be needed.

No. We don't need people around to oppress and control the workers in Communist society.


You think crime is going to magically disappear? Newsflash: as long as there is freewill there's still going to be crime.

True. But a lot less under socialism and later Communism.


Officers are there to protect the peace and keep order etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Cops are here to protect the interests of the Bourgeoisie dictatorship and to keep down the proletariat.


What happens when someone robs a store or murders or rapes someone? What are you going to do then?

People won't rob "stores" as that is directly caused by the system of commodity exchange.

Rape and murder will be dealt with locally by the proletariat. There might be semi-professional investigators but there won't be police as police are a definitionally aggressibe and reactionary group.


So instead of one person making the decisions you'd have a congress like setting to do that and national referendums?

No. "Laws" will be made by the people and enforced by the people. It is impossible for us to say what the specific process will be and give details about it's functioning because that will be determined at that time and will be defined by the objective conditions.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:18 pm

Cops will still be needed.

No. We don't need people around to oppress and control the workers in Communist society.


You think crime is going to magically disappear? Newsflash: as long as there is freewill there's still going to be crime.

True. But a lot less under socialism and later Communism.


Officers are there to protect the peace and keep order etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Cops are here to protect the interests of the Bourgeoisie dictatorship and to keep down the proletariat.


What happens when someone robs a store or murders or rapes someone? What are you going to do then?

People won't rob "stores" as that is directly caused by the system of commodity exchange.

Rape and murder will be dealt with locally by the proletariat. There might be semi-professional investigators but there won't be police as police are a definitionally aggressibe and reactionary group.


So instead of one person making the decisions you'd have a congress like setting to do that and national referendums?

No. "Laws" will be made by the people and enforced by the people. It is impossible for us to say what the specific process will be and give details about it's functioning because that will be determined at that time and will be defined by the objective conditions.
That's not the job of officers. Officers are to keep social order and peace and protection of the community. So your solution to those who commit murder, rape or robbery or some other crime is...? No hun that's not what officers are supposed to do. Now does that happen? Sure totally but it's not what things are supposed to be. And those people will thus in theory be officers. So you're not taking away officers at all. Simply changing the tune but it's the same CD.

[Module]

That's not the job of officers. Officers are to keep social order and peace and protection of the community.
I don't wish to use a cliche, but that's what they want you to think. :lol:
That is also, essentially, the same bourgeois definition of the 'state', but we, communists, see very differently, as you know.
You'll find a lot of people who'll say that the police do anything but keep the peace in their community. That's because their job isn't to keep the peace, but simply to uphold the law that protects the ruling class, which is contrary to the welfare of the working class.


So your solution to those who commit murder, rape or robbery or some other crime is...? No hun that's not what officers are supposed to do. Now does that happen? Sure totally but it's not what things are supposed to be.
The 'solution' to those who commit murder, rape or robbery should be one decided by those who are effected, the community itself, and the unique situation itself. There is no one solution to any one problem.
And yes, that's exactly how things are supposed to be. They uphold the law created by the ruling class. Because of that alone it's never going to be fair. And imagine if cops were 'fair', and 'just'. What would they uphold that was? Whatever they thought was right? What happens to the law, then? The state?
If you want things to be fair then you have to replace the rigid unfair system with something better.

And those people will thus in theory be officers. So you're not taking away officers at all. Simply changing the tune but it's the same CD.
Crime and punishment will be an issue of the community and a whole, not of an elite authoritative group.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:23 pm

That's not the job of officers. Officers are to keep social order and peace and protection of the community.
I don't wish to use a cliche, but that's what they want you to think. :lol:
That is also, essentially, the same bourgeois definition of the 'state', but we, communists, see very differently, as you know.
You'll find a lot of people who'll say that the police do anything but keep the peace in their community. That's because their job isn't to keep the peace, but simply to uphold the law that protects the ruling class, which is contrary to the welfare of the working class.


