The Police

[Chapter 24]

So what's the deal with the police?

What do a majority of those on this board believe?

a) they are in a position of authority enforce laws to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie and their property

b) they are members of the working class and therefore should be educated about the revolution and encouraged to join our forces

c) other

I know this is a pretty simplified poll, granted, but I for one don't know too much on the subject. I know it's been discussed on this board previously, though.

Is it possible that law enforcement are not at all black and white, that - while some may be tyrannical and abuse their authority, keeping the bourgeois class interest in mind - others are simply "doing their job" and protecting citizens from crime?

[dirtycommiebastard]

Most police officers do come from a working class background or were proletarians themselves.

Unfortunately, one thing or another drives them to become police officers, and objectively speaking, they are not allies with workers. They may view themselves as protecting society, but when push comes to shove, they are tools of the bourgeoisie used to defend the interests of the ruling class.

I am quite sure though, there are examples of police officers joining ranks with workers in revolutionary situations, but I would be HIGHLY hesitant to trust them in any scenario.

They will always be the ones to neutralize action taken on the part of the workers, or any other form of civil disobedience, and for that, we have to objetively view them as class enemies.

[Decolonize The Left]

Do police officers earn a salary or work for a wage? A salary I believe, no?

- August

[xAtlasx]

The police seem to be divided into two distinct groups. Those who are honest and those who abuse their power. I respect those police who are honest and true, albeit misguided, but those who abuse their power are the epitome of capitalist slavery through coercive force

[chimx]

Do police officers earn a salary or work for a wage? A salary I believe, no?

What's important is their relationship to property, not how their pay is determined.

I would vote for "both" if it was an option.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Are cops and security guards workers? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cops-and-security-t63126/index.html?t=63126)

Yes.

I'd have to say that police officers are a more backward layer of workers than security guards though.

I've known security guards to side with striking workers and students before. A comrade of mine even organized the airport security into a union.

[Lost In Translation]

I've always thought that Police were workers that usually side with the bourgeois to up their place in society (unless it was something that they had in common with the other workers)...so I would have to say both.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i voted the first option.

the police are the ones charging at us with batons, and shooting gas at us, when there is a rally or bloc present. they dont serve the proletarian interests at all.


I am quite sure though, there are examples of police officers joining ranks with workers in revolutionary situations, but I would be HIGHLY hesitant to trust them in any scenario.
likewise, theres no way we could possibly trust them.

[spartan]

As someone pointed out this isnt a black and white issue.

During the UK miner strikes of 1984-85 Thatcher had to call in special squads from the metropolitan police in London as she was scared that local police forces would be too sympathetic to the striking miners as these were the people they had known all their lives and thus could'nt bring themselves to fight the people they had been protecting for years.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

The Development of Society’s Labour Power and Its Capabilities

In Chapter 16 of Volume I of Das Kapital, Marx talks about a concept called “productive labour”:

On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus value. The labourer produces, not for themselves, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that they should simply produce. They must produce surplus-value.

Related to this concept is the broader development of society’s labour power and its capabilities, the second factor that should be considered in class analysis. Both capital and productive labour enable this development. However, there is at least one class within the wage-labour system that does not enable this development, and this class is composed entirely of elements that are part of the 19th-century definition of “petit-bourgeoisie.”

One major group in this class is “descended” from the old bailiffs (or sheriffs), whom Frederick Engels commented on in The Peasant War in Germany:

On the contrary, the city magistrates and bailiffs, mostly patricians, brought into the villages, together with aristocratic rigidity and avarice, a certain bureaucratic punctuality in collecting duties.

This group happens to be that of modern police officers, who merely contribute to the protection of the capitalist state machinery. Also involved in the protection of the capitalist state machinery are lawyers and judges. Performing similar functions for the “epoch of the bourgeoisie” as a whole are security guards and strikebreakers.

Within this class, or comprising a separate class, is one more interesting group, of whom Engels made a brief comment in the aforementioned work:

The knights had become superfluous through the progress of industry, just as the artisans had become obviated by the same progress.

In the Manifesto, Marx classified these artisans – and similar groups whose historical usefulness in developing society's labour power and its capabilities have expired – as “petit-bourgeois,” yet it is clear that the modern petit-bourgeois does not “try to roll back the wheel of history.”

[KrazyRabidSheep]

The police seem to be divided into two distinct groups. Those who are honest and those who abuse their power. I respect those police who are honest and true, albeit misguided, but those who abuse their power are the epitome of capitalist slavery through coercive force
This. ^^^

I work with police officers intimately on a daily basis; they are usually on scene before we arrive. I am in a unique situation; when I'm in uniform, I am one of the few people who can tell a cop off when they fuck up without fear (such as the other day when an officer moved a woman's spine during transfer.)
EMTs rely on cops to protect them when things are violent, but cops rely on EMTs to be available if one of them goes down. Therefore, from both sides, it is in your best interest to get along.

When somebody decides to become a cop, there seem to be two mentalities; those that really do want to work with the community, and those who are on a power trip.

The power trips outnumber the others to start with, but some grow out of it at some point. That said, on the streets, there will always be more assholes; the ones who are honestly interested in helping people tend to be promoted sooner, and so more of them become desk jockeys.

I have found that the power-trip cops are less interested in joining as bicycle or horse-mounted police; you don't get the chance to pull over or arrest many people when you're not in a squad car. If you need to talk to a cop about something, look for bikes or horses.

However, if a mounted police officer is wearing riot gear, I'd keep my distance; it means there's a football match or other such riot going on (they will be too busy to pay much attention to you most likely, anyway.)

[Niccolò Rossi]

This is a question that has bothered me for a long time and I have no solid position. My stance on the issue is questionable and I look forward to the discussion this thread yield so as to clear up my understanding of the matter.

I find the best definition of a class is used by G.E.M. de Ste. Croix in his work The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World to use when analysing classes:
"A class [...] is a group of persons in a community identified by their position in the whole system of social production, defined above all according to their relationship (primarily in terms of degree of ownership or control) to the conditions of production (that is to say, the means and labour of production) and to other classes."The first step in defining cops into a class is determining their relationship to the 'conditions of production'. Cops, generally speaking, do not own the means of production and must sell their labour-power to the state for a wage. The question is then: What labour do cops perform? Cops do not directly produce commodities (their labour has a use-value, but no exchange-value). Is this enough to classify them as a class separate to the proletariat? This question is far more wide reaching than just the scope of police. Bank Tellers, Clerks, Sales persons, Cleaners and even potentially Teachers and Shop-floor Managers are all examples of individuals who despite being wage slaves to a capitalist, do not directly produce surplus-value.

The vital question is are these individuals proletarians? (I will make a separate thread hoping to answer these questions shortly as this question is definitely one of interest) If the answer is no, then cops are not proletarians. If the answer is yes, then so far as we have looked at the question, cops can still be regarded as proletarians.

However, it would be incorrect to leave the discussion here. The relations to the 'conditions of production' are a prime determining factor in class analysis but they are not the be all and end all. The big question is: What position in the system of social production do cops occupy?

Despite being proletarians in so far as they are wage labourers they occupy a distinctly different position when taken in the context of the whole system of social production, that is, they are the defenders of capital and the enforces of capitalist property relations.

It is when viewed this way that cops can be considered a separate class. Whilst we may consider cops of a different class to the proletariat, their objective class interests are another matter entirely and need to be considered whenever discussing social class.
Cops, despite in their occupation being forced into direct confrontation of the proletariat have the same objective class interests, namely the expropriation of the capitalist class, the abolition of wage labour and classlessness. Whilst of course in everyday life cops may hold antagonistic class interests to those of the proletariat, their objective class interests, whether they are conscious of it or not lye with those of all other working masses.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob: Some of that is touched upon in the thread I linked to.

Actually, it is the material in that thread that DROVE ME to create this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html

And ultimately this:

Simplication of class relations? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html)

[RedAnarchist]

They are mostly born of working class parents, but often work against the working class, so I went for the first option.

[Pogue]

The police are controlled by the state, which is controlled predominantly by capitalists. They do alot of good, so they're not pigs or evil, but some do alot of bad (corrupt ones, racist ones, power abusing ones) and are often used incorrectly by the state. They are not all bad or neccesarily bad, but some aspects/members are bad. They are workers, proleterians, but some betray their people and their mission.

[Dust Bunnies]

I think they are tools of the state. I've read about them stopping peaceful protests and beating those in it, even very young children. There may be a good one or two in a department, but unless they stand up against evil actions and refuse to do them only then they are a worker's friend.

[F9]

i voted the first.No there arent workers,they think that they have the power to do whatever they want,they use authority,they abuse their "powers",they protect the state,they beat people up for nothing or they get them in jail so i dont want anythink common with such people!Although after a revolution they would get the chance to join the communities,but i cant really trust such guys in a revolution or in something important!

Fuserg9:star:

[Dros]

Ummm.....

Both?

[Qwerty489]

Ummm.....

Both?
Exactly, I think the answer here is pretty simple, no matter how much the ultra-lefts try to disguise the issue in flowery rhetoric.


"The Party is the General Staff of the proletariat...
The Party is the organised detachment of the working class...
The Party is the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat...
The Party is an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat ".
(J.V. Stalin; "The Foundations of Leninism", in: "Works", Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 179, 181, 186, 188-9).

Therefore we accept the fact that the ruling party, which is a political extension of the economic ruling class, whether bourgeois or proletarian, is the instrument of which state orders are given and received.

According to Marxism-Leninism, a state is essentially a machinery of force by which one social class rules over the rest of the people:



"The state is an organ of class rule....
A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power ".
(V.I. Lenin: "The State and Revolution", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 9, 11).


Therefore we must assume the police are the extension of the very primary apparatus of the state, and in the case of a ruling working class (exercised through the Party), the police are the tool of the ruling working class.

[professorchaos]

Gotta refer to my nigga rs2k on this one (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theoryebc0.html?subaction=showfull&id=1082819752&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&PHPSESSID=d450205ac4c84f795ea2311f3fe1942a)

I think NWA said it best with respect to the police.

[F9]

Gotta refer to my nigga rs2k on this one (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theoryebc0.html?subaction=showfull&id=1082819752&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&PHPSESSID=d450205ac4c84f795ea2311f3fe1942a)

I think NWA said it best with respect to the police.

just respect on that!:thumbup1:

Fuserg9:star:

[DancingLarry]

By and large the police consist of a self-selectied and self-perpetuating coterie of the most brutal lumpen thugs, that take great pleasure in flaunting authority over others, whether in a psychosocial manner, or with plain old violence. The badge (always with the number taped over these days, anyone else notice this?) and the blue wall of silence guarantees that they can act like the lowest most vicious brutes with total impunity and immunity.

[shorelinetrance]

most police aren't class conscious, so are they all directly trying to keep the proletarian down so to speak?

you'd be a moron to assume that.

most of them do the job because they see it as the moral thing to do, and they feel that it's a job they need to do.

the cops aren't out to bust the proletariat class every chance they get.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Their specific intentions of some officers have no bearing on the character of police as a whole.

I agree completely with this statement. However, I would like to see you answer a question. What defines a class? What is it that makes police a class separate from the proletariat?

I am asking this question as I have not seen you answer this question directly before and it has relevance beyond this thread (regarding 'socialist' Cuba).

Would you agree it is what I mentioned earlier. Police are proletarians only in so far as they are 'propertyless' wage labourers. However they constitute a separate class when considered in reference to the whole system of social production.

[SovSindorin]

Just another tool of the bourgeoise

[Niccolò Rossi]

Just another tool of the bourgeoise

Aren't product wage labourers also tools of the bourgeoisie? Cops can not be separated from the working class as a whole on such a basis.

[SovSindorin]

Aren't product wage labourers also tools of the bourgeoisie? Cops can not be separated from the working class as a whole on such a basis.


The individuals themselves ma not be the tools, however the institution they serve and the very positions they hold, are the tools I speak of.

[Qwerty489]

You know guys, the proletariat don't always act in their interests, in fact the cultural hegemony of the bourgeois ensures alot of them don't.

[Dros]

Their specific intentions of some officers have no bearing on the character of police as a whole.

This also.

I personally know some police officers that are genuinely good people in their personal lives.

They also serve a 100% reactionary role in society. Those things are not inconsistent per se.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The individuals themselves ma not be the tools, however the institution they serve and the very positions they hold, are the tools I speak of.

I understand that. The point I am making is that the fact that police are a tool of the ruling class (specifically for the violent suppression of others) is not adequate to distinguish them from the proletariat as a whole. The argument could be made that workers (not the workers themselves but their positions and the role they serve) is one merely as a 'tool of the bourgeoisie'. I'm not denying the fact that they aren't members of the proletariat, what I am saying is your criterion for separating the two is insufficient.

[RedAnarchist]

You know guys, the proletariat don't always act in their interests, in fact the cultural hegemony of the bourgeois ensures alot of them don't.

Thats because they aren't class concious. As for the police, they are concious of their service to the bourgoisie.

[Niccolò Rossi]

As for the police, they are concious of their service to the bourgoisie.

On what basis do you make such a claim? I'm sure many would argue that police aren't class conscious, rather they carry out their duties on the basis of what they see as 'the public good'.

[RedAnarchist]

On what basis do you make such a claim? I'm sure many would argue that police aren't class conscious, rather they carry out their duties on the basis of what they see as 'the public good'.

I didn't say they were class concious, I said that they were concious of their role. Bad choice of words on my part.

I agree that a lot do carry out their duties on the basis of what they see as the public good, but this doesn't apply to all police.

[nobullshit]

The replies in this thread are absolutely ridiculous, as are the choices given in the poll. Surely you people must have a reason to spew such nonsense about police and law enforcement, but what reason that is I do not know. Police officers are there to protect us from crime, and American citizens don't exactly feel comfortable living in a society of pure anarchy, so the police force protects us from the bad guys, you know - your murderers, rapists, armed robbers, cocaine dealers. You know, the people you would rather keep your distance from.
Why must you lefties continually focus on keeping absolutely every aspect of society into some class analysis drivel? It is absolutely unncessary to view societal norms and tensions in this way, both in modern times and retrospectively.

[Pogue]

Nobullshit has indeed lived up to his name and delivered a point I agree with in some respects, although we must remember the police can/are used oppresively and some abuse their power.
Your point on fitting everything into our currently existing analysis is true and weakens the left as a whole - things are not set in stone, not everything the early communists said were 100% true.

[trivas7]

I personally know some police officers that are genuinely good people in their personal lives.

They also serve a 100% reactionary role in society. Those things are not inconsistent per se.
This is an interesting response from such a revolutionary as your good self. By what morality are they "genuinely good people"? I have no doubt that they are nice, polite people in the company of their peers. But insofar as they protect the property/lives of their ruling masters they oppress the laboring/lumpen classes, no?

[Comrade B]

The police are members of the working class, but that does not justify their actions. Police are, ideally, no worse than soldiers, or anyone else simply trying to make a living off the system they live in, however, it is not uncommon that they are total bastards obsessed with power. My view of them has been worsening as of late, but outside of my town, where I have no knowledge of their actions, I try to treat them as I would anyone else.

[Unicorn]

The police are workers at least in some capacity. This implies that:
1) Socialists should express solidarity with striking cops
2) Socialists should try and win them over so that a mutiny would happen in the police force as well as in the army

[trivas7]

The police are members of the working class [...]
In the Marxist sense are not they members of the proletariat -- as someone else remarked they don't "expand capital". They are functionaries of the ruling class and are technically(?) unproductive workers.

[Pirate Utopian]

I like some songs by The Police but it's not a band I'm really into.
lol. jk.

They may sometimes come from prole-families but they remain guarddogs for the bourgeoise.

[Niccolò Rossi]

In the Marxist sense are not they members of the proletariat -- as someone else remarked they don't "expand capital". They are functionaries of the ruling class and are technically(?) unproductive workers.

