police and courts in communist society yes or no [Archive]

apathy maybe

10th September 2008, 08:40

No police, no courts as you would think of them now.

There might be a rotating people's militia that would assist visitors, and deal with violent crime etc. However, they would have no more power or prestige then any other individual. (I.e. anyone could help visitors and attempt to stop violent acts.) The difference would be that the militia would carry weaponry, communications equipment (to contact emergency services etc.) and other things that most people wouldn't be carrying normally. Also, the militia would not be involved in collecting evidence of "crimes". (One of the big problems with the police today, is that those people who "keep the peace", have a vested interest in prosecuting.)

Courts would consist of the mass of people.

Laws would not exist as we understand them today. Any "rules" would be democratically agreed to by the mass of the people, and would not apply beyond the area which agreed to them. Such things as violent assault, would of course not be generally allowed, but there would be no need to specifically outlaw it as such. Because, well, no body likes people getting beaten up and raped etc., why do you need to specifically say it?

I'll like to a thread on police in a bit, but hopefully that does answer your questions.

apathy maybe

10th September 2008, 09:16

Previous threads on the matter:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/law-enforcement-t71867/index.html?t=71867&highlight=police
http://www.revleft.com/vb/defence-and-army-t79830/index.html?t=79830&highlight=police
http://www.revleft.com/vb/prisons-and-enforcement-t79963/index.html?t=79963&highlight=police

A little bit relevant:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/capital-punishment-t79969/index2.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchism-institutions-t80463/index.html?t=80463&highlight=police
http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-t83648/index.html?t=83648&highlight=police

dread...

10th September 2008, 11:57

There certainly would be laws, and the means to enforce them in a communist society - however the form they would take would hopefully be quite different to their current forms.

There are various different proposals for how they would function, I think juries appointed by lot (like now, only also taking over the roles of judges) should be used for hearing cases, and investigation of alleged crimes should also be carried out by randomly selected groups - while prevention of crime, would be everyone's job though that wouldn't exclude the creation of a militia.

I expect there would be few restrictions on the carrying of firearms in many communities...

Forward Union

10th September 2008, 12:17

trivas7

10th September 2008, 15:38

No police, no courts as you would think of them now.

There might be a rotating people's militia that would assist visitors, and deal with violent crime etc. However, they would have no more power or prestige then any other individual. (I.e. anyone could help visitors and attempt to stop violent acts.) The difference would be that the militia would carry weaponry, communications equipment (to contact emergency services etc.) and other things that most people wouldn't be carrying normally. Also, the militia would not be involved in collecting evidence of "crimes". (One of the big problems with the police today, is that those people who "keep the peace", have a vested interest in prosecuting.)

I agree rotating militia when needed is a good idea; but aren't you otherwise describing vigilante justice, consistent with mob rule and no accountability?

Of course there will be. There's no other way of handling crime.

There certainly would be laws, and the means to enforce them in a communist society - however the form they would take would hopefully be quite different to their current forms.

What are you talking re, exactly? A monopoly of force is a pig by any name. This in no way is part of my idea of communism.

dread...

10th September 2008, 16:20

What are you talking re, exactly? A monopoly of force is a pig by any name. This in no way is part of my idea of communism.

Clearly, if you read my post you'll see I am not talking about a monopoly of force.

trivas7

10th September 2008, 17:47

Clearly, if you read my post you'll see I am not talking about a monopoly of force.

There certainly would be laws, and the means to enforce them in a communist society - however the form they would take would hopefully be quite different to their current forms.

There are various different proposals for how they would function, I think juries appointed by lot (like now, only also taking over the roles of judges) should be used for hearing cases, and investigation of alleged crimes should also be carried out by randomly selected groups - while prevention of crime, would be everyone's job though that wouldn't exclude the creation of a militia.

I expect there would be few restrictions on the carrying of firearms in many communities...
Where do you mention anything inconsistent with a monopoly of force? Which is exactly why I asked for clarification.

which doctor

10th September 2008, 17:57

Of course there will be. There's no other way of handling crime.

People that say "no there wont be" then go on a long winded explaination of a different system which actually does involve courts and police but with different names and different structures. This is immature as it confuses and scares people who don't know what we mean. Losing us massive support and alienating us from the contemporary.

We all agree on this we just dont like the words.

I don't think it would be confusing or scary. Courts and police in a communist society would not function in nearly the capacity in which they do now. I think this needs to be explained to people because many of them probably have little experience in egalitarian decision-making.

Forward Union

10th September 2008, 18:33

What are you talking re, exactly? A monopoly of force is a pig by any name. This in no way is part of my idea of communism.

No. We go through this stupid discussion every time.

Look, It's pretty simple. If an axe murder goes around killing people, we need certain people to be mandated to stop him/her. Anarcho-lefty political correctnes means we have to call them "workers militias" but by any other humans definition, as a spade is a space, they are police, police that are mandated and controled by the peoples assemblies.

Furthermore, In order to prevent mob rule, where commiting a crime might result in life imprisonment one day and 'a let' off ther next, or the imprisonment of innocent people, we should have a pre-agreed way of determining whether someone is guilty, and what is to be done with them in such an instance. It can't be enough that when the "workers militias" catch the axe murder, they decide that it probably was that person, and that s/he deserves the death penalty, so they kill him/her on the spot. And hey, tomorrow the same thing happens but they've just got laid so they're in a good mood and decide not to kill the criminal.

No. There need to be structures in place to make set a standard of justice. In the real world we call these courts.

The only difference is that Laws and Statues, and the enforcers thereof would be instruments of the workers assemblies. And not of the state.

Forward Union

10th September 2008, 18:38

I don't think it would be confusing or scary. Courts and police in a communist society would not function in nearly the capacity in which they do now

I absolutely agree. And most people will find that an exciting concept and probably support it. Most people dislike the current setup anyway. But that's only if we say we want to restructure the courts and the police.

If we say there wont be any People will just assume that theres no justice system and no police (opps sorry, I meant "workers militias") and that murderes will be free to go around murdering people.

apathy maybe

10th September 2008, 19:35

mikelepore

10th September 2008, 20:56

The answer is yes unless someone can prove that there will not be a single murderer or rapist among the entire human species, and no one can prove that, so the answer is yes.

Forward Union

10th September 2008, 23:31

There is a semantic thing going on here.

You see, police and legal (injustice) systems are instruments of state rule. And you can't go around calling something that is going to occur in a post-state society after something that occurs in a state society. People might get confused.

Wrong. From dictionary.com:

Also called police force. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=police force) An organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws.

That's exactly what we wan't isn't it. Why change the definition? Do you like making work for yourself and having to explain how your definition is better than the real one and why this means you need to construct an entirely new set of language rules in order to avoid using the word "police"? Im happy just saying we want a police force. We don't even need to state the difference. It's clear it's not going to be managed by a state when we also explain that there wont be a state.

So, we say, there will be no police or courts as there are now. Instead, there will be rotating people's militia (which aren't police, and don't serve many of the roles that police do now, and to call them police is to confuse them with an organisation that is dedicated to up hold class rule)

No you're absolutely wrong. Your "peoples militias" or whatever you want to call them are police by every available definition. Your refusal to recognise them as such is due to an irrational phobia of the word which creates a massive understanding barrier between yourself and society. You find it hard to swallow the term, and see it in a good light, because you're used to it being bad. But get over it. Your peoples militia is just a police force that upholds community justice as opposed to state justice. This is far easier to understand, and a much more reasonable thing to accept.

Furthermore a Militia is

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

So it's for foreign combat, not domestic, because it's military. How confusing is that?

Basically, I want you to justify replacing the word 'Police' with 'Militia'. They are practically very different things, you can't swap these temrs. The fuctions of the militia that you have outlined fit perfectly it into the definition of a police force, and not a militia. And further, the fact that it is rotated, made up of civilians and governed from below does not mean it's not a police, force because these qualities have nothing to do with the definition.

Now, the legal system is about punishment and revenge. In a future perfect society, neither concept will have much traction.

That doesn't mean it's not a legal system. It just means it'd be a different legal system.

So, when talking about the issues, it is much better to say that police and courts won't exist,

Except they will. And saying they wont scares the living shit out of eveyone, and puts you in a position where you have to spend half the next hour explaining what a peoples militia is. It sound fucking bonkers and crazy, and im worried my kids will survive this wonderful tranformation.