So your solution to those who commit murder, rape or robbery or some other crime is...? No hun that's not what officers are supposed to do. Now does that happen? Sure totally but it's not what things are supposed to be.
The 'solution' to those who commit murder, rape or robbery should be one decided by those who are effected, the community itself, and the unique situation itself. There is no one solution to any one problem.
And yes, that's exactly how things are supposed to be. They uphold the law created by the ruling class. Because of that alone it's never going to be fair. And imagine if cops were 'fair', and 'just'. What would they uphold that was? Whatever they thought was right? What happens to the law, then? The state?
If you want things to be fair then you have to replace the rigid unfair system with something better.

And those people will thus in theory be officers. So you're not taking away officers at all. Simply changing the tune but it's the same CD.
Crime and punishment will be an issue of the community and a whole, not of an elite authoritative group.
No that's what it is. I am majoring in criminal justice so I think I would know. My professor is a former officer himself (he did corrections/parole) and he's not a bad cop or anything. Are there bad cops? Sure. And there's sometimes corruption too.

The law isn't there to just protect the ruling class. It's there to protect everyone. It's up to the officers to do that and their departments etc.

Personally that's why I'm going into the criminal justice field. To try and make things fair. I believe people should be involved in the field who are into justice and doing the right thing etc. I'm passionate about that and I think others should be too.

The last quote of yours is what libertarians say too. That it should be up to the state but history shows that sometimes you do need the government as a whole. Look at the pre-civil rights era and Bobby Kennedy etc. and what happened before that.

[kromando33]

Originally posted by Asoka89+December 31, 2007 10:49 am--> (Asoka89 @ December 31, 2007 10:49 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 09:29 am
Well people don't like to say this much, but by definition socialism is capitalism turned on it's head, the revolutionary proletariat overthrow the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois' and replace it with their own dictatorship. During this 'worker's state' transition to communism, called socialism - instead of the proletariat being repressed by the bourgeois it's other way around, the proletarian socialist state represses the bourgeois and reactionary tendencies.

This socialist process is violent and repressive, who would doubt that, it's class warfare after all, we are not negotiating or compromising with the capitalists but at war with them, and as Marx says this will result in the victory of one class or the contending ruin of both.

We Marxists must therefore not shy away from class struggle (socialism) and must be unflinching in our aggravation of rotten reactionism from our society, only once these element contradictions are destroyed can communism be achieved.
Quick question: I thought Marx was saying either we overthrow the bourgeois or we both parish, referring to the need to establish a worker's state (dictatorship of the proletariat), i didnt think he was talking about counterrrevolution after the worker's state was formed. [/b]
Class struggle doesn't end the day after the revolution, the bourgeois don't just 'disappear', they will simply use different tactics such as infiltration of the party and society in order to turn society back to the capitalist path, exactly how China was turned away from socialism to capitalism. My point is that class warfare is bloody and brutal, and we shouldn't shy away from it.

[Dros]

No that's what it is. I am majoring in criminal justice so I think I would know.

No one cares about your credentials. You could be the fucking attourney general. You would still be wrong and idealistic.


My professor is a former officer himself (he did corrections/parole) and he's not a bad cop or anything.

Did he go one patrol? Did he enforce the laws made by and for the Bourgeoisie? If yes than he is a "bad cop." If no than he isn't a cop.


Are there bad cops? Sure. And there's sometimes corruption too.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the normal cops! I heard about an incident in California where this rookie cop was out with his veteran partner and they saw a black guy running. The older guy said something like "Take it. It's free! Shoot 'em!" The rookie didn't shoot the man and was essentially ostracized from the rest of the department. This is one incident. Police brutality is totally out of control and is essentially policy. The role of the police as an institution is and has always been to protect and serve the Bourgeoisie class dictatorship both economically and politically.


Personally that's why I'm going into the criminal justice field. To try and make things fair. I believe people should be involved in the field who are into justice and doing the right thing etc. I'm passionate about that and I think others should be too.

Give it time. Eventually you'll realize that this "justice" system is about the pursecution and oppression of disaffected segments of society (economically and politically).


The last quote of yours is what libertarians say too. That it should be up to the state but history shows that sometimes you do need the government as a whole.

History has shown that goverments exist. They do so to protect the interests of the leading class and to purpetuate relations of production. We do not "need" them for anything except to get us to the point where we can exist without them (I'm referring to the DoP).


Look at the pre-civil rights era and Bobby Kennedy etc. and what happened before that.