The fact that they are unproductive does not necessarily imply that they are not proletarians on it's own. Drop by my theory thread and other your thoughts: Productive/Unproductive labour and the Proletariat (http://www.revleft.com/vb/product-unproductive-labour-t83666/index.html)

[comrade stalin guevara]

they are payd wage slaves to defend capitolisim
we call them kgb

[spartan]

Unproductive workers would make the police Lumpenproletariats who correct me if i am wrong Marx said could end up backing the Bourgeoisie in a revolutionary situation against the Proletarians? Hence their current role of upholding property laws in a Capitalist society.

[ipollux]

Because of my job, I'm forced to stop by the local police station on a weekly basis.

They're no friends of mine.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Unproductive workers would make the police Lumpenproletariats who correct me if i am wrong Marx said could end up backing the Bourgeoisie in a revolutionary situation against the Proletarians?

Police are certainly not lumpenproles, nor does performing unproductive labour make one a lumpen prole. Maybe you'd like to drop by my theory thread on Productive/Unproductive Labour (http://www.revleft.com/vb/product-unproductive-labour-t83666/index.html) (for fuck's sake, someone please breath some life back into it! It's an interesting topic, don't ignore it!)

[turquino]

The police are workers at least in some capacity. This implies that:
1) Socialists should express solidarity with striking cops
2) Socialists should try and win them over so that a mutiny would happen in the police force as well as in the army
Some of the demands of police of border guard unions are diametrically opposed to our interests. For example, the canadian Customs and Excise Union demands stricter controls on immigration and wants more guns and powers. The people who choose to pursue law enforcement want more repressive powers and the ability to "judge on site". (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/how-cops-really-want-to-police/) They should only be supported when they start calling for more restraint on themselves.

The troops are generally just as bad as the police. We need less support the troops, and more resist the troops!

[Unicorn]

Some of the demands of police of border guard unions are diametrically opposed to our interests. For example, the canadian Customs and Excise Union demands stricter controls on immigration and wants more guns and powers. The people who choose to pursue law enforcement want more repressive powers and the ability to "judge on site". (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/how-cops-really-want-to-police/) They should only be supported when they start calling for more restraint on themselves.

The troops are generally just as bad as the police. We need less support the troops, and more resist the troops!
It isn't rare in the West that trade unions of any kind are controlled by right-wing opportunists and make reactionary demands. Some unions lobby for immigration restrictions because of the fear that immigration could depress wages, for example. Reactionary demands should be opposed but demands for better pay and benefits should be supported.

[comrade stalin guevara]

most trade unions in nz 'claim' to be left but our low pay doesent back this up

in the 90s our left was purged not in the stalin way our true marxist comrades were all locked up

[danyboy27]

the polices and armed forces are necessary if you ask me.
I am not a bourgeois, but so far, without them, my neigborhood would be hell, even worst than it is right now, and they are repressing those street gangs that are operating in my neigborhood.

polices forces have order to protect the population regardless of gender, race, social status or economic status. Not all cops are perfect, but so far they are doing a good job here.


to me cops are not a protector of the bourgeois but protector of the people, the population.

of course they may spying socialist or communist group, but the 60s are over, and i think checking for us to them is a waste of time.

[Trystan]

to me cops are not a protector of the bourgeois but protector of the people, the population.



That's how it should be . . . I'm sure that many people become cops to protect people, but in reality, they spend most of their time protecting bourgeois property.

Edit: and cops are of the proletarian class. I mean come on, we all do our bit to support the system.

[danyboy27]

That's how it should be . . . I'm sure that many people become cops to protect people, but in reality, they spend most of their time protecting bourgeois property.

Edit: and cops are of the proletarian class. I mean come on, we all do our bit to support the system.

well, in my city, i dont see that, they do a big work here, protecting me and my neighborhood from street gang.

[Trystan]

well, in my city, i dont see that, they do a big work here, protecting me and my neighborhood from street gang.

In Britain, they don't do anything of the sort. They are never out on the streets . . . apart from the shopping streets, of course.

[danyboy27]

In Britain, they don't do anything of the sort. They are never out on the streets . . . apart from the shopping streets, of course.


odd, i am downtown, and the police is here constantly, there was a fight in front of my appartement they where there in 4 min.

[Dros]

This is an interesting response from such a revolutionary as your good self. By what morality are they "genuinely good people"? I have no doubt that they are nice, polite people in the company of their peers. But insofar as they protect the property/lives of their ruling masters they oppress the laboring/lumpen classes, no?

That's exactly right. They serve a 100% reactionary role. However, morality is completely subjective and dehumanizing ones "enemy" is not only anti-scientific but counter productive. I despise the police as an entity. That is entirely different from saying that there aren't individual cops who are nice people.

-=-=-

I voted other. By which I mean both. Being a proletarian is not a matter of expanding capital or not. It's a matter of your relationship to the means of production. Cops sell their labor. They are proletarians.

[RedAnarchist]

odd, i am downtown, and the police is here constantly, there was a fight in front of my appartement they where there in 4 min.

He said in Britain. I presume you aren't in Britain due to usage of words like "downtown".

[KurtFF8]

I would say both. They are certainly part of the proletarian class, but they also help protect the interests of capital. I wouldn't quite go as far as to call them "class traitors" as they are being duped just as much as the rest of the proletariat. The majority of police are police because they need jobs. Granted the effects of being in that type of job leads them to act in "bad" ways (their surroundings and their environment influence them to behave in certain ways and have a certain world view, I have a feeling that Marx would agree with this one at least).

There are of course some cops that are cops because they want to be in that type of position in society and want that type of "power". I would say that they are more likely the exception rather than the rule. Either way, police are still a good example of how capital uses the state to further its own interests.

But to say that they aren't workers or part of an oppressed people is a stretch. Especially if you look at the mere amount of cops that exist in capitalist countries, then you start to get close to contradicting the claims of the left that it is truly a majority being oppressed by a minority.

[ChristianV777]

Right. I agree with what Kurt wrote.
They're in a very hierarchial position in the wider society, taught to obey orders and follow regulations.
They're mainly working class bought by the State.
So, I'd say both the first two answers are correct.

Police do serve a positive purpose. But, they also serve to protect property and the status quo and the State, and in many instances, have been involved in racist issues.
I'm not against the police, per se, although I am against the "justice" system as it's called in common parlance. For example, drug crimes or property crimes being enforced with jail sentences, and all that bull.
As Anatole France said, "The laws are totally equal. Vagrancy laws pertain to both the homeless and rich." (paraphrased) (If you're not familiar with France, he meant that remark as sarcasm.)
I do have a problem with a full-time, career police force as I believe it breeds authoritarian tendencies in the workers. And, the wider society's attitude toward police is also problematic, that they should be respected and obeyed because of their position in society, even if the laws are corrupt. But, that can extend beyond the police who are "doing their job" to the system which creates the law and pays the police to do their dirty work.

[INDK]

The Police are a definitive example of 'class traitors'. In relation to the means of production they can very easily qualify as members of the proletariat, but their social purpose totally defies this. They protect the bourgeois and their interests and, importantly, their property.

[Decolonize The Left]

The Police are a definitive example of 'class traitors'. In relation to the means of production they can very easily qualify as members of the proletariat, but their social purpose totally defies this. They protect the bourgeois and their interests and, importantly, their property.

Seconded and well put.

- August

[KurtFF8]

The Police are a definitive example of 'class traitors'. In relation to the means of production they can very easily qualify as members of the proletariat, but their social purpose totally defies this. They protect the bourgeois and their interests and, importantly, their property.

Indeed, but the people who fill those roles are generally and for the most part from the proletariat. Thus they are instruments in their own class's oppression.

[INDK]

Indeed, but the people who fill those roles are generally and for the most part from the proletariat. Thus they are instruments in their own class's oppression.

What's the 'but' for? I just said that. Cops are proletarian in a strict, economic sense, but in the social implications of oppression in Capitalism, cops are an instrument. I agree with you and you agree with me, according to everything you've said as of yet.

[Trystan]

The Police are a definitive example of 'class traitors'. In relation to the means of production they can very easily qualify as members of the proletariat, but their social purpose totally defies this. They protect the bourgeois and their interests and, importantly, their property.

I doubt that most cops are conscious of this, though. And not all crime is against property. I think that they could also be mobilised as a revolutionary force, if and when the time comes.

Plus, as I have already mentioned, we all do our bit to maintain the system. If this is "traitorous", then I guess only life stylists have got it right. :rolleyes:

[Hessian Peel]

I think that they could also be mobilised as a revolutionary force, if and when the time comes.

What complete and utter crud.

The police are there to protect the (bourgeois) state and capital.

Their nature is reflective of the level of resistance these two encounter.

In the case of my country, Ireland, one of the police forces serving imperialist and native capitalist interests here (the RUC/PSNI) were mobilised into a paramilitary organisation with part-time militias (A, B and C "Specials") and had terrorist death squads also largely under their control (UVF, UDA, RHC, LVF etc.).

Their "civic responsibilities" were further ignored when they simply became an augment of the thousands of British reinforcements that poured into occupied Ireland in order to quell native resistance.

Part of the normalisation process of the illegal British presence under the so-called peace process has been to give the Pigs in occupied Ireland a human face and so limited reforms have been introduced. If they were under the same pressure they faced during the Troubles they'd be re-militarized overnight.

Taking all of the above into account; please outline the revolutionary potential held within the institution of the RUC/PSNI. :)

[Trystan]

What complete and utter crud.

In the case of my country, Ireland, one of the police forces serving imperialist and native capitalist interests here (the RUC/PSNI) were mobilised into a paramilitary organisation with part-time militias



I wasn't talking about Ireland. Clearly there are other factors at work there (i.e. religious conflict). Your argument is a straw man.

The hostility shown to the police in general on here is quite frankly immature and baseless.

[Hessian Peel]

I wasn't talking about Ireland. Clearly there are other factors at work there (i.e. religious conflict). Your argument is a straw man.

The hostility shown to the police in general on here is quite frankly immature and baseless.

Your lack of knowledge regarding the conflict in Ireland and the reactionary role of the police in every capitalist society is even more shocking.

Wind your neck in there pet.

[Trystan]

Lets compare the role of a policeman with the role of, say, a bin man:

A bin man is a proletarian. A bin man will pick up the bins of a bourgeois neighborhood. By doing this, he is maintaining that neighborhood which is populated by the rich.

Now, a cop protects the property of the bourgeois. The question is: why is he considered to be worse than the bin man?

My point is: we all maintain the system somehow. We go to work, do what our bosses tell us, pay tax etc. etc. Call the police "class traitors" if you wish, but if they are, you are too.

[Hessian Peel]

Lets compare the role of a policeman with the role of, say, a bin man:

A bin man is a proletarian. A bin man will pick up the bins of a bourgeois neighborhood. By doing this, he is maintaining that neighborhood which is populated by the rich.

Now, a cop protects the property of the bourgeois. The question is: why is he considered to be worse than the bin man?

My point is: we all maintain the system somehow. We go to work, do what our bosses tell us, pay tax etc. etc. Call the police "class traitors" if you wish, but if they are, you are too.

That's a pile of bullshit and I'm not going to repeat myself.

[Trystan]

That's a pile of bullshit and I'm not going to repeat myself.

Well, if you have nothing to add in refuting what I say, it is indeed best to say nothing. ;)

[Raoul_RedRat]

That's a pile of bullshit and I'm not going to repeat myself.

You are being unreasonable and did use a straw man. Since Trystan addressed the idea of 'police' in general, and you rebut only by giving a particular example.

And in the case of Ireland your point is perhaps practically proven, but you haven't proven any necessity. Since we are dealing here with the conceptual question as to whether the police can be considered part of the proletariat, it does not suffice to give one example and say that it is definitive.

[Prairie Fire]

You are being unreasonable and did use a straw man. Since Trystan addressed the idea of 'police' in general, and you rebut only by giving a particular example.

So... you believe that because there are some countries where the police break skulls with their jackboots, and other countries where they hand out cotton candy to the local children, that the police play a different role depending on their locale? That some bourgois states have different general goals and methods than other bourgois states?

Certainly the level of police brutality, and their conformance to procedure varies from country to country, usually directly tied to the economic situation and level of proletarian conciousness/discontent in the country.

This, however, does not negate the role of the police in the bourgois state, which is as the enforcers of the bourgosie as a class. All of the various institutions of the bourgoisie state apparatus exist in order to preseve and exercise political power in the the hands of the bourgoisie as a class.

In some countries, the political situation is less severe, in other countries it is more severe, but understand that in the event that the class dictatorship of the bourgosie is ever threatened, that friendly "Officer Bob" will adjust his behavior accordingly.

Just because police are not generally kicking in foreheads of workers in your country, doesn't mean that they wouldn't, under circumstances where the situation called for it.

[Saorsa]

Lets compare the role of a policeman with the role of, say, a bin man:

A bin man is a proletarian. A bin man will pick up the bins of a bourgeois neighborhood. By doing this, he is maintaining that neighborhood which is populated by the rich.

Now, a cop protects the property of the bourgeois. The question is: why is he considered to be worse than the bin man?
Because a bin man doesn't escort scabs across the picket line.

Because a bin man doesn't lift up the gas mask of an unarmed, peaceful protester and spray pepper spray into their eyes.

Because a binman doesn't beat up Maori prisoners in their cells (http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/no-justice-for-victims-of-police-brutality/)here in NZ, or torture Republican activists to death in the occupied 6 counties, or rape female community activists in India.

Because a bin man is not part of the repressive capitalist state apparatus. A bin man is not part of the "armed bodies of men" that Engels rightly said enforce the authority of the state.

The issue is not "omg liek da copz broek up a fite outside mi dor the otha nite lolz they cnt be az bad az thy r in ur countrie". The issue is, what is the primary function of the police force in a class divided, capitalist society? What is the primary service they perform for the capitalist class that pays their salaries?

Marxism ABC bro - the state serves one function and one function only - to prop up and defend the ruling class, and to oppress and hold down the exploited classes. The police are, along with the military, immigration officials and so on, the guns, batons, prisons and riot shields of the capitalist state - they are the forces it uses to maintain it's power, they are it's bodies of armed men.

The police do perform other functions, e.g. breaking up those nasty fights outside your door. But when push comes to shove, and class conflict erupts (e.g. a strike, a protest or a full blown revolution), the police expose the true nature of their role in capitalist society through their actions. I remember how during the Progressive Enterprises Lockout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Progressive_Enterprises_dispute) in 2006, the cops didn't show up to let us back into the store where we work. They didn't come along to tell the arseholes that run Countdown supermarket that they had to up our wages to match inflation, and give us pay parity with other people doing the exact same job in other parts of the country. No, instead they came along to shoves us out of the way so a bunch of cowardly scabs could get into the store, and to force us to allow trucks in. When anyone resisted this, even in the slightest, they were arrested.

The police enforce the rule of capital, against the resistance of the workers. THEY ARE OUR ENEMIES. If some of them choose not to resist the revolution, we won't necessarily hunt them down after the red flag is raised over our capital. But we have to accept that they are our foes, and will have to be smashed along with all the other parts of the state apparatus.

Fuck the police!

[Raoul_RedRat]

So... you believe that because there are some countries where the police break skulls with their jackboots, and other countries where they hand out cotton candy to the local children, that the police play a different role depending on their locale? That some bourgois states have different general goals and methods than other bourgois states?

Yes there are apparent difference in the ways states function, but you are wrong to say that I would belief they have a different general goal. But there is always a discrepancy between the power of the state and the actual practice of it's institutions. But you ask things you answer yourself.


Certainly the level of police brutality, and their conformance to procedure varies from country to country, usually directly tied to the economic situation and level of proletarian conciousness/discontent in the country.

But you state:


This, however, does not negate the role of the police in the bourgois state, which is as the enforcers of the bourgosie as a class. All of the various institutions of the bourgoisie state apparatus exist in order to preseve and exercise political power in the the hands of the bourgoisie as a class.

Sure but given the discrepancies for the good or for the worst that does occur, it isn't necessarily so. Meaning that in potential and in practice the police is and can be part of the proletariat.


In some countries, the political situation is less severe, in other countries it is more severe, but understand that in the event that the class dictatorship of the bourgosie is ever threatened, that friendly "Officer Bob" will adjust his behavior accordingly.