Winter

10th September 2008, 23:42

Courts and Police=instruments of the state.

Communist society=no state.

Forward Union

10th September 2008, 23:50

Courts and Police=instruments of the state.

Communist society=no state.

So we make the courts an police instruments of the workers councils instead. We don't fucking get rid of them.

Honest question. What if I murder your child in a society with no police force or courts.

Obviously some group of people, whatever you decide to call them, will be mandated to get me. That means they're a police force. So even you're police-less society, actually, really, has a police force. You've just changed the name, but failed to escape the concept. And to be honest, im not sure why you're trying so hard to get away from it. It's a pretty good idea.

Once they've cought me, who decides what to do with me? or If im guilty at all? You? am I subject to your mood then? Or is there a set, fair rule and process for eveyone? Oh there is? well that's called a court.

Or am I allowed to go killing people?

Drace

11th September 2008, 00:25

So we make the courts an police instruments of the workers councils instead. We don't fucking get rid of them.

Honest question. What if I murder your child in a society with no police force or courts.

Obviously some group of people, whatever you decide to call them, will be mandated to get me. That means they're a police force. So even you're police-less society, actually, really, has a police force. You've just changed the name, but failed to escape the concept. And to be honest, im not sure why you're trying so hard to get away from it. It's a pretty good idea.

Once they've cought me, who decides what to do with me? or If im guilty at all? You? am I subject to your mood then? Or is there a set, fair rule and process for eveyone? Oh there is? well that's called a court.

Or am I allowed to go killing people?

I'd have to agree with this.
I find some leftists always criticizing the current system over dramatically with no logical arguments.

It seems to me that the state is evil, just because its evil. Or go little further and say, the state has authority over you. Same thing, authority is bad, just because authority is bad.

Anything to do with state, also evil.
You say police are the instruments of the State. Ok? The police still keep away criminals from being on the streets.

The state's purpose is not to bring hell for everyone. It does not send police out to go kill random families it doesn't like >_>

Btw, having police does not create a whole another class, as they are run by the society.

The police here, anyways, are just like anyone else. They do not have any authority but those given to them, which all are against those who have commit crimes. They have no authority over anyone following the rules. All you do is, you just change the people controlling the police.

There purpose is to regulate crime. Why would you want to rid of them?

Comrade B

11th September 2008, 00:26

Of course there are police! It just isn't the same system. The police are SUPPOSED to exist to serve and protect, not so much punish. In capitalist society police exist to protect the wealthy, silence the people, and punish offenders. The problem is the system, not the idea of a group devoted to enforcing the law. Without a police force, the greedy could still exploit people. Who would stop people from extortion, slavery, murder, etc.?

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

11th September 2008, 03:38

I think more than anything this thread is a battle of semantics. Nobody here believes in a police force as they exist now, nor a court system where "jury by peers" is the semblance of sanity.

There will people who protect citizens from violent criminals, and there will be ways to carry out protection.

spice756

11th September 2008, 06:50

Well this thread clears up some of my questions.So the police and courts are on a local leval? And set up different than the police and courts today.

What is militia or workers assemblies ?

Looking up militia .
1. soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies

2. reserve military force: a reserve army that is not part of the regular armed forces but can be called up in an emergency

3. unauthorized quasi-military group: an unauthorized group of people who arm themselves and conduct quasi-military training

Forward Union

11th September 2008, 11:12

Well this thread clears up some of my questions.So the police and courts are on a local leval? And set up different than the police and courts today.

Right.

What is militia or workers assemblies ?

A militia is a group of armed civilians that supports the military.

A workers Assembly would be the basic decision making unit of a free society. It's the basis of communism, and Im a bit concerned you don't know what it is. But, this is the learning forum where we need to be patient and explain things properly, so...

Local areas, towns, villages, workplaces would be managed by popular forums or councils. People would come together and debate all the issues that effect them, from local food imports, to the building of new schools etc. And come to practical agreements. It might not be possible for everyone to attend and debate, so there will be elected representatives instead. Each neighborhood, ward and workplace can send delegates to argue their corner instead. This would be a Council as opposed to an assembly (where everyone debates)

These local bodies would federate nationally, and internationally, and replace the function of the state.

Forward Union

11th September 2008, 11:13

I notice none of the "there would be no courts or police" are bothering to back up their bombastic claim?

Plagueround

11th September 2008, 12:18

I voted yes, but obviously not in the sense that we have them now...I think that probably goes without saying. I'll leave the numerous threads that we have on the subject to fill in the details.

freakazoid

11th September 2008, 19:08

Furthermore a Militia is

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

Actually that is a horrible definition of a militia, as in completely wrong. :p That definition would better define the National Guard. How the militias where during the beginnings of the US would give a better idea. Later when, when I get around to it, I will post what I mean.

mikelepore

11th September 2008, 19:52

but obviously not in the sense that we have them now.

That's the key. One can list specific features that should be continued and features that should not be continued, in each writer's opinion. For example, I think this pattern should be continued: if I see someone like the Zodiac killer stabbing people, I can place a phone call, and then a dispatcher would send rapid responders to the site. But these things should be changed: The police shouldn't be given medals and promotions according to "total number of convictions", which makes them predisposed to asserting that all suspects are guilty .... Police should be trained a lot more in psychology and sociology and social work, and trained a lot less in how to scream "freeze, asshole" followed by a hundred bullets, because their real task is to compassionately restrian a berserk person who might be acting due to a brain tumor..... The quality of the innocent-until-proven-guilty evaluation shouldn't depend on how many money the individual has. So the real question isn't yes-no, but what exactly needs to be modified?

Forward Union

11th September 2008, 22:08

Actually that is a horrible definition of a militia, as in completely wrong. :p That definition would better define the National Guard. How the militias where during the beginnings of the US would give a better idea. Later when, when I get around to it, I will post what I mean.
[/indent]

The US is lucky enough to still have Militias. The National Guard however, are actually controlled by the millitary. It wouldn't be called "a body of citizens" but "a branch of the millitary" so I think the dictionary description is still correct.

freakazoid

11th September 2008, 23:37

It wasn't the "body of citizens" part but the rest that I believe to be incorrect, and why I believe that it would better describe the National Guard. Like the part about being enrolled in military service. Actually this is the main part I have a problem with when defining a militia.

spice756

12th September 2008, 00:00

Local areas, towns, villages, workplaces would be managed by popular forums or councils. People would come together and debate all the issues that effect them, from local food imports, to the building of new schools etc.

So every neighborhood ,towns ,villages and workplaces will have councils will people can debate and pass laws ?

And come to practical agreements. It might not be possible for everyone to attend and debate, so there will be elected representatives instead. Each neighborhood, ward and workplace can send delegates to argue their corner instead. This would be a Council as opposed to an assembly (where everyone debates)

But people will have to elected representatives for their neighborhood ,towns ,villages and workplaces ?

These local bodies would federate nationally, and internationally, and replace the function of the state.

But would they still not be a need for a some national levels like trade ,disasters ,food shortage ,diseases and outbreaks ? That go beyond local level :confused:

workers Assembly would be the basic decision making unit of a free society

I tought you said above each neighborhood ,towns ,villages and workplaces will have councils ?

Sendo

12th September 2008, 02:53

I'd rather have a few nutcases run around with butter knives and kill a few people and then be taken down by vigilantes or whatever eventually than have a professional, armed police force. You can't stop all nutcases. Most murders are crime-related in fields that won't exist anymore (protection, drug smuggling). The psychos will always pop up and they can never be deterred by capital punishment or anything.

To prevent all violence is to enact a policing that is far more violent to the spirit of life. You have a choice between "security" and freedom. Let's not complicate things. It's a pretty simple deal. With worldwide communism there is no reason for an army or a group of watchdogs.

Forward Union

12th September 2008, 10:33

I'd rather have a few nutcases run around with butter knives and kill a few people and then be taken down by vigilantes or whatever eventually than have a professional, armed police force.

Oh my God. :lol:

You can't stop all nutcases.

Exactly, So why stop any?

To prevent all violence is to enact a policing that is far more violent to the spirit of life.

Sorry. But Rape, Murder, Torture, Kidnapping, Paedophilia etc, are not "The spirit of life" they are barberous actions, and people that do these things should be prevented from doing so.