You mean when the state was sytamatically denying black's their rights? Great. Why do we need that?!

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 06:03 am

No that's what it is. I am majoring in criminal justice so I think I would know.

No one cares about your credentials. You could be the fucking attourney general. You would still be wrong and idealistic.


My professor is a former officer himself (he did corrections/parole) and he's not a bad cop or anything.

Did he go one patrol? Did he enforce the laws made by and for the Bourgeoisie? If yes than he is a "bad cop." If no than he isn't a cop.


Are there bad cops? Sure. And there's sometimes corruption too.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the normal cops! I heard about an incident in California where this rookie cop was out with his veteran partner and they saw a black guy running. The older guy said something like "Take it. It's free! Shoot 'em!" The rookie didn't shoot the man and was essentially ostracized from the rest of the department. This is one incident. Police brutality is totally out of control and is essentially policy. The role of the police as an institution is and has always been to protect and serve the Bourgeoisie class dictatorship both economically and politically.


Personally that's why I'm going into the criminal justice field. To try and make things fair. I believe people should be involved in the field who are into justice and doing the right thing etc. I'm passionate about that and I think others should be too.

Give it time. Eventually you'll realize that this "justice" system is about the pursecution and oppression of disaffected segments of society (economically and politically).


The last quote of yours is what libertarians say too. That it should be up to the state but history shows that sometimes you do need the government as a whole.

History has shown that goverments exist. They do so to protect the interests of the leading class and to purpetuate relations of production. We do not "need" them for anything except to get us to the point where we can exist without them (I'm referring to the DoP).


Look at the pre-civil rights era and Bobby Kennedy etc. and what happened before that.

You mean when the state was sytamatically denying black's their rights? Great. Why do we need that?!
I use my credintials cause I know what I'm talking about. Wrong? No. I'm also a realist.

Do you know what parole/correction officers do? It seems like you don't have a fucking clue. Get one k?

So are you going to give a citation for your claims? I'm just not going to believe you on an internet message board. Sounds like Ron Paul bullshit to me.

Sorry I don't think so. I'm passionate about my field choice and want to do what I can to help people and help the system.

Go back and read what the KKK was doing and ignoring laws. It wasn't until Bobby Kennedy got Hoover and all that involved that blacks started to get some fucking justice. Blacks used to just be lynched by driving through town. Where was your local people then? Blackmailed and bought by the KKK. If you can use the government to help the minority population then you fucking use it. Oh and don't you say nobody cares about something. SPEAK FOR YOUR DAMN SELF NOT FOR ME!

[Red October]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 01:22 am
Go back and read what the KKK was doing and ignoring laws. It wasn't until Bobby Kennedy got Hoover and all that involved that blacks started to get some fucking justice.
Oh yeah, J. Edgar Hoover did a whole lot to ensure justice and equality for black people! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Get real, the police have always been used by the government to suppress the people. Even if these 'good cops' you talk about existed, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference because the system that they take orders and get their pay check from is rotten to the core.

[Mr.835300]

OF COURSE you don't see it happening - because it isn't.

[#FF0000]

(It seems like people are just tossing around some rhetoric instead of really giving SouthernBelle an answer, so I'll try to put my two cents in, but be warned: i'm a bit addled after being up for a rather long time.)

Police as we know them wouldn't exist in a communist society. What we'd have then would instead be something more like a community watch, which would be organized to be as democratic as it could be

They wouldn't have the same power and resources that cops of today have, but that's because they wouldn't need them. Crime thrives in poverty. This much is obvious. The environment in which someone grows up plays a huge part in shaping who that person becomes.

For example, if a child is born into poverty, with parents that must work ridiculous hours for meager pay to survive, (an unfortunately common scenario), then you shouldn't be surprised when the child, whose parents were never around, grows up to become a criminal. After all, without parents where is a kid going to get his morals and values? And don't get me started on the effect that never seeing one's parents as a small child would have on cognitive development...

And then there's people who go into crime because, from their perspective, it's the best option. Why work at a temp agency for minimum wage for years on end with no chance of improving one's life, when there's a convenience store to knock over for a decent sum of money?