And why would "Office Bob" be more inclined to protect the bourgeoisie than any other class entangled in an interdependence with the capitalist state? You obscure the whole idea of "class consciousness" with a diatribe on the current ambivalent state of affairs considering the police, for which you give no argument. You only restate that 'the police' has the formal task to protect the capitalist state, and consequently you assume that they will do so when the revolution will start.

On another note the only thing you do is conceive of a monolithic idee fixe called 'the police', denying the fact that these persons are very able to become class consciousness. If the social context is willing.


Just because police are not generally kicking in foreheads of workers in your country, doesn't mean that they wouldn't, under circumstances where the situation called for it.

This statement is void.

[Prairie Fire]

You only restate that 'the police' has the formal task to protect the capitalist state, and consequently you assume that they will do so when the revolution will start.

Name even a single historical precedent when this did not happen.

Please cite a historical incident when the pigs disobeyed orders, and crossed over to the side of the dissidents, to the revolutionaries?

In Canada, 1837, when support for the revolution in Upper Canada (Ontario) was 10 to 1, and support for revolution in Lower Canada (Quebec) was 100 to 1 in terms of population demographics, there are still no records of one law-man deserting to the revolutionary side, or collaberating with the rebels in any way.

Please cite a historical example where a police officer defected to the revolutionary forces, please.

[spartan]

In some countries, the political situation is less severe, in other countries it is more severe, but understand that in the event that the class dictatorship of the bourgosie is ever threatened, that friendly "Officer Bob" will adjust his behavior accordingly.
I dont agree with that at all.

During the UK miners strike in the 80's Thatcher had to bring in special squads from London to deal with the striking miners as she didn't trust the local police forces who had to much loyalty to the local area (as they themselves were locals) and it's people (i.e. the ones on strike) who were more often than not their neighbours, family friends or in some cases relatives (Officer Bob obviously regarded himself as having more in common with the miners in the mining community he protected then the fat cats giving orders in London).

I dont know about you but i for one am thankful for the police's presence in my local community (my cousin is a policeman by the way) as i have to deal with fucking chav thugs and vandalisers hanging around in gangs intimidating people all the time and most working class people in my area regard policemen pepper spraying these people's eyes (which is rarely done for fear of being sued or so i was told by one copper) as something long overdue.

Perhaps it's different in the cities but in small communities most locals are happy with the presence of the police (who are usually drawn from there own area) except of course for those minority of teenage wankers who are intent on making everyone elses lives as shit as there own.

[Incendiarism]

I fucking love sting and the police, especially outlandos d'amour.

[Saorsa]

During the UK miners strike in the 80's Thatcher had to bring in special squads from London to deal with the striking miners as she didn't trust the local police forces who had to much loyalty to the local area (as they themselves were locals) and it's people (i.e. the ones on strike) who were more often than not their neighbours, family friends or in some cases relatives (Officer Bob obviously regarded himself as having more in common with the miners in the mining community he protected then the fat cats giving orders in London).

Well I don't know what it's like in small communities, having grown up in a city of 150,000 people. But the police station here is literally next door to Countdown supermarket - that didn't stop the filth from coming over and shoving old mens heads into the door of their paddy wagon's as they arrested them for trying to stop scabs from crossing the picket line. In 99% of cases, I'm sure you'll find that the pigs do not take the side of the workers in class conflict such as a strike. I expect most of the pigs in 1980s UK would have been able to overcome their qualms and enforce the bosses will against the miners.


I dont know about you but i for one am thankful for the police's presence in my local community (my cousin is a policeman by the way) as i have to deal with fucking chav thugs and vandalisers hanging around in gangs intimidating people all the time and most working class people in my area regard policemen pepper spraying these people's eyes (which is rarely done for fear of being sued or so i was told by one copper) as something long overdue.

I've got a cousin in Australia whose a pig too. When me and my family were over there for Christmas last year and early this year, he regaled us with hilarious stories of how he forcibly arrested drunk Aboriginal men and women in the Aboriginal ghetto he was stationed in, Redfern. The way he talked about it made it sound as if he was part of a foreign occupation force! Nobody spoke to him, children would give him the evil eye as he passed, and he constantly felt nervous. Considering the racist, contemptuous way he spoke of the Aboriginal people (or "Abos" as he called them), it's hardly surprising that they responded with fear and hostility, and it really revealed a lot about the true role of the pigs in capitalist society.

The lumpen behaviour of the "chavs" you refer to is certainly not something to be upheld - but we must also recognise that this anti-social behaviour is a result of the feeling of alienation from society that capitalism creates among those people. The solution to this problem is a social revolution and the extension of a better quality of life to these young people, not the filth spraying pepper spray in their eyes.



Perhaps it's different in the cities but in small communities most locals are happy with the presence of the police (who are usually drawn from there own area) except of course for those minority of teenage wankers who are intent on making everyone elses lives as shit as there own.


Um, that's hardly surprising considering the lack of class consciousness in most First World countries today, and the level of reaction present in most small towns, espescially those in predominantly rural areas. Our task as revolutionaries is not to tail-end the existing level of class consciousness, but to try and move it forward, acting as a vanguard - we're not supposed to reflect what people already feel, we're supposed to try and lead them towards a more radical and revolutionary position.

Perhaps the solution to "teenage wankers who are intent on making everyone elses lives as shit as there own" is to try and make these teenager's lives less shit?

[Sir Comradical]

Mix of both. They are of the proletarian class protecting the bourgeoisie. That's why they are the most hated vestige of power all over the planet.

[Trystan]

So... you believe that because there are some countries where the police break skulls with their jackboots, and other countries where they hand out cotton candy to the local children, that the police play a different role depending on their locale?

You believe that because some working-class people join fascist parties, the working-class play a different role depending? :rolleyes:


The lumpen behaviour of the "chavs" you refer to is certainly not something to be upheld - but we must also recognise that this anti-social behaviour is a result of the feeling of alienation from society that capitalism creates among those people. The solution to this problem is a social revolution and the extension of a better quality of life to these young people, not the filth spraying pepper spray in their eyes.

Agreed. But before that time comes, who's going to protect others (i.e. working-class people) from them?


Anyway, I think the rest of the anti-police argument has already been dealt with sufficiently . . . not all cops are bad people. They do important jobs that will still need to be done post-capitalism, dealing with speeding, drink driving, assaults . . .

[Hessian Peel]

You believe that because some working-class people join fascist parties, the working-class play a different role depending? :rolleyes:

A "working class" fascist is the same as a "working class" police officer. Though they both may be part of the working class they act against its interests. You're basically claiming that part of the ruling class has revolutionary potential while simultaneously protecting the interests of said class. That makes absolutely no sense.


Agreed. But before that time comes, who's going to protect others (i.e. working-class people) from them? For nearly 30 years communities in occupied Ireland had no police force presence whatsoever. Crime rates have rocketed since the guard was let down and certain elements have begun collaboration with the police. There are still community watch groups trying to combat anti-social behaviour and they do a better job than the police with fewer numbers and less resources.


Anyway, I think the rest of the anti-police argument has already been dealt with sufficiently . . . not all cops are bad people. No it hasn't been you just feel you know better than the rest of us, but you don't. Of course not all cops are bad people and in an individual capacity they can be a force for good at times, but as a collective they are by default reactionary.


They do important jobs that will still need to be done post-capitalism, dealing with speeding, drink driving, assaults... We won't need the present style of policing to tackle those issues under socialism.

[Trystan]

For nearly 30 years communities in occupied Ireland had no police force presence whatsoever. Crime rates have rocketed since the guard was let down and certain elements have begun collaboration with the police.


What "guard"? You mean since the neo-fascist IRA stopped blowing up children and other civilians and disarmed? That?

[Prairie Fire]

You believe that because some working-class people join fascist parties, the working-class play a different role depending? http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-t83648/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

I'm sure in your own head, that comparison made sense...

Here is why it didn't make sense to me:

1. "Police" are not a class, they are an arm of a states apparatus specifically designed to maintain and uphold the state; The working class (presuming you mean the Proletariat, and possibly the poor peasantry in some countries) are a class, a demographic of people based on their relation to the means of production.
You are comparing apples and oranges.

2. Certain members of the working class do go over to the fascist parties, but this does not negate the role of the working class as a whole towards revolution and support for their own interests. Certain pigs may (and this is a pretty big 'may'; I still have yet to be presented with a historical precendent) go over to the revolutionary forces, but this does not negate the role of the police as an armed wing specifically designed and used to implement the policies and uphold the structure of a state. Now, if a state happens to be in the hands of the bourgoisie as a class, then the police are defenders of the interests of the bourgoisie as a class.



Anyway, I think the rest of the anti-police argument has already been dealt with sufficiently . . . not all cops are bad people.


Aparently not, if you just made a statement like that.

You have taken a rational discussion about the class sympathies and role of the police under a bourgeoisie state, and turned it into meaningless, metaphyscial moralism ("Good People" and "Bad people").

Read some Marx, get a materialist world outlook, or shut the fuck up.

As for what Spartan said, Spartan, I grew up in a "town" of under one thousand people. To this day, there are less than ten pigs for over 50 km, and several settlements and towns. Now, despite the fact that I know many of the police by name, and they know me and my family, I still think they would have no qualms about shooting me. It goes with the territory of being a cop, that you need to be able to arrest/shoot someone if you are given the order.

Besides, even in the rural areas, most cops are not locals born and raised, rather they are exiles from the cities, who have been re-assigned to the rural areas for embarrassing problems (alcoholism, etc,) and they rotate the police in the rural areas regularly. The bourgeoisie takes measures to keep the cops from getting too acquainted and chummy with the locals.

[Annie K.]

Would you consider the french National Guard as a police force ?

I would, and I would also argue that as the form of the state and of its resources evolves, a disconnection with the original design of the police forces can appear and grow. And it could lead some individuals and some groups in these forces to join the party when the music gets loud.

[Saorsa]

What "guard"? You mean since the neo-fascist IRA stopped blowing up children and other civilians and disarmed? That?


Oh my fucking God, I despise liberals like you! :lol:

I don't really have anything to add to what Prairie fire said - he summed it up perfectly. The issue of whether individual pigs are "bad people" is irrelevant, just as the issue of whether individual capitalists are "bad people" is irrelevant. The issue is, what role do the police serve in the context of a class-divided capitalist society, and as part of the repressive capitalist state apparatus? I'd recommend all the liberals who arguing about how "nice" the cops are read a copy of Lenin's "State and Revolution", stat!

Anyway, back to the question of the "neo-fascist IRA". All that statement does, Trystan, is reveal how ignorant and uneducated you are about the national liberation struggle in Ireland, and about Marxist theory in general.

The IRA (I assume you're reffering to the Provisional IRA from the 60s onwards, because there were technically two IRAs) was a people's army waging a national liberation struggle against a British imperialist occupation force, fighting for a 32 County Democratic Socialist Republic. It defended nationalist communities against sectarian attacks by Loyalist paramilitaries, and their masters in the RUC and the British occupation forces.

In any armed struggle, innocent people are going to get caught in the crossfire and get hurt. Deal with it. It happened or is happening in Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru, Nepal, the Philippines and countless other places - does that make all these groups "neo-fascist"? Does that mean we should have opposed, or should opposed today, all these revolutionary struggles? I fully expect a counter-revolutionary liberal like you to say yes, but as a revolutionary I don't think so and neither do many others on this forum.

And explain what the fuck the term "neo-fascist" means, and exactly how the IRA fitted into this category? Fascism is the combination of state power and corporate power (according to Mussolini), and the IR were fighting for a Democratic Socialist Republic... hmm. Weird, I fail to see the connection.

Go cry about Stalin to mummy and daddy. This is Revleft, not Libleft. Or it's supposed to be, anyway...

[spartan]

Anyway, back to the question of the "neo-fascist IRA". All that statement does, Trystan, is reveal how ignorant and uneducated you are about the national liberation struggle in Ireland, and about Marxist theory in general.
Actually there is some truth in it as the IRA collaborated with the Nazis during the second world war against the British.

I wonder if someone on this site will have the guts to justify that?:lol:

But of course Trystan was probably talking specifically about the PIRA incarnation of the IRA so describing them as "neo-fascist" is completely wrong i agree.

The IRA (I assume you're reffering to the Provisional IRA from the 60s onwards, because there were technically two IRAs) was a people's army waging a national liberation struggle against a British imperialist occupation force, fighting for a 32 County Democratic Socialist Republic.
Yes i agree.

In any armed struggle, innocent people are going to get caught in the crossfire and get hurt. Deal with it. It happened or is happening in Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru, Nepal, the Philippines and countless other places - does that make all these groups "neo-fascist"? Does that mean we should have opposed, or should opposed today, all these revolutionary struggles? I fully expect a counter-revolutionary liberal like you to say yes, but as a revolutionary I don't think so and neither do many others on this forum.
Dont be so naive.

Everyone knows that the PIRA unintentially attracted certain bad people to their cause, and who's only intrest was in killing completely innocent British civilians just on account of their religion and nationality (hence why they set off bombs in busy town centres in places like Manchester which contained no military or establishment targets to justify this horrendous and completely pointless act of terrorism).

Of course they always maintained that they weren't deliberately targeting civilians, but call me a bit suspicious i cant for one second actually believe that planting bombs in busy town centres somehow wont lead to the deaths of completely innocent civilians with no connections to the conflict whatsoever.:rolleyes:

And please dont fall into the "well the British killed innocent Irish civilians first" trap as i know this and condemn it but i also know that two wrongs dont ever make a right.

All that has been achieved from the troubles is the IRA decommisioning their weapons, the British army cutting down it's number of troops and bases in Northern Ireland and the political wings (Sinn Fein and DUP) of the two biggest enemies (nationalists and unionists respectively) sharing power in a tense situation that looks set to unravel at anytime.

All those deaths, all that pain and all that suffering for that!

Tell me was it worth it?

[Trystan]

the IR were fighting for a Democratic Socialist Republic... hmm. Weird, I fail to see the connection.


I fail to see how the IRA blowing up city centers, killing three year old toddlers, and attacking working-class Protestant areas brought Ireland closer to a Democratic Socialist Republic. But if supporting them gives you a pathetic feeling of "empowerment" go ahead and praise them. And if your living at the other side of the world, why not? Ironically enough though, the IRA acted as a police force laying out punishment beatings for members of the community who were involved in crime. But what the hell, the Brits did it first! :lol:

[Comrade B]

minority of teenage wankers who are intent on making everyone elses lives as shit as there own.

As a "teenage wanker" in a small city/town, I would just like to let you know, we don't want old people here. My town has become one of the largest retirement communities. Since it earned this prestigious title, everything has gone to shit for the young. The schools are losing funding, the public pools have all shut down, cameras have been installed in nearly every place that youth gather, and three music venues have been shut down. This leaves very few options for fun. We have the choices of
1. Getting smashed
2. Getting high
3. Sitting in one of the cafes (not starbucks) until 10 pm, when they all begin to close
4. Sport fighting
5. Street racing
6. Real fighting

I take part in #1, #3, a bit of #4, and rarely some #6.

Of these options, the following are illegal 1., 2., 4., 5, 6., and after 10pm 3 (loitering)

I did not ask for old people to invade my town and refuse to put their taxes towards anything but repainting the fire department (this was voted for over buying the school new computers), nor to have them place noise complaints against every music venue, and I sure as hell didn't ask them to drive as shitty as they do. My point is, the troubles for the youth are brought about by the elderly, and we only see it fit occasionally to bring a bit of the shittiness back to your lives (like a concert we did in a house near a newly built retirement home). Yes, we are sometimes trying to annoy you.

[Hessian Peel]

Actually there is some truth in it as the IRA collaborated with the Nazis during the second world war against the British.

It was more a case of a desperate organisation with a militarist leadership looking for assistance, rather than intentional collaboration with the Nazis. It was wrong and I condemn it outright, but people like Sean Russell (IRA Chief of Staff at the time) weren't fascists. A while back Sean Russell's statue in Dublin was be-headed by "anti-fascists".