But this is all academic. If we do not have an institutional force to deal with it, there will be a power vaccume which will be filled by on-the-spot mob justice. People are not going to agree with your philosophical position after their kids been raped. They're not going to take it on the chin and move on because they understand the philisophical implications of havign a police force. They're going to try and seek justice, and rightly so. I would rather it done in a controlled manner, by an ellected and acountable body, that we all have a say un managing, than a random uncontrolable unnacountable unellected mob as you propose.

You are not actually advocating the abolition of the police force, but the creation of a fluid, unnacountable one. Which would be the most tyranical and unstoppable structure imaginable.

Essentially the choice is this. Either we have an institutional police force, controlled by the community, subject to the will of the peoples councils. Or we have unnacountable, unellected mobs lynching suspects. What'll it be?

You have a choice between "security" and freedom.

With no security, there is no freedom. What good is freedom, if it means the freedom to murder people. I could die in such a system. In other words I want a system in which my freedom, and my life is secure. The fact is that you can strike a pretty effective balance and I have outlined such a system in my previous posts. There is no excuse for you're monsterous position.

Forward Union

12th September 2008, 10:42

So every neighborhood ,towns ,villages and workplaces will have councils will people can debate and pass laws ?

Right. And not just laws, but anything. They are the supreme decision making body.

But people will have to elected representatives for their neighborhood ,towns ,villages and workplaces ?

Right. But if the community is small enough, there may be no point in having delegates.

But would they still not be a need for a some national levels like trade ,disasters ,food shortage ,diseases and outbreaks ? That go beyond local level :confused:

Right. So locales would also federate, and send delegates to regional conferences designed to form common agreements.

I tought you said above each neighborhood ,towns ,villages and workplaces will have councils ?

Depends on the specific geography. I think every workplace, negihborhood, club etc, would have it's own meetings and discussions, workplaces for sure because there wont be bosses. But each one should send a representative to the local decision making body to represent their specific section of society, the popular assembly, in the town hall or whatever, for issues that effect the entire town. Issues that just effect the neighborhood can be handled by that neighborhood, issues that just effect the factory can be debated by the factory. But issues that effect the town can be handled by the town, and issues that effect the nation can be handled by national forums, with representatives of all regions.

Say we wanted to build another motorway from one London to Manchester, all the factories needed to produce the equiptment, the builders collectives, the people that will live near the motorway, will need to debate this plan in the forums. People in Cornwall wont have anything to do with it and wont have a say in it.

If this is all new to you and you've been calling yourself a communist, how did you think things were meant to be run???!?!?!

spice756

14th September 2008, 22:51

Depends on the specific geography. I think every workplace, negihborhood, club etc, would have it's own meetings and discussions, workplaces for sure because there wont be bosses.

All this above you say is in a councils not a workers assembly ?

But each one should send a representative to the local decision making body to represent their specific section of society, the popular assembly, in the town hall or whatever, for issues that effect the entire town.

So the councils will send representative to city hall or town hall?

Issues that just effect the neighborhood can be handled by that neighborhood, issues that just effect the factory can be debated by the factory. But issues that effect the town can be handled by the town, and issues that effect the nation can be handled by national forums, with representatives of all regions

I understand this.But could you explain this better ( and issues that effect the nation can be handled by national forums, with representatives of all regions )

So to summarize it.Every neighborhood ,towns ,villages and workplaces will have councils will people can debate and pass laws

=Issues that effect the neighborhood can be handled by that neighborhood councils
=issues that just effect the factory can be handled by that factory councils
=issues that effect the town or city can be handled by that town or city councils

and issues that effect the nation can be handled by national forums, with representatives of all regions

This is the part I do not understand.

And who will provide fire.EMS and hospitals ?

Say we wanted to build another motorway from one London to Manchester, all the factories needed to produce the equiptment, the builders collectives, the people that will live near the motorway, will need to debate this plan in the forums. People in Cornwall wont have anything to do with it and wont have a say in it.

I understand this.

If this is all new to you and you've been calling yourself a communist, how did you think things were meant to be run???!?!?!

I got different information from different communists.

OI OI OI

15th September 2008, 03:24

Of course there should be no police or courts in a communist society.

How the hell did half of the forum voted yes?

You dissapoint me people!

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

15th September 2008, 04:48

Of course there should be no police or courts in a communist society.

How the hell did half of the forum voted yes?

You dissapoint me people!

I voted yes because I don't limit the definitions of both to the contemporary world.

Drace

15th September 2008, 07:55

How can there be no polices or courts! How do you handle crime?

Gah, I accidently voted no and I'm stuck with a bunch of nuts.

Philosophical Materialist

15th September 2008, 09:41

If humanity has progressed to the communist stage of history, then why do you need police or courts? The material conditions that cause crimes of want, crimes of hate, crime of passion, and crime from the result of mental illness will have been abolished.

Criminology, socialist law, and democratic workers' militias will be necessary throughout the socialist epoch though.

Red Anarchist of Love

15th September 2008, 09:44

you can not force people to share and be happy amonst each other. you can see battles between coroupt cops and corrops gans from the FARQ to the crips and the bloods. the only solution is for every one to ecepct truths as a madder contious and give up way of greed, but as long as their is greed in a community, greedy cops will be justified.

Red Anarchist of Love

15th September 2008, 09:51

"Laws will never govern us to be equal for there is no governing a mind of a human or their heart. It must come from within for equality to be truthful and not a fake manipulation". valientejv

freakazoid

15th September 2008, 10:04

and crime from the result of mental illness will have been abolished.

So your goal is to make murder not a crime? So Dennis Rader, BTK, will be allowed to roam free?

Criminology, socialist law, and democratic workers' militias will be necessary throughout the socialist epoch though.

So basically police and courts, just with a different name.

Red Anarchist of Love

15th September 2008, 10:09

we must form a society in which BTK would have beeen supporitved and nurtished as a child, in a society in which we are created equal there would be not need for such violence and murder.

Forward Union

15th September 2008, 10:56

If humanity has progressed to the communist stage of history, then why do you need police or courts?

To deal with:

Rapists
Murderers
Paedophiles
Assult
Afray

etc

These crimes have always happened, to a greater or lesser extent. There is evidence of murder in the remains of even the earliest human remains, before written language existed. Now I certainly do believe that in a Communist society, the sense of community and the abolition of class will eliminate a lot of crime. But why would It prevent all? People will still have arguments and cheat on their partners and maybe just maybe, there will be fights, assults, murders, manslaughters etc.

I think to not plan for these things, or to not have a safetly net is pretty insane. Communism wont eliminate all crime. It wont create a utopia on earth that transends all current logic. This is the attitude of a liberal.

Anyway you obviously haven't read anything I've written before. And have decided to come out with your utopian surrealist middle class nonsense anyway. To quote myself a few posts back:

If we do not have an institutional force to deal with it, there will be a power vaccume which will be filled by on-the-spot mob justice. People are not going to agree with your philosophical position after their kids been raped. They're not going to take it on the chin and move on because they understand the philisophical implications of havign a police force. They're going to try and seek justice, and rightly so. I would rather it done in a controlled manner, by an ellected and acountable body, that we all have a say un managing, than a random uncontrolable unnacountable unellected mob as you propose.

You are not actually advocating the abolition of the police force, but the creation of a fluid, unnacountable one. Which would be the most tyranical and unstoppable structure imaginable.

Essentially the choice is this. Either we have an institutional police force, controlled by the community, subject to the will of the peoples councils. Or we have unnacountable, unellected mobs lynching suspects. What'll it be?

lvl100

15th September 2008, 11:00

If humanity has progressed to the communist stage of history, then why do you need police or courts? The material conditions that cause crimes of want, crimes of hate, crime of passion, and crime from the result of mental illness will have been abolished.

You do realise that , is not only system`s fault, right ? Even in communism it would still be murders, rapers, crooks , hookers etc , even its in a less degree.

Criminology, socialist law, and democratic workers' militias will be necessary throughout the socialist epoch though. Not only in socialism , but in communism also.

Even in a commune, you still need citizens able to fight against agressors , forensic detectives that can say after a piece of cloth what the murderer eat 2 days ago, "judges" or something similar who are aware of comunity`s rules.