These are just a couple of examples of how poverty breeds crime, but situations similar to this are inevitable under capitalism. in a communist society, on the other hand, where there is no poverty, there's really no place for a lot of crime to grow. Of course, poverty isn't the only factor that goes into this kind of thing, and there will still be some crime and deviance, but it will not be nearly as much of a problem as it is today.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 06:22 am
I use my credintials cause I know what I'm talking about. Wrong? No. I'm also a realist.

Do you know what parole/correction officers do? It seems like you don't have a fucking clue. Get one k?

So are you going to give a citation for your claims? I'm just not going to believe you on an internet message board. Sounds like Ron Paul bullshit to me.

Sorry I don't think so. I'm passionate about my field choice and want to do what I can to help people and help the system.

Go back and read what the KKK was doing and ignoring laws. It wasn't until Bobby Kennedy got Hoover and all that involved that blacks started to get some fucking justice. Blacks used to just be lynched by driving through town. Where was your local people then? Blackmailed and bought by the KKK. If you can use the government to help the minority population then you fucking use it. Oh and don't you say nobody cares about something. SPEAK FOR YOUR DAMN SELF NOT FOR ME!
Southern Belle, first please ignore anyone flaming you. You are just the people we need, people ACTUALLY WANTING TO LEARN AND ASK QUESTIONS instead of yelling, "OMG communism is horrible, OMG!!". I beg everyone to avoid flaming her and to teach her. It seems obvious, by her posts, that she may not know as much as she should as she still is in the older capitalist mindset with such capitalist norms. It's OK, we've all been there.

About the concept of an entity meant to protect people, the police DO NOT serve this rule. They follow the LAW which was made up by the bourgeoisie, hence the bourgeoisie will have laws that will MAINTAIN the class structure. It's just one of the many ways they ensure that classes WILL EXIST.

I can show you a million times, on you tube, of just what the cops do. I suggest you get to know (and know very well) the working class and poor people in the inner cities. I've grown up and lived in one all my life so I know first hand what cops do.

In communism, the people will probably have some sort of socialized police (or militia or whatever you want to call it) to patrol and serve the people as emergency workers. They will not respond to a technical law, but to the people themselves in councils or the such.

Now crime will NOT be COMPLETELY eliminated in communism but it will be at a minimal because poverty creates MOST crime. There could still be crime left, but if the emergency workers are socialized, it will be easier for a community to fight such crime, not a law.

Also Southern Belle, just know that even if a GOOD attempt at socialism (which comes before communism) would happen today, we won't see communism in our lifetimes. Such a thing takes a long time, and it begins with grassroot communication with people, trying to eliminate the very norms you have, whether they be social or political (ex: a state should exist, you should be loyal to a country, the concepts of cops are good but there are just bad cops, if an owner treats his/her workers good then it's ok, if a man likes sex it's ok but if a woman likes it shes a whore, I can trust people of my own race more than anyone, etc). When you can defeat these norms, then you can advance personal wise and community wise.

I suggest that after you're done with your own studies of communism, to read up on the posts of RS2K:

http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/index-2.html

Good reads.

Also, as I always say, DON'T be dogmatic.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Red October+January 01, 2008 07:27 am--> (Red October @ January 01, 2008 07:27 am)
[email protected] 01, 2008 01:22 am
Go back and read what the KKK was doing and ignoring laws. It wasn't until Bobby Kennedy got Hoover and all that involved that blacks started to get some fucking justice.
Oh yeah, J. Edgar Hoover did a whole lot to ensure justice and equality for black people! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Get real, the police have always been used by the government to suppress the people. Even if these 'good cops' you talk about existed, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference because the system that they take orders and get their pay check from is rotten to the core. [/b]
Notice when I said Bobby Kennedy got him too. I know Hoover could care less. It wasn't until Bobby Kennedy got some balls that he cared. And no you're again wrong. I didn't start this thread to argue about cops and that shit. I started this thread about well me and communism. Go start your own thread *****ing.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 09:56 am
(It seems like people are just tossing around some rhetoric instead of really giving SouthernBelle an answer, so I'll try to put my two cents in, but be warned: i'm a bit addled after being up for a rather long time.)