The real Irish-Nazi connections developed after the war when many war criminals from Belgium, Germany, Austria and some Balkan nations received asylum here. This had nothing to do with the RM but involved Fianna Fáil and church officials and so on. And of course we had the Blueshirts in the 30s which formed the Fine Gael party when they merged with Cumann na nGaedheal.


(hence why they set off bombs in busy town centres in places like Manchester which contained no military or establishment targets to justify this horrendous and completely pointless act of terrorism).It's called bombing commercial targets. It can be quite effective.


Of course they always maintained that they weren't deliberately targeting civiliansThey clearly did at times.


All that has been achieved from the troubles is the IRA decommisioning their weapons, the British army cutting down it's number of troops and bases in Northern Ireland and the political wings (Sinn Fein and DUP) of the two biggest enemies (nationalists and unionists respectively) sharing power in a tense situation that looks set to unravel at anytime.

All those deaths, all that pain and all that suffering for that!

Tell me was it worth it?No of course not, but Republicanism was never about any of that.

[Hessian Peel]

Oh my fucking God, I despise liberals like you! :lol:

I don't really have anything to add to what Prairie fire said - he summed it up perfectly. The issue of whether individual pigs are "bad people" is irrelevant, just as the issue of whether individual capitalists are "bad people" is irrelevant. The issue is, what role do the police serve in the context of a class-divided capitalist society, and as part of the repressive capitalist state apparatus? I'd recommend all the liberals who arguing about how "nice" the cops are read a copy of Lenin's "State and Revolution", stat!

Anyway, back to the question of the "neo-fascist IRA". All that statement does, Trystan, is reveal how ignorant and uneducated you are about the national liberation struggle in Ireland, and about Marxist theory in general.

The IRA (I assume you're reffering to the Provisional IRA from the 60s onwards, because there were technically two IRAs) was a people's army waging a national liberation struggle against a British imperialist occupation force, fighting for a 32 County Democratic Socialist Republic. It defended nationalist communities against sectarian attacks by Loyalist paramilitaries, and their masters in the RUC and the British occupation forces.

In any armed struggle, innocent people are going to get caught in the crossfire and get hurt. Deal with it. It happened or is happening in Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru, Nepal, the Philippines and countless other places - does that make all these groups "neo-fascist"? Does that mean we should have opposed, or should opposed today, all these revolutionary struggles? I fully expect a counter-revolutionary liberal like you to say yes, but as a revolutionary I don't think so and neither do many others on this forum.

And explain what the fuck the term "neo-fascist" means, and exactly how the IRA fitted into this category? Fascism is the combination of state power and corporate power (according to Mussolini), and the IR were fighting for a Democratic Socialist Republic... hmm. Weird, I fail to see the connection.

Go cry about Stalin to mummy and daddy. This is Revleft, not Libleft. Or it's supposed to be, anyway...

To be fair comrade, in their infancy the PRM were a reactionary organisation. In fact, the shift to the Left only really came with the prison struggles in the late 1970s/early 1980s. If you look at early issues of Republican News you'll see the promotion of Roman Catholic propaganda such as the banning of contraception, abortion and basically telling women to stay in the home and be good to their brave men.

Another indication of their right-wing agenda in the early days is the fact that the Irish authorities south of the border helped to establish them with money, weapons and training. The late John White who was O/C of the IRA in Derry in the late 1960s (and later became a founding member of the IRSP and Adjutant General of the INLA) was offered 50,000 pounds and training in Donegal by a Free State army agent in exchange for the assassination of (6 of them I believe) IRA leaders, who were Marxists.

There were many socialists within the PRM, but they are not and never have been a socialist organisation. They weren't fighting for a 32 County Socialist Republic by any stretch of the imagination and that's why they've ended up where they are. Their road always leads to Leinster House, Stormont and Westminster.

[Saorsa]

Ironically enough though, the IRA acted as a police force laying out punishment beatings for members of the community who were involved in crime. But what the hell, the Brits did it first! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Don't be so thick. Revolutionaries are not opposed to the existence of any kind of police force in the abstract. We are opposed to the existing police force, the armed thugs of the capitalist state, regardless of whether or not some of them are "good people", because their objective role in the system is to enforce the bosses will and oppress the workers.

The self-governance practiced by nationalist communites in occupied Ireland proves that the capitalist police goons are not necessary to protect working-class communities from "chavs". Those communites, when organised and armed, are perfectly capable of doing it themselves. You're line only leads towards reformism and reliance on the capitalist state.

[Trystan]

Don't be so thick. Revolutionaries are not opposed to the existence of any kind of police force in the abstract. We are opposed to the existing police force, the armed thugs of the capitalist state, regardless of whether or not some of them are "good people", because their objective role in the system is to enforce the bosses will and oppress the workers.



I see, so a police force that ruthlessly beats people is only bad if it is a capitalist police force. :rolleyes:

Don't be so ignorant. Do some research. The INLA still do it. Often it involves firing shots into a man's kneecaps. Even more ironically, "crimes against the community" are usually crimes against property. And last I checked, the streets of N. Ireland or Ulster or whatever you're calling it, were commercial.

[Hessian Peel]

I see, so a police force that ruthlessly beats people is only bad if it is a capitalist police force. :rolleyes:

Don't be so ignorant. Do some research. The INLA still do it. Often it involves firing shots into a man's kneecaps. Even more ironically, "crimes against the community" are usually crimes against property. And last I checked, the streets of N. Ireland or Ulster or whatever you're calling it, were commercial.

The PIRA are still doing it.

They shot a man in the leg a few days ago in Belfast.

[Aurelia]

Once the working class has consolidated themselves as a ruling class and apparatus of the state, then the police should be unleashed upon reactionaries, bourgeois and all class enemies.

[Saorsa]

I see, so a police force that ruthlessly beats people is only bad if it is a capitalist police force. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

That's exactly how I feel. What's so bad about a people's militia force punishing drug dealers and other parasites on the working class?


Don't be so ignorant. Do some research. The INLA still do it. Often it involves firing shots into a man's kneecaps. Even more ironically, "crimes against the community" are usually crimes against property.

I'm not ignorant at all, and I'm fully aware of what INLA is doing - I fully support it. What do you mean by "crimes against property"? I have no problem with INLA punishing a burglar who breaks into the home of a working-class Irish nationalist. Hell, I don't even have a problem with INLA punishing a burglar who breaks into and steals from a small businessmen (e.g. a small grocers, a fish and chip shop etc)


And last I checked, the streets of N. Ireland or Ulster or whatever you're calling it, were commercial.

The occupied 6 counties would probably be my preferred term. What do you mean by "the streets are commercial"? I'm totally confused as to what that statement's relevance is to this debate.

[spartan]

That's exactly how I feel. What's so bad about a people's militia force punishing drug dealers and other parasites on the working class?

A socialist society does not aim to restrict people's freedoms but to expand them, therefore recreational drugs would be made legal for people.

The fight against illegal drugs costs billions of pounds of your hard worked for money a year, legalising them means you are able to tax it and recoup all those billions spent fighting a losing battle (which could be put back into public services) and effectively kill off the most lucrative aspect of organised crime (thus freeing up prison space for the real bad guys).

[Pogue]

The fact remains with the police that not every policeman oppreses the working class. Obviously they're part of the working class, because they sell their labour, they don't own the means of production, etc.
I don't agree with police breaking strikes or attacking protests, thats fucked up and is an abuse of what the police's role in society is meant to be. And obviously racism/corruption/power abuse are bad. But that does not mean all police are bad. It just means corrupt, violent and abusive ones are bad.
They have some bad people in there, and they're often used badly, but they're not all bad.

[Sam_b]

The fact remains with the police that not every policeman oppreses the working class

Thats not the point. The police as an institution oppresses the working class, and being part of the police force makes them implicit in its methods and ideology.

[Pogue]

Not really though, because some people join the police to protect people and serve their community, and they do this. We can't label these people as bad or something if their intentions are good and they never break a strike, deport someone, attack a protest, etc. I know police officers who have risked their lives to protect their community from psychos. I don't see it as being in line with my socialist beliefs to label this person as an enemy of the people just because they're part of an institution which has been misused.

[Sam_b]

because some people join the police to protect people and serve their community, and they do this

The 'good intentions' argument doesn't work here. Some people join the army with good intentions. Some people join the BNP with good intentions. Where do we draw the line?


We can't label these people as bad or something if their intentions are good and they never break a strike, deport someone, attack a protest, etc

Its not their call. They are under orders and willingly serve them.

The institution has never been 'misued': its been completely in the bourgeoisie's interests since its formation. Most crime is a social construct, and this and the police go hand in hand with protecting the ruling class' interests and profits. Why does the police crack down on shoplifting, for example, when most corporate crime goes unnoticed and ignored?

[Prairie Fire]

I see, so a police force that ruthlessly beats people is only bad if it is a capitalist police force. http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-p1206489/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


Once again, Trystans festering moralism rears it's ugly head.

Yes Trystan, that is the jist of what we are saying: A police force is only detrimental to the construction of socialism ( not "bad", as you put it :rolleyes:) if it is a capitalist police force, yes.

There is no "golden rule", "do on to others..." concepts in class struggle.
It is no hypocritical in the least to have a proletarian police force to suppress the bourgeoisie as a class, even though that is how the bourgeosie acts now, because there is no "hypocrisy" in a class struggle, only the subjective goals of two antagonistic classes.

The dictatorship of the Proletariat as a class, that is, the concept that the proletariat must seize state power, and use it to suppress the bourgeosie as a class... that is a key ideological position of Marxism.

You may recall that earlier, I said this to you:



Read some Marx, get a materialist world outlook, or shut the fuck up.


Now, apparently you think I was joking or something when I said that.

I wasn't.

Aurelia:

Once the working class has consolidated themselves as a ruling class and apparatus of the state, then the police should be unleashed upon reactionaries, bourgeois and all class enemies.

Comrade Alastair:


Don't be so thick. Revolutionaries are not opposed to the existence of any kind of police force in the abstract. We are opposed to the existing police force, the armed thugs of the capitalist state, regardless of whether or not some of them are "good people", because their objective role in the system is to enforce the bosses will and oppress the workers.


Word. Good posts.

Spartan:



(Sigh) Spartan, I thought you were actually getting less erroneous, with your Honeckerism and what-not....



A socialist society does not aim to restrict people's freedoms, therefore recreational drugs would be made legal for people.


... and then you make a post like that.

Your post speaks volumes:

-You still have a bourgeois- individualist conception of "freedom"

-You make statements devoid of class analysis (ie. The position of a socialist society in relation to vaguely defined "peoples" freedoms, implying that a future socialist society would have a homogenous policy on the rights of all citizens, regardless of which class they hail from :rolleyes:)

As for the drug legalization thing, this isn't the right thread for that. There have been a dozen threads about that allready.

H-L-V-S:



The fact remains with the police that not every policeman oppreses the working class



And obviously racism/corruption/power abuse are bad.

(Bangs head against computer desk)

Read the previous posts on this thread, especially those by Comrade Alastair and myself.



I don't agree with police breaking strikes or attacking protests, thats fucked up and is an abuse of what the police's role in society is meant to be


So... are you putting forward the concept that a justice system can exist above class divisions?:rolleyes:

This is not a discussion about police corruption, or wether or not some cops are easier to get along with, it is a discussion about what role do police play under a bourgeosie state.

The conclusion many members have come to, the Marxist-Leninist conclusion, is that the police, as an instituation (Too many posters here trying to view the police on an individual basis), are an enforcement arm for a state. The police are an institution specifically designed to
uphold and implement the laws and policies of a state (regardless of what those laws are,), and they uphold the authority of the state. Now, whichever class holds the reigns of political and legislative power in a state determines which class interests the police serve.

Re-read the above paragraph as necesary to comprehension.


But that does not mean all police are bad. It just means corrupt, violent and abusive ones are bad.

They have some bad people in there, and they're often used badly, but they're not all bad.

Once again, another brilliant observation of the role played by a police force, from a moralistic, metaphyiscal point of view, without class analysis.

I'll try one more time:

We are not discussing the persynality merits of individual officers.

We are discussing the role played by police forces in a bourgeois state.

Even really friendly, non-racist, non-corrupt cops are reactionary under a capitalist state, as they are upholders of capitalist laws, protectors of capitalist political power and property, and guardians of the current status-quo.

Their proffession is reactionary by default, under the current class relations to political power.

In the future, please try not to view the world in terms of "bad" and "good". These words have no basis in material realities.

[Pogue]

I have an opinion of bad and good based upon whether or not ones actions are harmful to others. Capitalism is harmful, so I think its bad, and should be smashed and replaced. Alot of police do good things, in that they help other people and prevent them from being harmed.

[bcbm]

ICapitalism is harmful, so I think its bad, and should be smashed and replaced. Alot of police do good things, in that they help other people and prevent them from being harmed.

In order to maintain capitalism.

ACAB.

[spartan]

... and then you make a post like that.

Your post speaks volumes:

-You still have a bourgeois- individualist conception of "freedom"

-You make statements devoid of class analysis (ie. The position of a socialist society in relation to vaguely defined "peoples" freedoms, implying that a future socialist society would have a homogenous policy on the rights of all citizens, regardless of which class they hail from :rolleyes:)

I dont understand what you are getting at exactly?

The way i see it is if people want to take drugs in a socialist world then that's their right to do that as long as they dont infringe on someone else's liberty in doing so.

No one else has a right to stop them (same with if someone wants to own guns).

It has nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with basic human rights to do whatever the fuck you want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

Rights aren't "bourgeois", they are the fundamental building blocks of a democratic society, which real socialism can never exist without.

If a socialist society starts telling me what to do and "fall in line" then the people who are telling me this can expect a bullet to their fucking heads as this aint socialism and never will be!

[Niccolò Rossi]

PF, whilst your last post is fabulous and I agree with every word, I would like to pose a question.


This is not a discussion about police corruption, or wether or not some cops are easier to get along with, it is a discussion about what role do police play under a bourgeosie state.

I'm not so sure that this discussion is one of "what role do police play under a bourgeois state". The poll options offered by the OP are rather confusing. To say that the police "protects bourgeois interest and their property" does not negate the class position of the individual police officer. Nor does saying that the police are "of the proletarian class" contradict the fact that they serve the above mentioned role. This means the topics: "the role served by police in the bourgeois state" and "the class position of police officers" have been confused, resulting in a somewhat muddled discourse.


the police, as an instituation (Too many posters here trying to view the police on an individual basis), are an enforcement arm for a state. The police are an institution specifically designed to
uphold and implement the laws and policies of a state (regardless of what those laws are,), and they uphold the authority of the state. Now, whichever class holds the reigns of political and legislative power in a state determines which class interests the police serve.

This is most certainly correct once again, but it raises another question. Whilst we acknowledge that as an institution the police serve the interests of capital, what is the class position of the individual police officer?

[Pogue]

So you can all say generalising statements like ACAB. Well done. But you're wrong and ignorant.

[Hit The North]

I have an opinion of bad and good based upon whether or not ones actions are harmful to others. Capitalism is harmful, so I think its bad, and should be smashed and replaced. Alot of police do good things, in that they help other people and prevent them from being harmed. I think your analysis needs to be more nuanced. For instance, capitalism isn't always harmful. It raises the forces of production, develops our control over nature, resulting in longer life, more material security, better health and other human technologies. Just like the role of individual police, particular instances of capitalism can do good things. Of course, we don't judge the capitalist system purely on that basis. Neither should we judge the institution of the police force on the merits or otherwise of individuals within it. We have to take a scientific approach and analyse the functions of the police force within the context of how it serves the ruling class. The fact that policing in capitalist society is contradictory shouldn't surprise us given that capitalism itself is founded on the antagonisms of social class.

[Revolutiondownunder]

Police are scum, if you are a teenager they hassle you all the time because they no you cant fight back.

They caught my little 15 year old cousin with a little bit of weed and smacked his head with a torch. Bastards.

[Pogue]

Yes, so its contradcitory. All I've been saying is that not all police are bad, and the police don't do solely bad things. I think its strange to call the people who have done alot of good for the average person 'bastards' or 'pigs'. Bad cops are bad cops, good cops are good cops.