Those above arent jobs that anyone can do. You need specialisation.
You cant be a baker and in your free time a forensic detective.

Annie K.

15th September 2008, 11:49

To deal with: Rapists
Murderers
Paedophiles
Assult
Afray

etcYou're right on one point : all there is to say on that matter is already written.

First, you should explain what you mean exactly by "to deal with". After all, your use of this old and hypocritical euphemism may be unintentional. How does your volkspolizei "deals with" all these natural (since their existence is supposedly unrelated to any political situation) monsters (since apparently it's not the crime you want to deal with, it's the individuals) ?
What specific rights do they have to be able to prevent other people to realize their wicked desires ? The right to murder ? To assault ? To rape ?
Or more simply, exactly the same rights than the regular police ?
Same goes for these courts. What is an appropriate punishment for a monster ?

Oh. I didn't spent much time in the past to think about how to maintain authorities in an anti-authoritarian society, so I don't know if this question which just popped into my mind has an simply enough answer : how can we deal with criminal associations who will quite legally have their own vopos and courts ?

I have some others questions, but I don't have much time now. I'll be back, but as I said, all is written already.
Read this : http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/danger.htm
It could introduce to some "new" ideas on the specific question of pedophilia and on the broader question of the constitution of the criminal class as a mean of social control.

OI OI OI

15th September 2008, 12:58

Annie K.

15th September 2008, 13:14

As for crime due to mental illness etc and the limited(VERY VERY limited) crime that will exist, a small number of workers militias will be needed. No need to specialisation.
Mental illness carries its own political sense, and as such it can't be definitively separated from the political community that constitutes a communist society. The power of the psychiatrists and the medicalized exclusion of "social misfits" will be challenged; and in time there will be no legal or urban distinction of sane and insane people, and a specialized group of control dedicated to prevent this type of crime will be far less efficient than the permanent care of individuals towards each others within the community.

mikelepore

15th September 2008, 13:46

If people cease to assault others, terrific. If they don't, society will be prepared. If society finds that 1000 police workers are too many compared to the need, the number can be reduced to 500. If there is no need for 500, it can be reduced to 200. But the people who conclude in advance that the number must be zero, before there is any data to base a decision on, are making unscientific "human nature" conjectures.

And no thanks to the angry vigilante mob (workers' militia) suggestion. A compassionate society that cares about safety and civil liberties should require that the people who get called to handle violent individuals should have education equivalent to a master's degrees in psychology and social work, in addition to a lot of procedural and physical training.

Annie K.

15th September 2008, 13:54

Personally i don't conjecture anything on the nature of the human being. But I know that assaulting the assaulters can't be a solution.
If really it cannot be considered to act on the causes of the assault, it should be compensated with something else than violence.

lvl100

15th September 2008, 17:12

Ok there is no police and courts needed.

first of all communism is a post scarcity society so there is no material conditions for crime as we know it today.

As for crime due to mental illness etc and the limited(VERY VERY limited) crime that will exist,

All good and nice, but as usual we conveniently ignore small things like basic physical body functions in order not to ruin our perfect world.

The human brain its just another piece of machinery in the body, like liver or heart. And like any other machinery it can have defects from fabrication, from normal using, from external factors, from aging , etc

Being millions times more complex than the other parts, it can fail in millions more ways.
Indeed a lot of crimes today are made by the current system, but an ideology and mentality will not make dissipate the physical fails of the body`s CPU.
Or in a post scarcity world there will be VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY limited liver malfunctions ?

Even if in a lesser degree than today, crime will exist from serial killers sociopaths to kleptomaniacs, and it wont be VERY VERY VERY VERY limited.

Those are not police as they are not armed bodies standing above the population but democraticaly elected people in positions "of power".

So they are not above population, they just have a position of power...
Okie dokie :lol:

Whoever doesn't get this has a theoretical level of a 5 year old.

Ok so explain me like to a 5 years old :

How do you solve a serial murder case , without specialized institutions, only democratically elected militias
- the baker will be the profiler ?
- the local dentist will be the forensic medic ?
- the detective will be the grandma `cause is good at spying the neighbors ?

Forward Union

15th September 2008, 17:20

Ok there is no police and courts needed.

first of all communism is a post scarcity society so there is no material conditions for crime as we know it today.

As for crime due to mental illness etc and the limited(VERY VERY limited) crime that will exist, a small number of workers militias will be needed.

And as I have quite fully established, a Workers Militia is by every available definition, a police force. Thus, you are advocating the creation of a police force.

I really wish people would read my posts. It'd stop them repeating such embarasing points.

Those are not police as they are not armed bodies standing above the population but democraticaly elected people in positions "of power". The police is just an armed body of the state serving to repress one class over the other.

Can you find a source for that definition other than your rectal cavity? What you have outlined certainly won't exist. But it isn't a police force. Certainly, the current force does carry those characteristics, but they are not defining characteristics. Again, I've alreay made this very clear.

Same with courts, there will be none. Just a few workers comitees democraticaly elected by the population and not appointed.

Again. These workers comitees which act as courts, are courts.

Whoever doesn't get this has a theoretical level of a 5 year old.

I strongly Suggest you buy a dictionary. The "Militias" and "workers councils" are police and courts. It's just that you are carrying a superstitious and irrational dislike for the words, and are reconstructing the English language around you're made up definitions to try and avoid using them.

This alienates us from everyone else. People will be scared of the idea of there being NO courts and No police. They will immediately think that murder will be permissable and go unpunished.

Obviously that's not what are talking about. I'd rather tell people there will be courts and police. Partly because there will be, and secondly because it's much more reasonable to propose a restructured and acountable police force and law system that say we're going to rename eveything and that there will be "militias" which are exactly the same as the police but we're not allowed to use the world police, becaure they're like, the establishment, man.

freakazoid

15th September 2008, 17:49

Even in communism it would still be murders, rapers, crooks , hookers etc , even its in a less degree.

:confused:

first of all communism is a post scarcity society so there is no material conditions for crime as we know it today.

So people will have less of a reason to steal. But that will not completely get rid of the problem. There are still the mentally ill, and there are still people who do things because they can.

The police in a communist society will not be needed as there are no classes.

So the workers militia will be sufficient.

What is the difference between the police and the workers militia?

Forward Union

15th September 2008, 17:59

What is the difference between the police and the workers militia?

He'll say that the Police is Hiercachical and an organ of the state etc. But none of these are inherant or defining characteristics of the police. You can have a police force without these traits. A workers Militia is a police force without the classist characteristics of the current force. But it is still a police force.

I mean, you wouldn't argue that "There won't be healthcare post-capitalism" because "Healthcare today is private and run like a bussiness" so "We're going to have Workers Biological and mental review centers" because people are going to think your a fucking dickhead.

Philosophical Materialist

15th September 2008, 19:29

To deal with:
Rapists
Murderers
Paedophiles
Assult
Afray

etc

Why would any of those things happen in a communist society? When sexism, bigotry, hate have been eliminated, there is no scarcity, why would any of those crimes happen?

These crimes have always happened, to a greater or lesser extent. There is evidence of murder in the remains of even the earliest human remains, before written language existed. Now I certainly do believe that in a Communist society, the sense of community and the abolition of class will eliminate a lot of crime. But why would It prevent all? People will still have arguments and cheat on their partners and maybe just maybe, there will be fights, assults, murders, manslaughters etc.

So what, of course they will have happened in primitive and pre-communist epochs. Class is eliminated in the socialist epoch, not the communist one. The biological and material antagonisms that cause fights, assaults, rape, murders will have been eliminated before the transition to communism.

I think to not plan for these things, or to not have a safetly net is pretty insane. Communism wont eliminate all crime. It wont create a utopia on earth that transends all current logic. This is the attitude of a liberal.

Then I don't think you believe in communism from a Marxist perspective. All talks of "safety nets" are something from a socialist epoch, not a communist one. Calling me a utopian socialist and inferring that I'm liberal is petty name calling and you've failed to show how I'm any of those things.

Anyway you obviously haven't read anything I've written before. And have decided to come out with your utopian surrealist middle class nonsense anyway. To quote myself a few posts back:

Stupid name-calling, calling me middle class now. Get a grip and debate properly.