Police as we know them wouldn't exist in a communist society. What we'd have then would instead be something more like a community watch, which would be organized to be as democratic as it could be

They wouldn't have the same power and resources that cops of today have, but that's because they wouldn't need them. Crime thrives in poverty. This much is obvious. The environment in which someone grows up plays a huge part in shaping who that person becomes.

For example, if a child is born into poverty, with parents that must work ridiculous hours for meager pay to survive, (an unfortunately common scenario), then you shouldn't be surprised when the child, whose parents were never around, grows up to become a criminal. After all, without parents where is a kid going to get his morals and values? And don't get me started on the effect that never seeing one's parents as a small child would have on cognitive development...

And then there's people who go into crime because, from their perspective, it's the best option. Why work at a temp agency for minimum wage for years on end with no chance of improving one's life, when there's a convenience store to knock over for a decent sum of money?

These are just a couple of examples of how poverty breeds crime, but situations similar to this are inevitable under capitalism. in a communist society, on the other hand, where there is no poverty, there's really no place for a lot of crime to grow. Of course, poverty isn't the only factor that goes into this kind of thing, and there will still be some crime and deviance, but it will not be nearly as much of a problem as it is today.
As long as there is freewill there will ALWAYS be crime whether your poverty free or not. There's gangs and the like who will always commit crimes. If it's not robbery then it's going to be murder or rape or something else physical against another person. I notice you all just talk about people stealing and crimes such as robbery but what about the other crimes? Robbery isn't the only crime out there people. There's arsen, murder, rape, illegally spying, espionage. What are you going to do against crime against the country as a whole such as espionage or treason? So you all have yet to address THESE crimes. I understand and agree about the poverty issue but there are other crimes. And as I told someone else I didn't start this thread to argue about cops and all that but about myself and communism.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 10:25 am
Southern Belle, first please ignore anyone flaming you. You are just the people we need, people ACTUALLY WANTING TO LEARN AND ASK QUESTIONS instead of yelling, "OMG communism is horrible, OMG!!". I beg everyone to avoid flaming her and to teach her. It seems obvious, by her posts, that she may not know as much as she should as she still is in the older capitalist mindset with such capitalist norms. It's OK, we've all been there.

About the concept of an entity meant to protect people, the police DO NOT serve this rule. They follow the LAW which was made up by the bourgeoisie, hence the bourgeoisie will have laws that will MAINTAIN the class structure. It's just one of the many ways they ensure that classes WILL EXIST.

I can show you a million times, on you tube, of just what the cops do. I suggest you get to know (and know very well) the working class and poor people in the inner cities. I've grown up and lived in one all my life so I know first hand what cops do.

In communism, the people will probably have some sort of socialized police (or militia or whatever you want to call it) to patrol and serve the people as emergency workers. They will not respond to a technical law, but to the people themselves in councils or the such.

Now crime will NOT be COMPLETELY eliminated in communism but it will be at a minimal because poverty creates MOST crime. There could still be crime left, but if the emergency workers are socialized, it will be easier for a community to fight such crime, not a law.

Also Southern Belle, just know that even if a GOOD attempt at socialism (which comes before communism) would happen today, we won't see communism in our lifetimes. Such a thing takes a long time, and it begins with grassroot communication with people, trying to eliminate the very norms you have, whether they be social or political (ex: a state should exist, you should be loyal to a country, the concepts of cops are good but there are just bad cops, if an owner treats his/her workers good then it's ok, if a man likes sex it's ok but if a woman likes it shes a whore, I can trust people of my own race more than anyone, etc). When you can defeat these norms, then you can advance personal wise and community wise.

I suggest that after you're done with your own studies of communism, to read up on the posts of RS2K:

http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/index-2.html

Good reads.

Also, as I always say, DON'T be dogmatic.
Well as I said I'm still new to communism and reading up on everything I can. I'm not saying every officer is perfect all the time but to say every cop is bad is also wrong. Well crime and poverty is only against items. What about people who rape, murder, arsen, espionage or some other crime that doesn't deal with poverty? I do think that will help with crime with getting rid of poverty but there are always other crimes people will do.