[Hit The North]

But, in the final analysis, the police are an agent of state oppression.

[Pogue]

And also a tool for protecting people from crime.

[Hit The North]

And also a tool for protecting people from crime.
Except they hardly do, usually arriving well after the crime has been perpetrated. They perhaps hold out the hope that the perpetrator will be caught and justice served, but that is also unlikely.

[INDK]

H-L-V-S:


The fact remains with the police that not every policeman oppreses the working class.

So?


Obviously they're part of the working class, because they sell their labour, they don't own the means of production, etc.

Sure...


I don't agree with police breaking strikes or attacking protests, thats fucked up and is an abuse of what the police's role in society is meant to be.

Indeed.


And obviously racism/corruption/power abuse are bad.

So very, very bad.


But that does not mean all police are bad.

And here the debate begins. Nobody said that, trust me, my anti-police attitude nothing personal to every cop on the street, it's a matter of ideological principles. It's a very basic contradiction that has everything to do with class relations, not social misusing of power and stuff like that, if that was the sole criticism of police forces I daresay you'd be absolutely right, but the truth is you're not thinking like much of a Communist here.

So that's my interjection... Sam_b said this:


Thats not the point. The police as an institution oppresses the working class, and being part of the police force makes them implicit in its methods and ideology.

With which I thoroughly agree, to which you just had to reply:


Not really though,

Oh goodness.


because some people join the police to protect people and serve their community, and they do this. We can't label these people as bad or something if their intentions are good and they never break a strike, deport someone, attack a protest, etc. I know police officers who have risked their lives to protect their community from psychos. I don't see it as being in line with my socialist beliefs to label this person as an enemy of the people just because they're part of an institution which has been misused.

We are not and have never been an enemy specifically of the people behind the uniform, and do not find these people 'evil'. Not in the sense that they're 'good cops', anyway. It's totally irrelevant how many thousands of lives 'good cops' have saved, it's all basic class relations. We are opposed to bourgeois ownership of the means of production, a definitive principle of the law enforcement institution as a whole is the protection of the bourgeois ownership of these means of production. There's no personal vendetta on cops that do 'Protect and Serve', there is however an ideological opposition based on basic Leftist thought.

Intentions are of total irrelevance.


I have an opinion of bad and good based upon whether or not ones actions are harmful to others. Capitalism is harmful, so I think its bad, and should be smashed and replaced. Alot of police do good things, in that they help other people and prevent them from being harmed.

Your thoughts are totally moral and social and totally void of any form of class-related thought. This is why you've totally dismissed all arguments against you because you don't understand the economic implications of what you say you oppose.


Yes, so its contradcitory. All I've been saying is that not all police are bad, and the police don't do solely bad things. I think its strange to call the people who have done alot of good for the average person 'bastards' or 'pigs'. Bad cops are bad cops, good cops are good cops.

'Bastards' and 'pigs' aren't these good cops you keep defending. We know there are good cops, we always did, please shut up now. The argument against police has nothing to do with this and you've been simply foaming pure irrelevance from your brain onto this thread for post after post after post and I'm frankly done typing.

[Trystan]

That's exactly how I feel. What's so bad about a people's militia force punishing drug dealers and other parasites on the working class?



:lol:

Way to contradict everything else you've said.


What do you mean by "the streets are commercial"?

Northern Ireland is officially part of the UK. The UK is a capitalist country. :rolleyes:


Hell, I don't even have a problem with INLA punishing a burglar who breaks into and steals from a small businessmen (e.g. a small grocers, a fish and chip shop etc)

Capitalist businesses, you mean? :lol: Typical. Do you have any idea at all about what you're talking about? What part of Ireland are you from btw? You sound like pissy 12 year old enchanted by guns and men in balaclavas. Pathetic, really.

[Trystan]

Yes Trystan, that is the jist of what we are saying: A police force is only detrimental to the construction of socialism ( not "bad", as you put it :rolleyes:) if it is a capitalist police force, yes.



And here is the jist of what I'm saying: the police ("pigs" as you so intelligently put it) protect property. To say that this makes them "evil", or "traitors" is hypocritical considering that everybody who works maintains the system in one way or another. If you were to follow your logic to its conclusion, you have to conclude that all working class people are traitors, because the simple action of going to work is detrimental to the construction of socialism.


Now, apparently you think I was joking or something when I said that.

I wasn't. :crying:

This little Hoxaist/Stalinist maggot thinks he's tough.:lol:

[Gold Against The Soul]

Except they hardly do, usually arriving well after the crime has been perpetrated. They perhaps hold out the hope that the perpetrator will be caught and justice served, but that is also unlikely.

Absolutely. They are always going to struggle to stop crime when it is actually happening. You can't be everywhere at once. It is down to us in that circumstance to police ourselves. People should be encouraged to take on muggers and the like rather than rely passively on the police for help. Of course the courts/the police hate this and therefore discourage what they call 'vigilantism' and this is why so many people find themselves locked up for simply defending themselves and apparently using 'inappropriate force'.

[Prairie Fire]

Trystan:

This little "Hoxaist/Stalinist maggot" Know's she's tough.


And here is the jist of what I'm saying: the police ("pigs" as you so intelligently put it) protect property.

...and they uphold a government, and it's legislation.



To say that this makes them "evil", or "traitors" is hypocritical considering that everybody who works maintains the system in one way or another.


(bangs head aginst computer desk)

Okay,I'll take this point by point :

1. Who ever claimed that cops were "evil" or "traitors" on this thread (let alone me) ? You seem to be the only one resorting to metaphysical titles like this.

2. You can't compare being a proffesional thug that implements the policies of the system directly, to working in a bourgoise owned industry.

Being a worker under capitalism is not reactionary, and I'll tackle that in a minute. Being a cop under capitalism is.

3. Re-read my previous posts in their entirety, as necesary to comprehension.


If you were to follow your logic to its conclusion, you have to conclude that all working class people are traitors, because the simple action of going to work is detrimental to the construction of socialism.


Don't project your own incorrect notions onto me, and then call it "my" logic. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

No, the action of going to work is not directly detrimental to socialism. By going to work, people are learning how to operate machinery and such (and therefore, are profficient in doing their jobs after revolution,), not to mention acquiring class conciousness. Besides, going to work in the first place, the creation of the proletariat , creates the necesity for revolution itself.

"Going to work" does not directly impede socialism. Being a cop, where your job description occasionally includes arresting socialist organizers,does.

You are comparing a two things that are not alike in the least, especially in the role that they play in regards to a bourgeoisie state.

Spartan:

I dont understand what you are getting at exactly?

Well, because you started this paragraph by admitting you don't know what I mean, I can be lenient with the rest of what follows.



The way i see it is if people want to take drugs in a socialist world then that's their right to do that as long as they dont infringe on someone else's liberty in doing so.

As I said, the issue of narcotic legalization allready has a dozen threads on revleft; I'm not going to digress from the purpose of this thread.

Be careul with the liberal/libertarian phrasing in the future.


No one else has a right to stop them (same with if someone wants to own guns).

:glare:. You are inching towards the libertarian right, comrade.


It has nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with basic human rights to do whatever the fuck you want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.


You are looking at political rights above class divisions, and you contonue to take a libertarian right stand on persynal freedoms.

This is massively getting off topic, and you r second post is really not addresssing the subject of the thread, but I should warn you that you are not taking socialist/Marxist positions.



Rights aren't "bourgeois", they are the fundamental building blocks of a democratic society, which real socialism can never exist without.

If a socialist society starts telling me what to do and "fall in line" then the people who are telling me this can expect a bullet to their fucking heads as this aint socialism and never will be!


While I'm roasting a hotdog over your strawman, a few pointers:

-I never at any time claimed that "rights" are bourgeois; what I said was that you have a bourgeois conception of persynal freedoms, and your second post has really highlighted that

- I also claimed that you make statements devoid of class analysis, because you have implied that a future socialist society would have a flat approach to all "freedoms" of citizens, rather than the continuation of class struggle, and the suppression of the bourgeosie as a class.

- This is purely a persynal taste thing for me, but I would advise that using terms like "liberty", "Democracy" and such make you sound like a Ron Paulite; using phrases like "real socialism", and talking about how you will ' put a bullet in someones heads' if they try and 'infinge' on your rights to get high makes you sound like an over-zealous petty-bourgeois
kid.

I hope that you maybe got my point this time around.


Zeitgeist, I'll reply to your PM soon.

[bcbm]

All I've been saying is that not all police are bad, and the police don't do solely bad things. I think its strange to call the people who have done alot of good for the average person 'bastards' or 'pigs'. Bad cops are bad cops, good cops are good cops.

No, all police are bastards because it is their institutional role to be bastards. And the average cop hasn't done lots of good for lots of people, they've done fuck all for most people. Every part of their role is about maintaining this system. The end.

[Trystan]

"Going to work" does not directly impede socialism. Being a cop, where your job description occasionally includes arresting socialist organizers,does.



"Occasionally"? You are still unable to prove any necessity.

[Prairie Fire]

Occasionally"? You are still unable to prove any necessity.


Are you intnetnionally not reading my other posts? Intentionally blocking it out, and selectively picking out quotes to advance your strawmen?

Re-read my other posts; I can not make my postion any clearer, and I don't want to repreat it a third or fourth time.

[AnthArmo]

I voted proletariat, primarily due to lack of other options.

Corruption aside, the police are not privately owned/controlled/waged. They are part of the government and ideally the government works in favour for the people. And because we live in a democracy (albeit an indirect one:() the police's interests are more or less the interests of the people. And by people, I mean all classes.

In my ideal government there would be police, but there main role would be to keep the peace, rehabilitate criminals, and ensure that no-one is exploiting the system in order to garner significantly more wealth than any one else.

[disobey]

Kill 'em all.

Then dig up the graves, and kill 'em all again, because they didn't die hard enough.

[Pogue]

Kill 'em all.

Then dig up the graves, and kill 'em all again, because they didn't die hard enough.

Idiot. You're not a socialist.

[Pogue]

My point I keep making is that the police are not used for one purpose - i.e., they are not solely there to oppress the working class or protect private property. They might do these things, which is wrong, and is also why I don't adore the police. But they also do other things, like arrest drug dealers, paedophiles, rapists, etc. So I don't hate the police either, because the police is made up of thousands of individuals, and not all of them do bad things.

[Lost In Translation]

But these days, I doubt the police are cleaning up the streets (figuratively) for the good of the people. In Vancouver, where the 2010 winter olympics will be held, there's a lot more law enforcement because they have made a vow to keep the streets clean before 2010. Why didn't they do this earlier? The people have been screaming about the homeless situation for at least 5 years in Vancouver, but it is only now that they choose to listen.

[Pogue]

Thats one example of one police force in one region of one country.

[Lost In Translation]

Thats one example of one police force in one region of one country.
But they are the police of the city ranked in the top 3 in terms of living standards. One that many others look up to when deciding what improvements should be made.

[Comrade B]

Wanting to kill cops doesn't make you an anti-socialist, it just makes you a very angry person.

My view on the police is mixed. The majority of my encounters with them, I have seen abuse of power and very blatant racism. This is most likely because most of the cops we know, are those who are in the process of giving us trouble, and those that go so far as to be remembered for their bastardlyness are the ones that are severe bastards. I don't think anyone is going to remember Joe, the cop who didn't kick the shit out of you at that protest, you will remember Bob, the cop he doesn't know, who loves his tazer.

There are a few police officers that I know personally (small town), and they are generally good people (aside from one). We must also remember that not every cop is riot control, DEA, highway patrol, or one of those horrible little bastards in the tiny buggies that go around giving you tickets, those are just the ones you see if you havn't been involved in a real crime.

[bcbm]

My point I keep making is that the police are not used for one purpose - i.e., they are not solely there to oppress the working class or protect private property. They might do these things, which is wrong, and is also why I don't adore the police. But they also do other things, like arrest drug dealers, paedophiles, rapists, etc. So I don't hate the police either, because the police is made up of thousands of individuals, and not all of them do bad things.

The individual outlook and feelings of the police are irrelevant. Whatever moral bullshit you may attention to their deeds, all of their deeds are for the same purpose- maintaining the social order in order to preserve the dominant system. That is the institutional role of the police. They don't arrest murderers or revolutionaries out of the good of their heart- they do it because if they don't it threatens the system it is their job to maintain. They are maintaining social peace from whatever threatens it and nothing more and that makes them all our enemies until they decide to switch.


I don't think anyone is going to remember Joe, the cop who didn't kick the shit out of you at that protest, you will remember Bob, the cop he doesn't know, who loves his tazer.

Not really. I remember all the wonderful cops when I was arrested. We joked around, talked about our lives a bit and generally made the time go a lot quicker and even got along. They were nice guys.

And I'd be just as happy to spit in the faces or throw a brick at their heads as share a joke with them. It has nothing to do with remembering only the bad cops and clouding our judgment or some shit, it has to do with understanding the social function the police serve.

[Saorsa]

Idiot. You're not a socialist.

Talking to yourself is a sign of madness.

I really don't think there's much point in continuing to argue with the liberals over this. The issue has been deal with as fully as it possibly can, and everypne's just starting to repeat themselves. The objective social function of the police is to uphold and maintain the authority of the capitalist class and the state, to enforce the bosses will against any worker's resistance that occurs, and to defend the capitalist class against any threats to it's existence. They are the "bodies of armed men" on whom the authority of the state ultimately rests, and under capitalism the state is a tool of the capitalist class for oppressing the workers.

There. And now the liberals will respond with somethingalong the lines of "police are good people some of them are just corrupt they arrest paedophiles what's with all this bullshit about revolutionary communism anyway? i don't need to get an understanding of the system".

[spartan]

The objective social function of the police is to uphold and maintain the authority of the capitalist class and the state, to enforce the bosses will against any worker's resistance that occurs, and to defend the capitalist class against any threats to it's existence. They are the "bodies of armed men" on whom the authority of the state ultimately rests, and under capitalism the state is a tool of the capitalist class for oppressing the workers.
Yes that is their institutional role but in practice amongst individual policemen this isn't always the case.

Individual policemen or even entire police forces have been known not to carry through orders and even desert or join the other side during times of civil unrest.

As socialists it's our job to keep our options open and this includes with the police who are mostly of working class origin and who are mostly just looking for a decent wage and the chance to do a good job for good, though quite naive, reasons in areas where good jobs paying good money are hard to come by.

Last year policemen were on strike here in the UK and we didn't take advantage of this by creating links with policemen's unions which we could have then used to urge them to carry on striking in future which would have the effect of undermining the very system that they are there to uphold.

If you want to know how pissed off the striking police in the UK were with the government then watch this clip of the head of the police federation completely ripping our home secretary to bits right in front of her! (video is half way down the linked page)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7412512.stm

And as if to emphasise my point of creating links with disaffected policemen the far-right BNP are doing the very same thing as they sent representatives to support a march through London by 25, 000 striking policemen. We are missing opportunities which the far-right are picking up on and using to their advantage.

Here's the footage of the BNP chatting with disaffected policemen and hearing their grievances against the government, now why the hell aren't we there doing that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEuDKXtlM74

Oh yeah and the BNP guy in that last link, Richard Barnbrook, was later elected to the London assembly so go figure.

[Saorsa]

Well I dunno about the Police association in Britain, but here it's extremely reactionary, and just from reading that link the British Police association isn't exactly all that progressive itself;


Ms Berry praised Ms Smith for facing the Bournemouth conference, but also mocked her, picking on her admission that she smoked cannabis in her youth.


"I am sure you felt like reaching for a stab-proof vest and perhaps slipping into an old habit - lighting up, calming your nerves," she said.


"But as you've reassured us, you've moved on from those past indiscretions. Your recent crimes have been more for the serious fraud office than the drug squad."


Here in NZ the Police Association (I don't grant organisations representing class enemies the use of the term "union", anymore than I'd grant it to the Business Roundtable or the Employers and Manufacturers Association) calls for pigs to be given more weapons;

http://www.policeassn.org.nz/communications/press_release.htm

To be given increased powers of surveillance, "electronic interception", and the power to seize people's property. These powers are supposedly being introduced to fight gangs, but can and will be used against radical activists, as the so-called "Terror Raids" (http://workersparty.org.nz/spark-archive/spark-archive-operation-8/terror-tactics-from-labour-and-police/) of last year shows.