If we do not have an institutional force to deal with it, there will be a power vaccume which will be filled by on-the-spot mob justice. People are not going to agree with your philosophical position after their kids been raped. They're not going to take it on the chin and move on because they understand the philisophical implications of havign a police force. They're going to try and seek justice, and rightly so. I would rather it done in a controlled manner, by an ellected and acountable body, that we all have a say un managing, than a random uncontrolable unnacountable unellected mob as you propose.

Power vacuum in a communist society? Do you know what communism entails? By the way I am not proposing mob rule which can't logically exist in a communist society. Stop with your strawman fallacies.

You are not actually advocating the abolition of the police force, but the creation of a fluid, unnacountable one. Which would be the most tyranical and unstoppable structure imaginable.

Essentially the choice is this. Either we have an institutional police force, controlled by the community, subject to the will of the peoples councils. Or we have unnacountable, unellected mobs lynching suspects. What'll it be?

No, what you're proposing are structures that are required in a socialist society, not a communist one. You do realise that in communism state apparatus will have been abolished because they are surplus to requirements and this includes any derivative of policing. If crime still occurs then the transition to communism has not yet happened.

freakazoid

15th September 2008, 19:43

The biological and material antagonisms that cause fights, assaults, rape, murders will have been eliminated before the transition to communism.

How exactly are you planning on getting rid of the biological reasons for fights, assaults, rape, and murder!?

Philosophical Materialist

15th September 2008, 19:50

How exactly are you planning on getting rid of the biological reasons for fights, assaults, rape, and murder!?

Biological-behavioural acts of aggression can be eliminated through advanced biotechnology and education (thinking along the lines of transhumanism), alongside the elimination of the material basis of the above.

Forward Union

15th September 2008, 22:11

Why would any of those things happen in a communist society? When sexism, bigotry, hate have been eliminated, there is no scarcity, why would any of those crimes happen?

Ok, You fall in love with somebody. Deeply in love at the age of 16, you grow to the age of 30, and one day catch your partner having sex with another man. In a fit of rage you kill him. Murder.

What about Manslaughter? That can happen without any intention.

Paedophilia is not caused by bigotry or poverty, it's a disorder

So what, of course they will have happened in primitive and pre-communist epochs. Class is eliminated in the socialist epoch, not the communist one. The biological and material antagonisms that cause fights, assaults, rape, murders will have been eliminated before the transition to communism.

Where is the cause and effect between "Society is equal" and "Im not going to kill that bastard for shagging my partner" You take the view of the Unscientific "Utopian socialists" which forsee a communist society in much the same way christians view heavan. As amystical land far removed from worldly matters, a utopia in the clouds...

Stupid name-calling, calling me middle class now. Get a grip and debate properly.

I simply cannot understand how you can believe that no injustices or disputes will happen that will require the attention of an impartial third party (a court) It's a-historical anti-materialist and alltogether unfathomable.

I really can't argue against it. Essentially you're statement supports itself "There will be no murder in a communist society because it's a communist society" I can't prove there will be murder in a communist society because no such place has ever existed.

What we can say is that there are motivations for murder, rape, peadopilia etc that will still exist regardless of the mechanics of the economy. And thus a high probability that these things will continue. And thus it would be sensible to make prepairations just in case.

Power vacuum in a communist society? Do you know what communism entails? By the way I am not proposing mob rule which can't logically exist in a communist society. Stop with your strawman fallacies.

Do you know what power is? It's defined by control of things which are neccisary. If someone owns an apple tree and I need apples s/he has power. Thus, even if the tree is collectively own, power is collectively managed, but still exists. It just becomes irrelivent. Murderers need to be kept apart from others. That is a neccisary function. If no mechanism exists to perform this function, people will do it arbitreraly. This creates problems and instability. Thus stable organs of management must be set up by the people.

I think that what I have outlined is an alltogether more sensible option that this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7K0Dp2M2fE&feature=related

No, what you're proposing are structures that are required in a socialist society, not a communist one. You do realise that in communism state apparatus will have been abolished because they are surplus to requirements and this includes any derivative of policing. If crime still occurs then the transition to communism has not yet happened.

Well I am actually an Anarchist so I don't believe in a state ever being required. State aparatus should be managed by the people immediatly. No government should be installed at any point. But the reason the state has power is because it manages neccisary mechanisms.

Forward Union

15th September 2008, 22:18

Biological-behavioural acts of aggression can be eliminated through advanced biotechnology and education (thinking along the lines of transhumanism), alongside the elimination of the material basis of the above.

I'm not going to go trying to rally support for my organisation, and when it comes to the topic of crime say "Don't worry we will plan to totally elimate crime by turning humanity into cybenetic communist ubermench"

Philosophical Materialist

16th September 2008, 02:00

Ok, You fall in love with somebody. Deeply in love at the age of 16, you grow to the age of 30, and one day catch your partner having sex with another man. In a fit of rage you kill him. Murder.

What about Manslaughter? That can happen without any intention.

Paedophilia is not caused by bigotry or poverty, it's a disorder

Why would someone in a highly technological, socially-developed, philosophically developed, post-exploited classless, propertyless, stateless, post-scarce society resort to crimes of passion?

Paedophillia is a form of sexual exploitation, formed out of power structures endemic in pre-communist societies. Mental illness is likely also a factor in this. I don't see why either should exist in an advanced communist society, are we to presume that paedophillia is never to be cured? Surely it would be in an advanced communist society.

You take the view of the Unscientific "Utopian socialists" which forsee a communist society in much the same way christians view heavan. As amystical land far removed from worldly matters, a utopia in the clouds...

(snip)

Well I am actually an Anarchist so I don't believe in a state ever being required. State aparatus should be managed by the people immediatly. No government should be installed at any point. But the reason the state has power is because it manages neccisary mechanisms.

How contradictory is this? You are proposing state functions be maintained beyond the socialist epoch and into the communist epoch and yet you don't believe in any form of state.

I simply cannot understand how you can believe that no injustices or disputes will happen that will require the attention of an impartial third party (a court) It's a-historical anti-materialist and alltogether unfathomable.

Are you expecting the communist epoch to have the contradictions of other historical epochs? I don't. It's contradictory to expect the antogonisms and contradictions that cause crime and suffering, to exist in communism, since what the epoch represents is a development beyond that. When courts, justice, policing are required, there is no communism, but a historical stage before the obtainment of communism, i.e. socialism.

Do you know what power is? It's defined by control of things which are neccisary. If someone owns an apple tree and I need apples s/he has power. Thus, even if the tree is collectively own, power is collectively managed, but still exists. It just becomes irrelivent. Murderers need to be kept apart from others. That is a neccisary function. If no mechanism exists to perform this function, people will do it arbitreraly. This creates problems and instability. Thus stable organs of management must be set up by the people.

That's all well and good in a socialist society or in a communal setting, but like I said, once the antagonisms for such eventuality has been abolished then you have no need for those structures. When those structures are necessary, in order to function, it would require socialist democracy and a socialist form of government, therefore being in socialist epoch and not the communist one.

I'm not going to go trying to rally support for my organisation, and when it comes to the topic of crime say "Don't worry we will plan to totally elimate crime by turning humanity into cybenetic communist ubermench"

Why would you build support for your organisation by talking about the speculative developments of an advanced socialist society into a communist one? Workers tend to want to know what socialism can do for them and how it will bring their emancipation from economic and social exploitation. I don't see what you're getting at here.

Trystan

16th September 2008, 02:25

If humanity has progressed to the communist stage of history, then why do you need police or courts? The material conditions that cause crimes of want, crimes of hate, crime of passion, and crime from the result of mental illness will have been abolished.

The last one - highly unlikely. The others, I'm not too sure. Oh, and crimes of passion will undoubtedly persist.

spice756

16th September 2008, 05:31

Why would any of those things happen in a communist society? When sexism, bigotry, hate have been eliminated, there is no scarcity, why would any of those crimes happen?

It does not metter what society people will do bad things.Look at the church all the bad things they do!!

lvl100

16th September 2008, 06:46

Why would someone in a highly technological, socially-developed, philosophically developed, post-exploited classless, propertyless, stateless, post-scarce society resort to crimes of passion?