[Lynx]

Crime will continue because a certain percentage of humans are sociopaths or carry other pathologies.
There will continue to be the 'rule of law' and the presumption of innocence. Even at the most informal anarchist level, humans follow codes of conduct in order to maximize social harmony.
If a murder occurs, it is a crime that must be investigated by qualified detectives. If someone goes berserk and starts shooting people, they will most likely be dealt with by the police.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 06:22 pm
Crime will continue because a certain percentage of humans are sociopaths or carry other pathologies.
There will continue to be the 'rule of law' and the presumption of innocence. Even at the most informal anarchist level, humans follow codes of conduct in order to maximize social harmony.
If a murder occurs, it is a crime that must be investigated by qualified detectives. If someone goes berserk and starts shooting people, they will most likely be dealt with by the police.
And that's where I'm at. You still need to have something though in case crimes do commit. All I'm saying is there's more to crime out there than just robbery and issues with items.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82+January 01, 2008 05:55 pm--> (SouthernBelle82 @ January 01, 2008 05:55 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2008 09:56 am
(It seems like people are just tossing around some rhetoric instead of really giving SouthernBelle an answer, so I'll try to put my two cents in, but be warned: i'm a bit addled after being up for a rather long time.)

Police as we know them wouldn't exist in a communist society. What we'd have then would instead be something more like a community watch, which would be organized to be as democratic as it could be

They wouldn't have the same power and resources that cops of today have, but that's because they wouldn't need them. Crime thrives in poverty. This much is obvious. The environment in which someone grows up plays a huge part in shaping who that person becomes.

For example, if a child is born into poverty, with parents that must work ridiculous hours for meager pay to survive, (an unfortunately common scenario), then you shouldn't be surprised when the child, whose parents were never around, grows up to become a criminal. After all, without parents where is a kid going to get his morals and values? And don't get me started on the effect that never seeing one's parents as a small child would have on cognitive development...

And then there's people who go into crime because, from their perspective, it's the best option. Why work at a temp agency for minimum wage for years on end with no chance of improving one's life, when there's a convenience store to knock over for a decent sum of money?

These are just a couple of examples of how poverty breeds crime, but situations similar to this are inevitable under capitalism. in a communist society, on the other hand, where there is no poverty, there's really no place for a lot of crime to grow. Of course, poverty isn't the only factor that goes into this kind of thing, and there will still be some crime and deviance, but it will not be nearly as much of a problem as it is today.
As long as there is freewill there will ALWAYS be crime whether your poverty free or not. There's gangs and the like who will always commit crimes. If it's not robbery then it's going to be murder or rape or something else physical against another person. I notice you all just talk about people stealing and crimes such as robbery but what about the other crimes? Robbery isn't the only crime out there people. There's arsen, murder, rape, illegally spying, espionage. What are you going to do against crime against the country as a whole such as espionage or treason? So you all have yet to address THESE crimes. I understand and agree about the poverty issue but there are other crimes. And as I told someone else I didn't start this thread to argue about cops and all that but about myself and communism. [/b]
Sothern Belle, one thing that you must know about marxists is that they use a different vocabulary than other people use. If you want the other comrades to understand you, and relate to what you're getting at, you must learn the lingo. For instance, you kept on refering to criminals in general terms. This is not considered to be very class conscious, in relation to dialetical materialism. So instead of focusing on crime in general, you must first address the underlying root causes, socio-economic as well as socio-cultural. Also when personaly describing criminals, use terms like "crime lords" "organised crime", and "black market". Otherwise we'll as a whole might think that you are thinking of common street crime, and classify the perpetrators as being a part of the "Lumpenproletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat)", in regards to social class. Believe it or not, I actually got into marxist theory while studying criminal justice, as part of a home study course. I later dropped out of the program, for various personal reasons. But I know that you do not have to go into police work, after graduating. You can also work in private security as well. In fact, I had to take an introductory course in criminal justice, as part of a private investigation course, which I did get a degree in. Though I done anything with it so far. I probally shouldn't have mentioned that though, as now I'll probally be compared with Allan Pinkerton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Pinkerton), whose agency served as strike breakers. So as you have found out, there is quite a bit of bad feeling between the political Left and the Police. I wish you the best in your life though. I'm sure that you will be professional and principled, no matter what career path you take. So make us all proud. :)