The Police association firmly backed the arrests of anarchist, enviromentalist and Maori sovereignty activists last year - in other words, left-wing activists, us. The police are not only objectively enemies of the working class, they are enemies of us on a personal level as far left activists.

A quick question - the argument that has mainly been raised is that we should not see the police as enemies because of the fact that the objective social function of the police is to uphold and maintain the authority of the capitalist class and the state etc. Instead, we should treat them on a purely individual basis, and should not treat the police institution as enemies because some of them "r liek gud pepl".

In that case, why don't we take the same approach to the capitalist class? I'm sure not all of them are "bad people". And just like the pigs do other stuff apart from beating up Maori prisoners in their cells and breaking up picket lines, capitalists do other stuff apart from exploiting the labour of the proletariat. Many capitalists donate to charity, spend time working at the local RSPCA and so on. Hell, the richest man in New Zealand, Graeme Hart, actually risked his own life to save that of another person he'd never met! (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=666&objectid=10420601) If he hadn't saved them from either the burning yacht or the water, it's likely that they would have died.

Should he be congragulated for this act of bravery, and indeed heroism? Certainly. Does this make him any less of a class enemy who we should despise on both a personal level and a class level? No. And even if you think this gives us reason not to despise him personally, do you really think that Hart's actions, and the actions of other rich capitalists, means that we should not treat the capitalists as class enemies?

I'm interested to hear what HLVS, Trystan and others have to say in reply to this.

[disobey]

Wanting to kill cops doesn't make you an anti-socialist, it just makes you a very angry person.

Yes I get angry sometimes with the police, seeing as I've seen them on countless occasions prove themselves completely incapabable of preventing and solving crimes.

There are of course two things the police excel at -- limitation of free speech and protection of property. The thin blue line stands between us and the wealthy.

Crime is on the rise where I live, particularly violent crime - a stabbing across the street for instance. And just a few months ago I witnessed the aftermath of what turned out to be an attempted murder 20 feet from my front window in the middle of the night. A father of three had been nearly kicked to death by a gang of drunks in front of his own family watching from the window as he went to get something out of his car. The motive? Because his girlfriend had refused to give one of the girls a tampax earlier -- so they waited until someone came out of their flat and assaulted them.

They then hid in a house over the road, the police claimed to know their identity, however no charges were ever brought.

If someone can tell me how "more officers on the beat" or "more patrols" or "more CCTV/surveillance" would have prevented psychotic bastards like these from re-offending and then I'll fully support the police.

[Sam_b]

Last year policemen were on strike here in the UK and we didn't take advantage of this by creating links with policemen's unions which we could have then used to urge them to carry on striking in future which would have the effect of undermining the very system that they are there to uphold.

I don't know about other comrades on this board, but I for one am glad that the left didn't make links with the police union.

[Pogue]

Talking to yourself is a sign of madness.

I really don't think there's much point in continuing to argue with the liberals over this. The issue has been deal with as fully as it possibly can, and everypne's just starting to repeat themselves. The objective social function of the police is to uphold and maintain the authority of the capitalist class and the state, to enforce the bosses will against any worker's resistance that occurs, and to defend the capitalist class against any threats to it's existence. They are the "bodies of armed men" on whom the authority of the state ultimately rests, and under capitalism the state is a tool of the capitalist class for oppressing the workers.

There. And now the liberals will respond with somethingalong the lines of "police are good people some of them are just corrupt they arrest paedophiles what's with all this bullshit about revolutionary communism anyway? i don't need to get an understanding of the system".

You clearly don't live in the real world. And I already told you what liberal means, maybe you should listen, so you'd stop looking like such a pointless joke. I wonder how many weeks it'll be until you become another ex-commie burnout who goes into advertising :rolleyes:

[Pogue]

I don't know about other comrades on this board, but I for one am glad that the left didn't make links with the police union.

I don't understand why you'd be glad. The police being on the side of socialists seem to me to be infinitetly preferable to them being on the side of the fascists or capitalists!

As a comrade earlier mentioned, many officers will go into the Police Force because they want to serve their community. And the majority of the people of Britain (working class people) feel a need for police because they're not stupid and realise crime exists.
Police breaking a strike is shit. Thats an example of them being misused by the power that be.

But as we've seen, the police want to strike too. And local officers in the North of England during the miners strike refused to break the strike because they realised that would be working against their own people. Fellow workers.
Alot of them are people who want to protect their community. Here there is no contradiction with socialism. There are always criminals, always people to be protected from them, and thus always a need for some form of police.

We should be there, appealing to the good police, the ones who want to
protect and serve, and work for the community.

*edit* changed police strike to police want to strike

[RedAnarchist]

Does anyone know why its considered worse to kill a cop than to kill a normal person? Cops are usually much better protected against attack than some old person or a child, so why is it worse?

[INDK]

I'll make a small reply to you, again, to remind you you've totally ignored my replies to your posts in this thread made previously:



We should be there, appealing to the good police, the ones who want to
protect and serve, and work for the community.

Then they'd get, you know, fired, because in basic principle the job of a police officer totally defies these goals.

[Sam_b]

You clearly don't live in the real world. And I already told you what liberal means, maybe you should listen, so you'd stop looking like such a pointless joke. I wonder how many weeks it'll be until you become another ex-commie burnout who goes into advertising

And I think that your theory is skewed. The sole intention of the police under capitalism is to maintain and protect ruling class property, production and profit. In almost every single mass action of the working class the police have played a thoroughly reactionary role.

You either oppose the police as the tool of the bourgeoisie that it is, or don't. When a mass organisation with manpower, arms and ruling class support is specifically there to oppress workers there is no middle ground. We realise, for example, that the army targets young men and women from socially deprived backgrounds and lie and deceive them to get them to enlist. And we realise that some of these recruits are actually 'good guys'. But does that stop us from supporting the Iraqi people's right to resist, and that in their struggle they are legitimate targets? Of course not. Its exactly the same with the police force.

[Sam_b]

I don't understand why you'd be glad. The police being on the side of socialists seem to me to be infinitetly preferable to them being on the side of the fascists or capitalists!


Your theory is terrible here. We don't want anything to do with the police, let alone have them 'on our side' because we realise that the current police structure is a failure, and that the hierarchy ar ecomplete reactionaries. The same with the police union, a pathetic excuse for a 'union' in my opinion, that calls for measures that constantly attack real workers and civil liberties. Why should we support the wage demands of a force that is against us?


But as we've seen, the police strike too. And local officers in the North of England during the miners strike refused to break the strike because they realised that would be working against their own people. Fellow workers.

One example in an entire century is pathetic. I will never join a picket with the police because that gesture will never (i'll wager) ever be recipricated, and that the police serve as a strikebreaking tool.

Real class-struggle socialists should see the police as a tool of a state that oppresses us and we wish to destroy, and should have nothing to do with it. Why the hell would socialists side with the state here?

[Niccolò Rossi]

The sole intention of the police under capitalism is to maintain and protect ruling class property, production and profit.

That's not true. Whilst the defining role of the police under capitalism is their protection of "ruling class property, production and profit" it is not their sole task.


You either oppose the police as the tool of the bourgeoisie that it is, or don't.

Correct. However, even if one opposes the police force as an organ of class rule this does not have bearing on the class of the individual police officer, a question which has been passed over and confused in this thread.

[Saorsa]

I'll make a small reply to you, again, to remind you you've totally ignored my replies to your posts in this thread made previously:

That's just what he does, unfortunately.


You clearly don't live in the real world.

Wow, nice one. Way to ignore the actual content of my argument, and subsitute a crappy little one liner for an actual response.


And I already told you what liberal means

You didn't just tell me, you showed me through personal example.


maybe you should listen, so you'd stop looking like such a pointless joke.

Well I have you as an example to look at, so that makes it easier to avoid.

[comrade stalin guevara]

The police are not the enermy,
they are wage slaves like the rest of us
just doing there jobs, etc,etc

The enermy is the same as its always been,
the ruling class,ie; the goverment that employs them.

[Pogue]

That's just what he does, unfortunately.



Wow, nice one. Way to ignore the actual content of my argument, and subsitute a crappy little one liner for an actual response.



You didn't just tell me, you showed me through personal example.


Well I have you as an example to look at, so that makes it easier to avoid.

Yeh, I'm liberal. I believe in civil liberties and freedom :)

You're funny!

[Pogue]

Anyway, I've already set out my arguments, thats why I'm doing the one liners.
Police are used incorrectly by the state, not all of them are scum, they do some bad, they're not class enemies.

[Sam_b]

That's not true. Whilst the defining role of the police under capitalism is their protection of "ruling class property, production and profit" it is not their sole task.

And what is their other task, praytell? Bearing in mind that most crime is merely a social construct.


Yeh, I'm liberal. I believe in civil liberties and freedom

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2183/2084090036_c57eea120b.jpg?v=0

[RedAnarchist]

Yeh, I'm liberal. I believe in civil liberties and freedom :)

You're funny!

Liberals also believe in capitalism. In fact, they actually want to keep it, but just reform it a little because they think thats all that is required when in fact the whole system if rotten to the core. Liberals just want capitalism with a smiley face, not understanding that capitalism is capitalism, smiley face or not.

[bcbm]

The police are not the enermy,
they are wage slaves like the rest of us
just doing there jobs, etc,etc

Their job is to defend the capitalist system. That makes them our enemy.


Police are used incorrectly by the state

The police exist to protect the state. They are used towards that end. How else would they be used?


not all of them are scum

Yes they are. It is their institutional role to be scum.


they're not class enemies.

Besides it being their job to be class enemies?

[Trystan]

Are you intnetnionally not reading my other posts? Intentionally blocking it out, and selectively picking out quotes to advance your strawmen?


I have already dealt with these arguments. I will not bother with this thread any longer.

[Trystan]

Yeh, I'm liberal. I believe in civil liberties and freedom :)

Me too mate. :)

Be careful though. Some people have a hard time discerning between a liberal, and somebody who is liberal.:rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

Me too mate. :)

Be careful though. Some people have a hard time discerning between a liberal, and somebody who is liberal.:rolleyes:

The left tends to be progressive, not liberal. Liberals are more suited to the centre-right.

[Pogue]

I'm mocking the use of the word liberal by someone who has no idea what it means :)

[Pogue]

I maintain that the police are not solely there for the protection of capitalism, that they are neccasary and they do alot of good. They also do bad stuff.
Not all police are bad, as seen by nice police officers who try to help their community against crime.
The police's role is to uphold the law. Soe laws are shit, and so often the police are used for shit purposes.
Some laws are good, and so often the police are used for good purposes.

Now, feel free to tell me how blieving that makes me a 'liberal' in the economic sense of the word you guys are screeching about.
I see nothing in there which alludes to me believing in a free market or small state!
But I'll take the compliment of me being someone who supports civil liberties, human rights and civil rights. :)

[Sam_b]

supports civil liberties, human rights and civil rights

Unfortunately your friends in the police force disagree.

I'd like to know your views on this example, which I haven't seen you engage with:


We realise, for example, that the army targets young men and women from socially deprived backgrounds and lie and deceive them to get them to enlist. And we realise that some of these recruits are actually 'good guys'. But does that stop us from supporting the Iraqi people's right to resist, and that in their struggle they are legitimate targets? Of course not. Its exactly the same with the police force.

[spartan]

I'd like to know your views on this example, which I haven't seen you engage with:
We realise, for example, that the army targets young men and women from socially deprived backgrounds and lie and deceive them to get them to enlist. And we realise that some of these recruits are actually 'good guys'. But does that stop us from supporting the Iraqi people's right to resist, and that in their struggle they are legitimate targets? Of course not. Its exactly the same with the police force.

I dont think anyone here is saying that you shouldn't resist policemen abusing their power.

But would you just go and attack a policemen who has just chased off some youths who have been beating you to within an inch of your life?

No i dont think so.

Their institutional role is to uphold the capitalist system yes, but does every single policemen in every single police force in the world know this fact? No they dont.

So with this in mind is it therefore right to generalise every sinlge individual policeman as bad when some, nay the majority, of them probably dont even know what there true role is? Because i dont think it is.

Attack the police as an institution but dont attack the individual members who make up this institution as it would be tantamount to attacking workers to prevent capitalism from operating (as opposed to attacking capitalism to give the worker's, who's very work upholds it as a system, a better alternative. Now replace the word "worker" with "policeman" and "capitalism" with "police force" and you will see what i mean when i talk about the police).

[bcbm]

I maintain that the police are not solely there for the protection of capitalism, that they are neccasary and they do alot of good. They also do bad stuff.

They are "necessary" because of capitalism. All of their functions are undertaken in order to maintain the system that makes them necessary. It has nothing to do with being good or bad.


Not all police are bad, as seen by nice police officers who try to help their community against crime.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_0NMEQfi2OW4/SAlZQepkV8I/AAAAAAAAAvg/cvOJF0ONH2g/s400/FacePalm_picard.jpg


The police's role is to uphold the law. Soe laws are shit, and so often the police are used for shit purposes.
Some laws are good, and so often the police are used for good purposes.

The law exists to maintain the current system.

[spartan]

The law exists to maintain the current system.
What so a law stating that you cant force someone into having sex with you upholds capitalism:laugh:

The police uphold the law.

Most of the laws they uphold are shit and are simply there to uphold capitalism no one is denying that, but some laws (like the one above) are necessary and have to be upheld for the common good (as otherwise we would have lots of men thinking that it's okay to rape women and suffer no consequences for this).

The police thus serve two functions, one is to uphold the current system whilst the other is to investigate crimes which affect all of society, such as murder and rape, and try to capture those who they think is responsoble for these crimes based on evidence they have collected.

The latter role protects us all (it doesn't uphold capitalism but the common good) and is one which will still exist in a post-capitalist society, the former of course doesn't protect us all (only the bourgeois class) and thus shouldn't exist (hence why some of us want a socialist society).

[Saorsa]

Is anyone planning on respoonding to this? Because to just ignore it kinda shows up how weak you're arguments are in comparison.


A quick question - the argument that has mainly been raised is that we should not see the police as enemies because of the fact that the objective social function of the police is to uphold and maintain the authority of the capitalist class and the state etc. Instead, we should treat them on a purely individual basis, and should not treat the police institution as enemies because some of them "r liek gud pepl".

In that case, why don't we take the same approach to the capitalist class? I'm sure not all of them are "bad people". And just like the pigs do other stuff apart from beating up Maori prisoners in their cells and breaking up picket lines, capitalists do other stuff apart from exploiting the labour of the proletariat. Many capitalists donate to charity, spend time working at the local RSPCA and so on. Hell, the richest man in New Zealand, Graeme Hart, actually risked his own life to save that of another person he'd never met! (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=666&objectid=10420601) If he hadn't saved them from either the burning yacht or the water, it's likely that they would have died.

Should he be congragulated for this act of bravery, and indeed heroism? Certainly. Does this make him any less of a class enemy who we should despise on both a personal level and a class level? No. And even if you think this gives us reason not to despise him personally, do you really think that Hart's actions, and the actions of other rich capitalists, means that we should not treat the capitalists as class enemies?

[Decolonize The Left]

Does anyone know why its considered worse to kill a cop than to kill a normal person? Cops are usually much better protected against attack than some old person or a child, so why is it worse?

The reason for this is that police officers are considered 'public servants.' Their rhetorical purpose is to 'serve and protect' the community. Therefore to kill the 'protectors' of the community is a grave offense, for these people have 'put their lives on the line' for you and your family, etc.. etc...

You must completely ignore the fact that police officers possess the legitimate use of force within our society, carry guns and tasers and batons, etc... you must purely look at the rhetorical function of their presence.

On another note, the current system of punishing the 'offender' with more severity for killing a police officer than a civilian provides these individuals with more protection. Protection of police officers is protection of the state. Makes sense, doesn't it (from a capitalist point of view)?

- August

[bcbm]

I dont think anyone here is saying that you shouldn't resist policemen abusing their power.