Even in communism humans will have feelings of love, hate , frustration etc

Pedophilia is a form of sexual exploitation, formed out of power structures endemic in pre-communist societies. Mental illness is likely also a factor in this. I don't see why either should exist in an advanced communist society, are we to presume that pedophilia is never to be cured? Surely it would be in an advanced communist society. The problem with mental malfunctions is that the subjects often don't realize about their illness and also dont have specific exterior signs. Sure you realize if something is wrong when your teeth hurt.
But in the case of brain malfunction , that changes your whole mind, it becomes your way of seeing life.

That means, even if you can cure all the mental diseases, you will discover the problem after the crime is made.
A sociopath its just a normal looking person. Untill something cracks and it goes on a killing spree.

Are you expecting the communist epoch to have the contradictions of other historical epochs? I don't. It's contradictory to expect the antogonisms and contradictions that cause crime and sufferingFirst question that nobody wants to answer me.
The human brain can fail like any part of the human body, lets say liver, only in a more strange ways.
There will not be liver malfunction in a post scarcity , classless society ?
(and im not talking about the cure, but about the possibility to appear)

When courts, justice, policing are required, there is no communism Second question :

How do you solve a serial murder case , without specialized institutions, only democratically elected militias
- the baker will be the profiler ?
- the local dentist will be the forensic medic ?
- the detective will be the grandma `cause is good at spying the neighbors ?

spice756

16th September 2008, 07:09

I think we need to say are police and courts good or bad ? And if so why are police and courts bad?

Than we can answer more about it.

But what is to stop hit and run ,speeders ,DUI ,stealing , greed , fighting , assault and domestics ?

Forward Union

16th September 2008, 11:39

Why would someone in a highly technological, socially-developed, philosophically developed, post-exploited classless, propertyless, stateless, post-scarce society resort to crimes of passion?

Because emotions will still exist I should hope. Crimes of passion are irrational and spontainious. You can't say they won't happen because they are uneccisary. They already are illogical.

How contradictory is this? You are proposing state functions be maintained beyond the socialist epoch and into the communist epoch and yet you don't believe in any form of state.

Exactly. The mechanisms of state can be governed of and by the people below. This is communism. It's not a hippy commune.

Are you expecting the communist epoch to have the contradictions of other historical epochs? I don't. It's contradictory to expect the antogonisms and contradictions that cause crime and suffering, to exist in communism, since what the epoch represents is a development beyond that. When courts, justice, policing are required, there is no communism, but a historical stage before the obtainment of communism, i.e. socialism

I really don't know how to argue against this. You're saying communism will be a magical utopia where all suffering is gone and we all fly up into nirvana. And well, Im saying that it wont be quite like that. It's a bit of an enpasse.

Forward Union

16th September 2008, 11:44

I think we need to say are police and courts good or bad ? And if so why are police and courts bad?

They are not good or bad. They serve a set of practical functions. Some are neccisary and useful. Others are a result of the social context (aka Class) in which these organs are utalised by the state toward it's own interests. But with no state, these bodies can be utalised toward the interests of the workers councils.

But what is to stop hit and run ,speeders ,DUI ,stealing , greed , fighting , assault and domestics ?

Magical communist land wont have these things.

Annie K.

16th September 2008, 21:21

Because emotions will still exist I should hope. Crimes of passion are irrational and spontainious.Of course you're wrong.
Well, emotions and passion will still exist. Probably. And it is true as well that passion is sometimes sontaneous and if not irrationnal, at least mainly subconscious.

But "crime" is a legal category. It is a rational and historical conception, built during a succession of hierarchical systems. It has no sense in a communist society, where the idea of justice is abolished to make place for a scientific organization of the society. Murder will still exist, crime will not.
You're wrong too when you say crime is illogical. It is accomplished consciously for pleasure or relief. That's perfectly logical. "My desire or frustration can't be realized or eased without violence, and the potential consequences of violence are not deterrent, I will commit violence". The communist society is about realizing freely everyone's desires and compensating everyone's frustrations. And then the world is beautiful.

When passion is at the core of the social organization, there's no necessity to make a crime of it. Or, more clearly, when all the humanity is your partner, you're not gonna get jealous enough to kill one of them.

The problem with mental malfunctions is that the subjects often don't realize about their illness and also dont have specific exterior signs.It's true. There is people out there, they act like normal people, they look like normal people, and everyone think they are normal people. But you know better.
...
"It's not because we're paranoid that they are not after us".

But in the case of brain malfunction , that changes your whole mind, it becomes your way of seeing life.You should learn your lessons. The difference between neurosis and psychosis is theorized since the end of the 19th century. The mind does not act as a whole.

The human brain can fail like any part of the human body, lets say liver, only in a more strange ways.You should also spend some time to think before you write. You surely can guess the difference between alzheimer, parkinson, and other cerebral "failures", and schizophrenia, paranoïa, and other behavioral "failures" (homosexuality is still one of them or not ? I don't remember...)

How do you solve a serial murder case , without specialized institutions, only democratically elected militias
- the baker will be the profiler ?
- the local dentist will be the forensic medic ?
- the detective will be the grandma `cause is good at spying the neighbors ? Why would you solve it ? Remember that if people are able to lead a revolution, they will no longer need some scapegoat to make them believe in their own lies about happiness and security.
A dozen men die this year due to a "monster" ? Big deal. Since the start of the year, 11 people have drowned in a lake just down the street where I live. People die. They usually do. No one cares. Why should we care if their deaths are caused by another human ?

are police and courts good or bad ?Not good or bad. They're boring and violent.
Since revolutionnaries are joyful and violent, they can not exist at the same place and time for long.

Module

17th September 2008, 13:04

Of course there will be. There's no other way of handling crime. [...] We all agree on this we just dont like the words.
This post includes all I would say on this.

Police and courts would not exist in the same form in which they exist nowadays, but that really goes without saying.

As has been said during this thread, of course 'crimes' will still be committed, such as assault and so on. This crime will not occur on the basis of socio-economic power relations, but just regular inevitable disputes that come with... you know.. society being made up of human beings and so on.

Annie K.

17th September 2008, 13:32

Argh !

A part (at least) of the actions defined as a crime by the us legal system (for example) "occur on the basis of socio-economic power relations".
We all know that.

Most of us know as well that police and courts action occur too on the same basis. (What is really disturbing is that some of us don't, and seem to think that a part of a capitalist state can be less linked to economic relations than the social phenomenon it fight)

So why do desrumeaux, robin hoodie and others still concludes that police and courts will still exist and keep their old function ?
And in particular, why would they keep the requirement of systematic control over crime, which among all the aspects of the modern systems of justice, is the most related to the emergence of the industrial capitalist state ?

RaÃºl Duke

17th September 2008, 14:44

Module

17th September 2008, 14:59

So why do desrumeaux, robin hoodie and others still concludes that police and courts will still exist and keep their old function ?
And in particular, why would they keep the requirement of systematic control over crime, which among all the aspects of the modern systems of justice, is the most related to the emergence of the industrial capitalist state ?I'm not sure you understand what I mean (with all due respect).
As I said in my post, police and courts would not exist in the same form in which they do now.
I do not believe that a police force would exist in the same form that it exists now in that it would not exist as a set body of individuals who have specific right to use physical force against other people, or even a specific right to deliver justice, simply a means of dealing with 'crime'... as, I suppose, an occupation.
In a communist society dealing with 'crime' would no longer be a matter of protecting property or the power of the state, and so would have no basis in socio-economic power relations, as I said, and has no economic interests opposed to wider society. So I don't see how that would be relevant to the emergence of the 'industrial capitalist state'.
Similarly, with 'courts', they would not exist in the form they exist in today.
Courts would be used as a method of 'dispensing justice'. A means of settling disputes in ways that can be seen as fair by all involved, no doubt, rather than a court system itself having a 'systematic control over crime', as you put it.
What would you propose as an alternative, if you still disagree?
(And if I've missed something, forgive me.)

Module

17th September 2008, 15:02

Oh, admittedly I didn't read it properly when I first visited this thread :p but I agree with apathy maybe.

Annie K.

17th September 2008, 16:16

No need for respect, it is possible that i didn't understand.

In fact, I really don't understand what is the forms of the police you're writing about if it is not (like you seem to think) a group whose violence is legitimated by the existence of a group of criminals excluded from the regular ways of political engagement. And I don't understand what you mean by "dealing with", if it's not a euphemism for this particular form of violence.
But even with quotation marks, you use the concept of crime, which refers to an essential aspect of any systematic justice : the dual culpability of the criminal, towards the victim, for evident reasons, and towards the state, for he broke the law. A murder is not naturally a crime : it is a crime as the law of the state defines it as such. A murder without law is not a murder, and I remember a funny story to precise that.
Once upon a time, a european (or maybe american or russian, i don't exactly remember) explorer went to the artic pole with some eskimaus to carry his equipment. He was so violent with these guys that they end up killing him. When they returned without him, they were not sued for murder, because there was no legal juridiction where they killed the man.
The judicial systems need the concept of crime, to allow the state to demand justice in its own name, as the victim of the illegality of the act, which damage its authority, legimacy, and its others moral properties. Without that, it would be totally unjustified to punish a criminal, as it offers no compensation for the death or suffering of the victim. As the concrete expression of the power of the state, it compensates only the damage done to the authority of the law and of the state.
That's why the punishment of crime in a democratic society is to be (or appear) systematic : because otherwise it would highlight the limits of the state's authority.

In a communist society dealing with 'crime' would no longer be a matter of protecting property or the power of the state"Dealing with crime" can't be anything else. That's why the relation between the state and the concepts of crime and criminal is relevant.
If death and suffering still exist, that's what we will have to deal with. But there will be no need to any moral separation between "natural" cases of death and suffering, and murder and violence.

Concerning the courts, if that's the term for any assembly gathered to settling conflicts, why not. But fairness, justice and crime are far too serious for a communist society. There is many different ideas of what this things are, but all of them favour order over desires and pleasure, conformism over the refusal of all restraints...

As an alternative, I propose drugs, sex and music.

lvl100

17th September 2008, 16:59

[It's true. There is people out there, they act like normal people, they look like normal people, and everyone think they are normal people. But you know better.
...
"It's not because we're paranoid that they are not after us".

I guess you never heard : "but he was such a nice boy, he had good grades at school and in his free time did charity work.I would never believed that he will buy a shotgun and...." dont ya?

You should learn your lessons. The difference between neurosis and psychosis is theorized since the end of the 19th century. The mind does not act as a whole.

You should pay more attention to others posts. I was saying about the "hardware" malfunctions of the brain and how they can affect the behavior, not the difference between neurosis and psychosis ( which are both "software" malfunctions and BTW can and mostly are affected by the "hardware anyway)

You should also spend some time to think before you write. You surely can guess the difference between alzheimer, parkinson, and other cerebral "failures", and schizophrenia, paranoïa, and other behavioral "failures" (homosexuality is still one of them or not ? I don't remember...)

Yeah smart move, mixing schizophrenia with homosexuality.
A brain malfunction doesnt means only a rotting brain like in alzheimer.Due to its complex nature, a brain can fail in a million discrete ways
You cant detach behavioral failures from the brain itself, unless your a christian or something and believe in soul.

Why would you solve it ? Remember that if people are able to lead a revolution, they will no longer need some scapegoat to make them believe in their own lies about happiness and security.

I dont know how to take this. Its sad and hilarious in the same time.

A dozen men die this year due to a "monster" ? Big deal. Since the start of the year, 11 people have drowned in a lake just down the street where I live. People die. They usually do. No one cares. Why should we care if their deaths are caused by another human ?

I always wondered why the opponents of communism often use the "Borg society" argument.
Now i know, thank you very much.

Module

18th September 2008, 08:56

In fact, I really don't understand what is the forms of the police you're writing about if it is not (like you seem to think) a group whose violence is legitimated by the existence of a group of criminals excluded from the regular ways of political engagement.
No, violence can be 'legitimated' by anti-social behaviour. If you don't think I think that then let me tell you that I do think that.
"excluded from the regular ways of political engagement" What exactly do you mean by this?

And I don't understand what you mean by "dealing with", if it's not a euphemism for this particular form of violence.
It is.

But even with quotation marks, you use the concept of crime, which refers to an essential aspect of any systematic justice : the dual culpability of the criminal, towards the victim, for evident reasons, and towards the state, for he broke the law.
Well, no I don't 'use the concept of crime, which refers to an essential aspect of any systematic justice : the dual culpability of the criminal, towards the victim, for evident reasons, and towards the state' because there is no state.

A murder is not naturally a crime : it is a crime as the law of the state defines it as such. A murder without law is not a murder, and I remember a funny story to precise that.
So, what, your problem is my use of the word 'crime'?
A murder is an offense against society if society deems it to be.
There's nothing more I can really say in response to this ... :confused:

The judicial systems need the concept of crime, to allow the state to demand justice in its own name, as the victim of the illegality of the act, which damage its authority, legimacy, and its others moral properties. Without that, it would be totally unjustified to punish a criminal, as it offers no compensation for the death or suffering of the victim.
As the concrete expression of the power of the state, it compensates only the damage done to the authority of the law and of the state.
That's why the punishment of crime in a democratic society is to be (or appear) systematic : because otherwise it would highlight the limits of the state's authority.
I can think of numerous punishments which would compensate the victim.
And regardless, I would like to think that in a communist society there would be more 'compromise' than 'punishment'.
I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

"Dealing with crime" can't be anything else. That's why the relation between the state and the concepts of crime and criminal is relevant.
Dealing with crime can't be anything except serving to reinforce the authority of the state ...? Yes it can ... dealing with crime serves to make individuals in society safer and happier.

If death and suffering still exist, that's what we will have to deal with. But there will be no need to any moral separation between "natural" cases of death and suffering, and murder and violence.
Except that murder and violence is a product of social interaction, something inflicted upon others by individuals who are a part of society, and dealing with social problems is entirely different to dealing with 'natural' causes of death.

Concerning the courts, if that's the term for any assembly gathered to settling conflicts, why not. But fairness, justice and crime are far too serious for a communist society. There is many different ideas of what this things are, but all of them favour order over desires and pleasure, conformism over the refusal of all restraints...
... What?

As an alternative, I propose drugs, sex and music.
There's a surprise. :p

butterfly

18th September 2008, 09:50

Crimes of passion are irrational and spontainious.
I would like to think that, so long as there is an understanding that no crime is irrational and actually occures due to the fact that certain desires are considered irrational and against societies wishes, there would be no spontanious acts of aggression. I think crime is a manifestation of an inability to communicate supressed desires. We must replace our armed forces with psychiatrists.:D

apathy maybe

18th September 2008, 10:55

I wasn't going to respond any more because the discussion had degenerated into a semantic debate. However, because I've noticed at least two people expressly agreeing with what I wrote, I thought I'ld jump back in.

Some definitions (my emphases):

the organized civil force of a state, concerned with maintenance of law and order, the detection and prevention of crime, etc.

Body of agents organized to maintain civil order and public safety, enforce the law, and investigate crime. Characteristics common to most police forces include a quasi-military organization, a uniformed patrol and traffic-control force, plainclothes divisions for criminal investigations, and a set of enforcement priorities that reflects the community's way of life.
(Link http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467289/police to access the full article.)
Typical characteristics of a police force include:
hierarchy and a chain of command;
investigative powers for prosecution;
uniforms to separate and distinguish from civilians;
And others.

I would suggest that to say "police" when referring to the group of people who will "maintain order" in an anarchist society is misleading. As such, it is better to say that there will be no police in an anarchist society, but that this does not mean that there will be chaos on the streets as there will be an organisation who will assist in public safety. But this organisation will be more like the fire service then the present day police service.

People from this organisation won't be shooting or tasering people because they refuse to cooperate, or because they are a black person driving an expensive car. They won't be harassing individuals in rich neighbourhoods (not that there would be such things) simply because "they don't fit in". They will not shoot people who run away from them because the person is scared and looks "like a terrorist".

The differences between an anarchist organisation that helps prevent crime and a present day police force are many and varied. To claim that there will be "police" in an anarchist society is to mislead people. There won't be police, because police forces are set up to oppress and harass, and to obey orders without question and enforce laws no matter what they are.

Fuck that shit. The people who are the "police" will have helped make the "laws", will be part of an anarchist society that rejects obedience without question, let alone oppression and hierarchy.