But would you just go and attack a policemen who has just chased off some youths who have been beating you to within an inch of your life?

No i dont think so.Well I wouldn't just go and attack any police man period. The point of being opposed to the police isn't to commit violence against them at any opportunity. And yes, they do occasionally serve a positive function. No one is denying that. It doesn't make them our enemy any less.


Their institutional role is to uphold the capitalist system yes, but does every single policemen in every single police force in the world know this fact? No they dont.And I doubt most soldiers know they're involved in the upholding of the imperialist system and only killing people to further the global hegemony of capitalism. Should the people they're murdering and occupying take a step back and stop opposing them for awhile due this? Of course not.


So with this in mind is it therefore right to generalise every sinlge individual policeman as bad when some, nay the majority, of them probably dont even know what there true role is? Because i dont think it is.The same example applies here. It doesn't matter if one knows their "true role" or not- they carry it out regardless. That's problematic for obvious reasons.


Attack the police as an institution but dont attack the individual members who make up this institution as it would be tantamount to attacking workers to prevent capitalism from operating (as opposed to attacking capitalism to give the worker's, who's very work upholds it as a system, a better alternative. Now replace the word "worker" with "policeman" and "capitalism" with "police force" and you will see what i mean when i talk about the police).Your example doesn't follow. Workers are not charged with maintaining and defending the system as it stands. They simply work to produce or provide services. They aren't actually maintaining and enforcing the dominant order with the barrel of a gun like the police are.

The problem gets more complex if we want to talk about approaching the police as workers and organizing them. At a certain point they have to choose between their job, between their sworn duty, between betraying their police brothers and supporting the destruction of capitalism. Historically, the police haven't chosen the latter.


What so a law stating that you cant force someone into having sex with you upholds capitalism:laugh:Yes. The law exist to maintain social peace. This means punishing crimes like rape and murder as well as destroying revolutionary organization.


Most of the laws they uphold are shit and are simply there to uphold capitalism no one is denying that, but some laws (like the one above) are necessary and have to be upheld for the common good (as otherwise we would have lots of men thinking that it's okay to rape women and suffer no consequences for this).Lots of men think that regardless of the law.

But that is neither here nor there. The police do serve an important function, but it is a function that exists because we live in a capitalist society and because they hold a monopoly on the ability to respond to a number of situations, which keeps power firmly in the hands of one class. And while the positive functions of the police will undoubtedly exist in some form in a communist society, there won't be police in the modern sense. Its no coincidence the police came into existence at the same time as capitalism.

[INDK]

Police are used incorrectly by the state, not all of them are scum, they do some bad, they're not class enemies.

Oh, fuck, we know, we know, we know, you've been uttering the same bullshit all 9 pages of this thread! The point of a debate isn't to state your idea over and over and over again, it's to state your idea and then reply sufficiently to all objections to that idea to defend that idea. You've totally failed defend your idea, and thusly we can pretty much decide that the anti-Police argument has prevailed in this thread, since the pro-Police argument is being lead by a fucking spammer.

[Pogue]

Ok so I win the argument because you amdit what I've been saying is true. Go me.

[INDK]

That doesn't even make sense.

[Saorsa]

In the case of revolutionaries vs troll, the court decides in favour of the revolutionaries. The troll is encouraged to die in a fire.

[bcbm]

How is pointing out the obvious- that HLVS is repeating shit, not debating- trolling? If anything, HLVS is the troll here. As for the "revolutionaries" (who support the pigs:rolleyes:), there's a response waiting for your attention. Maybe you can get to it when you're done fapping?

[spartan]

Well I wouldn't just go and attack any police man period. The point of being opposed to the police isn't to commit violence against them at any opportunity. And yes, they do occasionally serve a positive function. No one is denying that. It doesn't make them our enemy any less.
Yes i agree completely.

This is what i am largely getting at.

They are still our enemies but we can create divisions amongst the police quite easily if we put our minds to it by engaging with individual policemen in a situation of large scale civil unrest and playing on their emotions (i.e. would they attack that crowd knowing that members of their family is in there protesting? etc).

And I doubt most soldiers know they're involved in the upholding of the imperialist system and only killing people to further the global hegemony of capitalism. Should the people they're murdering and occupying take a step back and stop opposing them for awhile due this? Of course not.
Of course not i agree. What we need to do is engage them as well as opposing them.

Russian soldiers rebelled in 1917 during the great war (and they were spurred on by the small numbers of active revolutionaries) which was a big factor in the lead up to the successful revolutions in February and October (certainly the state was powerless in the face of such large scale civil unrest as the soldiers couldn't be trusted).

It's our duty to undermine the system and "supporting" (actually just egging on) striking policemen does just this i would imagine.


The same example applies here. It doesn't matter if one knows their "true role" or not- they carry it out regardless. That's problematic for obvious reasons.

The majority yes but not all.

There are examples of police not being trusted by the government to carry out orders due to local loyalties (UK miners strike in the mid 80's for example). As revolutionaries we should be playing on this as it is to our advantage to do so (as it undermines the system we oppose).

This is about tactics not support.

[bcbm]

Of course not i agree. What we need to do is engage them.

No, we need to render them impotent. Again, at a certain point the individual police officer needs to make a choice- to stay or to switch. I don't want anything to do with any of them until they've switched. Until then, they have no value and are an enemy.


Russian soldiers rebelled during the great war (and they were spurred on by the small numbers of active revolutionaries) which was a big factor in the lead up to the revolution.

The soldier example was not completely comparable. Soldiers are a different case, as their discontent can actually amount to real results.


It's our duty to undermine the system and "supporting" (actually just egging on) striking policemen does just this i would imagine.

When their strike is aimed at strengthening the system? Nah.


There are examples of police not being trusted by the government to carry out orders due to local loyalties. As revolutionaries we should be playing on this as it is to our advantage to do so (as it undermines the system we oppose).

Playing conflicting loyalties is a dangerous game and I am not going to put myself or comrades at risk by working with police officers until they are no longer police officers. And perhaps not even then.

[spartan]

The soldier example was not completely comparable. Soldiers are a different case, as their discontent can actually amount to real results.
I think discontent policemen do alot of good for us in the sense that the system they uphold is immediately undermined and starts panicking due to policemen not carrying out orders and maintaining law and order in the face of civil unrest (which is naturally to our advantage).

How will law and order be maintained on the streets when the police are either on strike, deserting or simply not carrying out orders due to being discontent with everything?

No law and order being maintained is, i imagine, to our advantage do you agree?


Playing conflicting loyalties is a dangerous game and I am not going to put myself or comrades at risk by working with police officers until they are no longer police officers. And perhaps not even then.

The only loyalties which will be conflicted is that of the policemen (also i dont understand what you mean when you say that you and your comrades will be in danger? I am talking about a situation where the police don't know of your political allegiances).

Would they obey orders to shoot down members of their own community, knowing full well that it would mean shooting families, friends and neighbours they have know all their lives, if there is civil unrest there?

If given orders like this they would at the very least question why they have to do this.

This creates doubt and doubt makes you question even more ("why am i even in this situation in the first place being faced with all this?", "is it worth it?" etc).

This will seperate the reactionarey policemen (happy to carry out orders come what may) from the ones who will immediately know right from wrong and not want to carry out such orders (would that be the majority of policemen? Only time will tell).

No one here is supporting the police as an institution (well i can't speak for others but i know that i certainly am not) but it would be ridiculous not to somehow use them to our advantage in some capacity in a situation where undermining the system is really the essential ingredient to a successful revolution (as shown by Russia in 1917 where the lack of bodies still loyal crippled the state in the face of large scale civil unrest).

I think the police are alot more vulnerable then we think, and having policemen faced with how it would really be in a revolutionary situation just might lead them out of the police and, though not into our ranks (which would be too dangerous), out of the equation completely (severely undermining the system and limiting the authorities in what they can do in response to large scale civil unrest and open rebellion).

[Saorsa]

How is pointing out the obvious- that HLVS is repeating shit, not debating- trolling? If anything, HLVS is the troll here. As for the "revolutionaries" (who support the pigshttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif), there's a response waiting for your attention. Maybe you can get to it when you're done fapping?

By troll I was referring to HLVS, not you. I agree with everything you've said here, didn't you read my other posts in this thread?

[bcbm]

By troll I was referring to HLVS, not you. I agree with everything you've said here, didn't you read my other posts in this thread?

Nay, good sir. I am lazy. My apologies.

--


How will law and order be maintained on the streets when the police are either on strike, deserting or simply not carrying out orders due to being discontent with everything?

No law and order being maintained is, i imagine, to our advantage do you agree?

Not especially. Then the National Guard comes in. We need to have mass supporting among the under-classes, not just some pissed off cops. Once we get to that point, it may be of some worth to pursue switching cops but until then there isn't much of a point- they'll choose their pig brothers, not us.


The only loyalties which will be conflicted is that of the policemen (also i dont understand what you mean when you say that you and your comrades will be in danger? I am talking about a situation where the police don't know of your political allegiances).

How exactly do you support the striking police without getting to know them or letting them know anything about your allegiances?


Would they obey orders to shoot down members of their own community, knowing full well that it would mean shooting families, friends and neighbours they have know all their lives, if there is civil unrest there?

What is "their own community?" The majority of the population lives in larger urban areas where the police don't know the community. Indeed, that is the point of the police strategy in many of the metropoles.


If given orders like this they would at the very least question why they have to do this.

Doubt it. They'd just view it as a bunch of trouble makers and start capping.


This will seperate the reactionarey policemen (happy to carry out orders come what may) from the ones who will immediately know right from wrong and not want to carry out such orders (would that be the majority of policemen? Only time will tell).

I don't think we need to be involved to make them question the orders, though really I think you overestimate the ability to do this. Being a cop comes with a certain mentality, which includes loyalty to your fellow boys in blue, etc. If it came down to choosing between defending their brothers or not shooting us, guess what would happen.



I think the police are alot more vulnerable then we think, and having policemen faced with how it would really be in a revolutionary situation just might lead them out of the police and, though not into our ranks (which would be too dangerous), out of the equation completely (severely undermining the system and limiting the authorities in what they can do in response to large scale civil unrest and open rebellion).

I don't think the police are terribly vulnerable and I don't think they will be until there is a real revolutionary situation. Until then, its something of a moot point. And in that situation, turning cops won't matter much- the police will just start pulling from the ranks of fascists, nationalists and other reactionaries, bringing even worse ****s into the equation.

[spartan]

Not especially. Then the National Guard comes in.

Well lets make them rebel!:lol:

I guess you're right on that though other countries don't have a corresponding force like the national guard except for maybe reservists in their army (though i think that soldiers are more likely to rebel then security forces like the police).


We need to have mass supporting among the under-classes, not just some pissed off cops.

Agreed. The former comes first but the latter could be useful when the time is right.


Once we get to that point, it may be of some worth to pursue switching cops but until then there isn't much of a point- they'll choose their pig brothers, not us.

Yeah until the situation becomes dire enough you are probably right.


How exactly do you support the striking police without getting to know them or letting them know anything about your allegiances?

Well if you do it through unions then i guess that they will know straight away. What i meant was individually like someone deliberately sent into the enemy camp to spread confusion and play sections of the system off against each other.

What is "their own community?" The majority of the population lives in larger urban areas where the police don't know the community. Indeed, that is the point of the police strategy in many of the metropoles.
Yeah i was talking more about local and rural police forces. The cities do present a problem and are unlikely to have lots of discontent policemen (well only those who think they aren't being hard enough on criminals which isn't the sort of discontent you want) with any real connections to an area which would make it hard for them to do stuff they might not like which rural areas and small towns would.

Doubt it. They'd just view it as a bunch of trouble makers and start capping.
Not if they knew that family members or friends were in there, but yes i take your point.


I don't think we need to be involved to make them question the orders, though really I think you overestimate the ability to do this. Being a cop comes with a certain mentality, which includes loyalty to your fellow boys in blue, etc. If it came down to choosing between defending their brothers or not shooting us, guess what would happen.

Yes i agree completely though as human beings (and yes deep down they still are human beings only just) they have connections to where they come from, their family and their friends.

It would be intresting to see which they would choose when push came to shove (i would imagine that those from rural areas and small towns would simply whither away back into the civilian population whilst the ones from the city would stay put).


I don't think the police are terribly vulnerable and I don't think they will be until there is a real revolutionary situation. Until then, its something of a moot point. And in that situation, turning cops won't matter much- the police will just start pulling from the ranks of fascists, nationalists and other reactionaries, bringing even worse ****s into the equation.

I forgot about the recruitment of fascists which police forces usually do when the going gets tough.

All in all i guess you are pretty much right but i still think that playing off sections of the authorities against each other (if possible) would be a useful tactic in a time of revolution as it undermines the system we aim to overthrow.

[PigmerikanMao]

Police protect the bourgeois class and their interests and should be considered enemies to revolutionary movements. People, however, should not forget that most of the police force is recruited directly from the proletariat. Police are workers, but they work for the bourgeois to the extremity falling short of joining the army. Whether they are allies or enemies needs to be determined on a case by case basis, not a generalization.

[redarmyfaction38]

So what's the deal with the police?

What do a majority of those on this board believe?

a) they are in a position of authority enforce laws to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie and their property

b) they are members of the working class and therefore should be educated about the revolution and encouraged to join our forces

c) other

I know this is a pretty simplified poll, granted, but I for one don't know too much on the subject. I know it's been discussed on this board previously, though.

Is it possible that law enforcement are not at all black and white, that - while some may be tyrannical and abuse their authority, keeping the bourgeois class interest in mind - others are simply "doing their job" and protecting citizens from crime?
the police are workers, they are wage slaves like the rest of us.
recently in the yuk, soz uk, they were denied a pay rise promised by the govt. the police in the uk are not allowed to strike by law, yet they threatened one, the majority of uk citisens would have supported this strike, unfortunately, the leaders of the "police federation" chose to go to the courts. the courts, suprise suprise, found in favour of the govt. that broke its promises.
during this dispute, individual police officers, were seen to be demanding "trade union rights" that their predecessors, back in the 1880s had enjoyed! some, were even spotted sneaking into socialist bookshops and buying radical newspapers whilst policing demonstrations against the govt. and its neo liberal policies.
work from there.

[Sam_b]

the majority of uk citisens would have supported this strike

I disagree.

Fuck em'.

[ashaman1324]

i voted other.
there are two types of police as i see.
i think your common policeman ull see on a bike or squad car means exactly the job description, to protect the people. there are those who are simply there for a power trip, which is hardly good for the reputation of the rest of the police.
i think there is a small controlling group in the police, the same as in the rest of society, that exists to control the common cop, who in turn will control the people.
its the controlling faction of the police im against, the same as in society
not the common cop, as im not against the common person
but this isnt universal i dont think, not every ranking officer is evil, same as every rich capitalist is evil.
just most of them
if enough cops see the best interest of the people to be socialist, then they could quite possibly be our allies
:)

[Sam_b]

if enough cops see the best interest of the people to be socialist, then they could quite possibly be our allies

The police in its current state cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed (and arguably rebuilt). Why would we want it on our side?

[Niccolò Rossi]

The police in its current state cannot be reformed, it must be destroyed (and arguably rebuilt). Why would we want it on our side?

Putting aside the "confusion" of Ashman; of course the police as an insitution, an arm of the bourgeois state, can not be reformed or brought behind the workers movement, the question is: can the individual police officer (as a member of the working class or otherwise) be an ally in the workers movement?

[ashaman1324]

the current institution of hte police is irreformable, i agree.
but open your eyes.
its the big-wig ranking officers that protect its institution. (who i stated i was against)
cops have the same problems as the average person, maybe a little worse.
low wages, poorer working conditions than most (who gets shot at for a living?) and even worse than most of us, they have no unions to demand better wages and treatment.
if a cop was socialist, i would listen to him the same as any other person.

besides, when the revolution comes, it wont hurt to have a person trained with weapons on our side.

[Valeofruin]

The police are a critical piece of the State machenery. They themselves are working class, but as appendages of class oppression as long as the bourgeois state is in power, they protect bourgeois interests.

[JimmyJazz]

I would vote for "both" if it was an option.

Me too.

[INDK]

Me too.

I suppose that makes sense. I get that there are cops that aren't 'pigs', and that the police directors and chiefs and what not are the actual bourgeoisie at play, but the problem is their job for that bourgeoisie is an oppressive one. So it's like, they are proletarian, but they're not. I'd most likely vote both if I could as well, but I do stand with the fact that police forces are oppressive.

[KurtFF8]

The police are a critical piece of the State machenery. They themselves are working class, but as appendages of class oppression as long as the bourgeois state is in power, they protect bourgeois interests.

Indeed, this is an important role they play in places like the US (and well anywhere else where capitalism exists).

We've already dealt with the fact that they are indeed working class and engaging in class oppression simultaneously.

That said, protecting bourgeois property isn't the only role that play in society. Take traffic safety, preventing assault, etc. They aren't directly related to the protection of private property (although perhaps one could try to make an argument that speed limits are, but I would happen to disagree at least to a degree).

[gorillafuck]

They are both.

[redguard2009]

The Police obviously do not have any decree ordering them to prevent people from owning wealth, protecting the ruling class' right to exploit people, etc.

But the Police are the first line of defense of the state against any popular insurrection. It is the Police armed with tear gas and batons who line streets during protests, marches and strikes; it is the Police who (usually) raid activists homes and gathering places and for any issue which does not necessitate federal or regional security involvement they form the bulk of counter-revolutionary intelligence.

The Police as an institution is based on the infallability of Police jurisdiction on all matters. Police officers are given absolute impunity to enforce the law and incarcerate civilians as they see fit. While officially their role is to provide peace and security, and they obviously do, they are also a form of control. Perhaps not intentionally (as I said, Police are not given orders to "go out and maintain bourgeois rule"), but in practice they deter resistence to the state.

However much it is "decided" by others I will never accept the fact that the Police are working class. Their family backgrounds and cultural history may involve the working class, but when a worker picks up arms to defend the interests of the state (even though he assumes he is protecting the interests of the people), he becomes an enemy.

Fact of the matter is, though, in my opinion atleast, the Police forces can "saved". All the Police needs is a system of accountability with the masses. Their organization can not exist outside of the mandate of the masses as it currently does. Police leadership must be held accountable, and all members of the Police force must be answerable to civil courts and prosecution for transgressions.

As it stands, if a Cop guns down a kid in cold blood, the most he will face is an internal inquiry, a slap on the wrist and perhaps being fired. If the handling of the incident was in the hands of civil courts, however, I suspect things would be a lot different, and so would the attitude of Police (of course, it is the Police and its investigators who decide whether a suspect should be charged with a crime; this should be different in the future).

[Sankofa]

Fuck tha police
Comin straight from the underground
Young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown
And not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority...


:lol:

Ahem, Option 1 for on-topicness. Agreed they count as both though.

[INDK]

Even if they are 'working class' by definition, or relation to the means of production, to be specific, it's not like they can't also be class 'traitors'. They're proletarian only technically.

[Agrippa]

lol @ all the "revolutionary leftists" making comments in defense of the police

No wonder so many people on this thread support police states such as Cuba and North Korea

The whole discussion is purely academic. One can be "of the proletarian class" and still behave unethically. Rape, child abuse, spousal abuse, pimping, etc. are all unethical acts regardless of who does it. Choosing to be employed by any police department is an unethical act. All discussion of, "crooked cops", cops that "abuse their power", etc. completely distracts from the primary point: the existence of police bureaucracies is to control the masses with harassment, intimidation, and incarceration and to protect the system of property and wage

To say "police protect us from rapists, murders, etc." is to show a complete and total blindness to how our society operates. Human societies have protected themselves for tens of thousands of years from rapists and murderers without police officers. In many cases police officers are the rapists and murderers.

Yes, there can be "good cops". They still have a job to do, and their job is to enforce capitalist laws. If they failed in this duty, they would be fired, just as a dishwasher who fails to wash dishes would be fired. How can you be against capitalism and for the primary source of capitalist power?

[Comrade B]

We are not FOR the police, we are saying that they are not directly our enemy. The police are just being used by the rich just as the factory workers that build the weapons for the military are.

They are members of the proletariat, but they are protecting the interests of the bourgeois.

Although the laws were made to protect the bourgeois, not all of them only protect the rich. Most of them may not apply to the rich (such as rich people can get away with their own form of theft, often murder, and usually rape) but not everyone in one class, as said above, works to help the members of their class. Being working class doesn't make you a great person. Being rich can make you a bad person, but this does not work in the reverse. It isn't some anomaly for members of the same class to harm each other. There are rich rapists and there are poor rapists, there are rich murderers, and there are poor murderers. I prefer protection from at least one group over protection from none.

[Patchd]

As someone pointed out this isnt a black and white issue.

During the UK miner strikes of 1984-85 Thatcher had to call in special squads from the metropolitan police in London as she was scared that local police forces would be too sympathetic to the striking miners as these were the people they had known all their lives and thus could'nt bring themselves to fight the people they had been protecting for years.
Local pigs weren't "sympathetic". They were shitting themselves, they lived in the same communities as the miners remember, and these small communities full of angry striking miners who would take every opportunity to beat the shit out of scabs weren't going to let PC Plod down at no. 42 get away with it if they see him protecting the scabs.

Number 1 for me, they're institutionally scum. All of them. I've known some nice individual coppers, but when they put on a uniform, they're on the other side of the barricades.

[KurtFF8]

I don't see anyone here "defending the police" but instead most are just pointing out that they are working against the interests of their own class.

And my last post was just to demonstrate that not all of their activity is furthering bourgeois interests.

[Decolonize The Left]

The point to remember is that the issue of the police being X or Y ought to be treated as independent of individual police officers. As many have noted, police officers can be nice people - this is irrelevant. It is not the officer themselves that we address, it is the position which they hold in regards to the institutionalized and systematic oppression and exploitation of the working class.

Hence the police, as an institution within our current system, is to be opposed by revolutionary leftists.

- August

[Omi]

The police are similar to fascists: The bulk of them are from working class backgrounds, but due to poor job options and lack of class awareness they protect the interest of the bourgois class. Thus rendering them class enemies, not as persons per se. But once they put on their uniform, they are part of an opressive state machine, and thus are opressors themselves. All Cops Are Bastards, means not the face behind the mask, but the mask itself.

So, Both. They can be working class, but are enemies of the working class just as fascists are, and forever will be.

[Bitter Ashes]

So long as the police are accountable to other proletarians and not the bouregeois, where's the issue? Right now, I can understand why people are jumping at shadows. There will always be a need for justice, because although an awful lot of crime takes place with the motive of greed, or even survial in a capitalist world, a lot take place due to passion and mental disorders too. As long as crime is happening, I see the nessecity for proffessional law enforcement and while those police are bringing something good into my life, in the shape of personal security, I will consider them fellow workers.

[kiki75]

When cops get off after killing people in cold blood, they are not being "accountable to other" proletariat instead of the bourgeoisie. The fact that they can get away with such things let's you know exactly where they stand, IMO.

[Ismail]

This whole "the police protects people in need" thing is ridiculous. It's like arguing a capitalist helps the people by instituting welfare. If a police officer said "Oh hey, you know what? That car got stolen but fuck you I have mine" then he'd probably not be respected, much less if the entire police force limited itself to breaking up protests or something. If I'm in trouble I'll call the police, yeah, just like if a Canadian had his leg blown off by zombie Joesph Stalin then the Canadian medical system would kick into gear, that's the point.

It's no different from the capitalists who show their 'socialist' side in times of crisis by increasing welfare benefits and such. It's to show how 'legitimate' they are, and how 'caring' they are. But when push comes to shove they'll be as damn well barbaric as they want to be and the police will either be there or lose their job/get in more serious trouble.

Sure, individual cops can be nice, perhaps even progressive people, but don't be an apologist and always keep in mind that progressive people forced to do reactionary things always results in a tragedy.

[communick]

I have family who are cops in my home town. I hate them. They are racist pigs and total assholes.

I've heard rumors for years about "good cops" existing but I've not met one yet.

In the late 90's, Norfolk County (south of Boston) formed a SWAT team to specifically deal with union construction workers protesting the building of a non-union KMart. They have never used a SWAT team to bust abusive employers.

Generally, if you are a working person with a problem and you call the cops...

...you have 2 problems.

[brigadista]

The police are workers at least in some capacity. This implies that:
1) Socialists should express solidarity with striking cops
2) Socialists should try and win them over so that a mutiny would happen in the police force as well as in the army

they are state enforcers and although i agree to some extent with the above - it depends on the social and economic conditions.. for example the met police paid their mortgages from their extra wages enforcing the state agenda towards striking miners in the miners strike ....

[farleft]

We are not FOR the police, we are saying that they are not directly our enemy. The police are just being used by the rich just as the factory workers that build the weapons for the military are.

They are members of the proletariat, but they are protecting the interests of the bourgeois.

Although the laws were made to protect the bourgeois, not all of them only protect the rich. Most of them may not apply to the rich (such as rich people can get away with their own form of theft, often murder, and usually rape) but not everyone in one class, as said above, works to help the members of their class. Being working class doesn't make you a great person. Being rich can make you a bad person, but this does not work in the reverse. It isn't some anomaly for members of the same class to harm each other. There are rich rapists and there are poor rapists, there are rich murderers, and there are poor murderers. I prefer protection from at least one group over protection from none.


The police ARE directly our enemy.

The police are the first line of defence for the system.

We come face to face with them on the streets, at march's, protests, G8 etc they are the same as the local street cop equally supportive at the state, arrogant and egotistic.

[Dr.Claw]

When it comes to cops i dont hate them i just dont really like what they are doing. If a cop were to pull me over and bust me for something and he wasnt a prick about it, I would cooperate to a certain extent i.e. put handcuffs on me,take me to the station etc. but if he was prick to me i would show no respect for him and resist and probably try to beat him up because he disrespected me and he is a human just like me there is nothing that make him a higher form of being. i dont think (from what i've seen and cops that ive met and know)that most of the cops are out to get people i think they just wanna help people whether the cop sees that they are doing more harm than good or not. I don't directly respect their authority i respect them as people unless they give me a reason not to.

[Comrade Anarchist]

A single police officer is has been brainwashed and doesnt know better probally. The ones telling them to shoot are the corrupt ones working for the bourgeoisie

[Red Dreadnought]

Objectively, protects bourgeois interest and their property. Nevertheless, this is not a personal question. We can't defend terrorism against them. In revolutionary situations we can encourage part of them (fundamentally of "rank and file")to unite revolution. But this means break internal relationships of power. Its clear that a part of them may be always reactionaries (mainly officers). Also, there are differents kinds of cops: political o secret police is close to interest of state and evil tactics like spying, torture, etc. For example, at frankist Spain the "Brigada Politico Social" was a tool of fascist state very reactionary and with connections with "Gladio Network".

[Red Dreadnought]

For example, in China, recently Police has participate in protests and strikes. We can celebrate this, that makes the state feeble. That doesn`t make em revolutionary, but maybe its a little step. These who justify terrorist attacks against policemen help to feed reactionary positions amongst them. And its no necessary that you would be and evil person only for being cop.

[Invincible Summer]

The police force is simply an extension of state power, so I am against the police force.

As for the individual officers, some of them chose the job for reasons other than to assert authority over others - they may be very well-meaning but just not aware of what their position entails. However, most of the time I've noticed this is not the case.

Basically, I think Communists should be against the institution that is the police, but not the individuals

[Dr.Claw]

The police force is simply an extension of state power, so I am against the police force.

As for the individual officers, some of them chose the job for reasons other than to assert authority over others - they may be very well-meaning but just not aware of what their position entails. However, most of the time I've noticed this is not the case.

exactly...

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So long as the police are accountable to other proletarians and not the bouregeois, where's the issue?

Right first of all you need to work out the kinda people who are attracted to joining the police. There the kinda people who would join a football firm but like doing as there told and being "legit" and "moral" at the same time. Also theres the bonus of being able to shoot people*+

Not people I want trusted to "look after" me



Right now, I can understand why people are jumping at shadows. There will always be a need for justice, because although an awful lot of crime takes place with the motive of greed, or even survial in a capitalist world, a lot take place due to passion and mental disorders too. As long as crime is happening, I see the nessecity for proffessional law enforcement and while those police are bringing something good into my life, in the shape of personal security, I will consider them fellow workers.

I think law enforcement should be delt with a rotional response team selected from the communes Milita (not soviet i hate saying that , its russain for council and makes me feel like a red alert fetishist)

You may consider police to be "fellow workers" but I doubt they will see you in the same light when they are shooting revolutionaries have they always historically have done (apart from when they get shot before they get a chance to pull the trigger)

[Pogue]

Right first of all you need to work out the kinda people who are attracted to joining the police. There the kinda people who would join a football firm but like doing as there told and being "legit" and "moral" at the same time. Also theres the bonus of being able to shoot people*+

Not people I want trusted to "look after" me



I think law enforcement should be delt with a rotional response team selected from the communes Milita (not soviet i hate saying that , its russain for council and makes me feel like a red alert fetishist)

You may consider police to be "fellow workers" but I doubt they will see you in the same light when they are shooting revolutionaries have they always historically have done (apart from when they get shot before they get a chance to pull the trigger)

To be honest though mate it can get a bit cringy hearing commune used alot too, I actually prefer soviet, or workers council, peoples council, etc. Commune stinks of twats on a farm thinking they're so alternative.

[Invincible Summer]

To be honest though mate it can get a bit cringy hearing commune used alot too, I actually prefer soviet, or workers council, peoples council, etc. Commune stinks of twats on a farm thinking they're so alternative.

"Soviets" is not really comprehensible to the general public, and "communes" does have that off-the-grid hippy connotation.


I like "worker's council" although I have a habit of saying "commune"

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

To be honest though mate it can get a bit cringy hearing commune used alot too, I actually prefer soviet, or workers council, peoples council, etc. Commune stinks of twats on a farm thinking they're so alternative.

Workers council is alright. Yeah commune does give images of people sitting around eating vegetables while stinking of shit because their obscure life stylist project hasnt managed to sell enough crap to pay for plumbing.

Soviet is Russian for council and I think its a symptom of getting to hung up over the soviet union and Russia. Workers Council is alright though.

[Pogue]

Right first of all you need to work out the kinda people who are attracted to joining the police. There the kinda people who would join a football firm but like doing as there told and being "legit" and "moral" at the same time. Also theres the bonus of being able to shoot people*+

Not people I want trusted to "look after" me



I think law enforcement should be delt with a rotional response team selected from the communes Milita (not soviet i hate saying that , its russain for council and makes me feel like a red alert fetishist)

You may consider police to be "fellow workers" but I doubt they will see you in the same light when they are shooting revolutionaries have they always historically have done (apart from when they get shot before they get a chance to pull the trigger)

Well I was attracted to the police. I was in their youth group, where I converted to anarchism.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well I was attracted to the police. I was in their youth group, where I converted to anarchism.

Their youth group.

Hell im sure there are cases (hell i konw of cases) where pigs have become leftists but they are extreamly rare considering only a third of the police left the force when the nazis took over (and this third includes people who were made to leave such as jews,gays etc.

[Pogue]

From my experiences I can tell you its hardly a breeding ground for left wing thought.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

In capitalist society the police exsist to protect the state not the people.As we see here in the north of Ireland at the moment no matter how accountable for their action each individual officer is they still end up in confrontations with the workers.The state police are the ENEMY of the workers.

[Black Sheep]

The police ARE directly our enemy.

The police are the first line of defence for the system.
Those two statements are contradictory.
If you want to conquer a fort, your enemy is not the walls and the crocodile-filled canal around it.You just have to overcome these obstacles.


They are the same as the local street cop equally supportive at the state, arrogant and egotistic.
This is an untrue generalization though.

[Bitter Ashes]

One thing I have noticed, if the folk in the police or the army have any political inclination, it always almost right-wing authoritarian/ military dictatorship kind.
authoritarian = probably
right wing = debatable