Forward Union

18th September 2008, 11:46

(Link http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467289/police to access the full article.)
Typical characteristics of a police force include:
hierarchy and a chain of command;
investigative powers for prosecution;
uniforms to separate and distinguish from civilians;
And others.

These are characteristics of police in a capitalist society. They are not however, defining characteristics of police. I have already provided a contemporary definition of the police, and feel it fits perfectly with what we wish to see post-revolution. Call a spade a spade!

Making up definitions of the police and saying "we're nmot going to have that so there will be no police" is misleading.

I would suggest that to say "police" when referring to the group of people who will "maintain order" in an anarchist society is misleading.

Why? That's fundementally exactly what they are. Of course they will be organised differently. Everythign will be, we're not going to rename factories, healthcare, the fire department etc. That'd just fuck people off.

butterfly

18th September 2008, 12:33

Annie K.

18th September 2008, 12:53

Oh shit. Why do ctrl+z close firefox here ?
Oh shit. I just spent 1h45 to answer you all.
I could sum up with some insults, but you will probably misunderstand.

Maybe i'll answer later.

Forward Union

18th September 2008, 12:58

Has anyone actually had a conversation with an individual who has done something against the law, asked them why?
It's purely psychological and displays a vulnerability. Why have uniforms, hierachies and prosecution of any sort when psychotherapy is most effective in rehabilitation?

I don't see the need for courts or punishment of any kind necessary under this assumtion but please feel free to correct me.

How do you intend to aprehend the person in order to provide rehabilitation? And furthermore, we have to establish if someone is guilty of a specific action before we can provide them rehabilitation, that means written processes and laws. The body that oversees the "trial" (place were we work out if the person needs rehab) is called a court.

So sorry, try again. We'd still need courts and police. Just grow up and accept it.

butterfly

18th September 2008, 13:57

In a certain respect you do have a point, there should be a body to determin and apprehend the person who offended, that is if offense takes place...(No one has given me a reason to believe otherwise).

If you'd like to end it on a personal note this thread is for learning and discussion is how I learn so I don't appreciate being told to grow up. Your not going to convince the general population that way. If you like the power trip try it on the enemy.

apathy maybe

18th September 2008, 14:17

Has anyone actually had a conversation with an individual who has done something against the law, asked them why?
It's purely psychological and displays a vulnerability. Why have uniforms, hierachies and prosecution of any sort when psychotherapy is most effective in rehabilitation?

I don't see the need for courts or punishment of any kind necessary under this assumtion but please feel free to correct me.

I don't need to have that conversation.

I've broken the "law" many times in many places for many reasons. Most people have broken at least one law at one time or another. Speeding is against the law. Jay-walking is against the law (in most places at least...).
Two of the most common offences I would imagine.

What else? Well, I've directly attacked state property, because I hate the state.

I've liberated food because I didn't have much money (I still don't have much money for that matter...).

Etc.

So why? Because the laws suck, the police suck, the entire system is corrupt and shit.

apathy maybe

18th September 2008, 14:24

Why? That's fundementally exactly what they are. Of course they will be organised differently. Everythign will be, we're not going to rename factories, healthcare, the fire department etc. That'd just fuck people off.

Yes, that's what I said, it's a semantic debate. I wasn't going to get back into it, and I'm going to leave again after this post.

Basically, you want to call a post-capitalist, post-state institution, that will do fundamentally different work, in a fundamentally different manner, the same thing as a present day institution.

Factories are still going to produce things, the fire service will still put out fires, but the "police" will not shoot people for running away, will not have a hierarchy, will have a rotating non-permanent membership, will not "solve crime" (remember what I said earlier about the problems associated with having the same organisation "solving crime", prosecuting etc.?), and will be fundamentally different. That's why I think it is absurd to use the word police.

However, as the debate has moved to semantics, and I've said my piece, I'm not interested in any more debate on the issue. (You'll not change my mind, and I'll not change yours.)

lvl100

18th September 2008, 16:58

I don't need to have that conversation.

I've broken the "law" many times in many places for many reasons. Most people have broken at least one law at one time or another. Speeding is against the law. Jay-walking is against the law (in most places at least...).
Two of the most common offences I would imagine.

What else? Well, I've directly attacked state property, because I hate the state.

So why? Because the laws suck, the police suck, the entire system is corrupt and shit.

The system and its laws indeed suck, but thats mainly due to its oppressive construction, build arbitrary by the state, not necessary by the "rules" per se.
While its clearly that when a commune will democratically choose its own rules,a lot of current laws will dissapear,but also i`m pretty sure that many of today`s laws will still be tomorrow`s rules.
For example,from your quote, while food stealing wont exist in a post-scarcity world, my guess its that people will still dont like a kamikaze driver running with 250 km/h.

Forward Union

18th September 2008, 17:20

Yes, that's what I said, it's a semantic debate. I wasn't going to get back into it, and I'm going to leave again after this post.

Basically, you want to call a post-capitalist, post-state institution, that will do fundamentally different work, in a fundamentally different manner, the same thing as a present day institution.

Right because in both instances the institution is the same institution. The defining features do not change. Thus to change the name is completely illogical.

Factories are still going to produce things, the fire service will still put out fires, but the "police" will not shoot people for running away, will not have a hierarchy, will have a rotating non-permanent membership,

This is a false argument.

Firemen putting out fires is a defining characteristic of the firebrigade, production is a defining charicteristic of a factory. Shooting people for running away and a hierachical structrues are NOT defining features of a police force. The defining features of the police will stay the same. Thus you're choosing to randomly change an institutions name in one case, and not in another.

Maybe you can't remember. But I've already provided a dictionary definition of the police "Also called police force. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=police force) an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws. "

But I looked up another one

"any body of people officially maintained or employed to keep order esp. for the maintenance of, safety, health, morals, etc"

As these would also define you "workers militia" it seems absurd to change the name.

However, as the debate has moved to semantics

Of course it's semantic. No one sane could possibly agree with option 2

Annie K.

19th September 2008, 16:09

"but he was such a nice boy, he had good grades at school and in his free time did charity work.I would never believed that he will buy a shotgun and...."Frankly, no, I never heard that. But I don't see how it can be an argument for what you wrote before. These words are clearly revealing the severe mental problems of whoever pronounced them. It supposes a deep-rooted egocentric narcissism for one to believe honestly that he/she knows another person down to her/his most secret and guilty desires. I'm not sure of the terminology i used, but the nature and the existence of the illness is obvious for everyone, isn't it ?
Oh. You were maybe refering to the nice boy ? But for this one, mental illness is still not proved. I mean, surely there is some experts who will gladly tell the world that the boy is the perfect example off the necessity to grant them more control over the population. But there is many perfectly logical reasons to buy a shotgun and.

Hey, I just found this image (http://www.nioutaik.fr/images/galerie/blur033_boywascrazy.jpg). Maybe it's about the same killings you were thinking about ? Anyway, it's fun.

I was saying about the "hardware" malfunctions of the brain and how they can affect the behavior, not the difference between neurosis and psychosisIf you don't understand the link between your affirmation and my reply, it may still be better if I explain you the oversimplified difference : neurotics are aware of the pathology, psychotics aren't, at least during the psychotic episodes which are not necessarily permanent. Only permanent psychosis could be considered as « a change of the whole mind ».
That said, if I understand you right, neurodegenerative diseases and other neurologic affections are « hardware malfunctions ». The damage on the brain tissues has a negative impact on the basic functionment of the brain, like coordination of the movements, memory, or adaptation of the expression to the social context. The functionnement of the brain is incomplete or ineffective.
That is not the case for schizophrenia : the brain is perfectly working, in the sense that all existing cognitive process can normally be led to their conclusion.
Behavior is produced by the functionment of the brain, of course i don't deny that. Behavioral failures are not produced by the failures of the functionment of the brain. Mental illness is the failure of the human social organization to accept certain states of mind. That's why the opposite of « insane » concerning mental states is « normal » rather than « sane ». Now and here, believing that you can drown in a crowd or believing that you're winston churchill are mental illness. Believing that non-marital sex lead to eternal suffering, or believing that you're shaped in a unlimited and all-powerful being's own image, are not. « While the primitive societies' shaman is respected by his people, here we lock up the prophets »

I dont know how to take this. Its sad and hilarious in the same time.Take it both ways, i tell you, twice the pleasure.

the opponents of communism often use the "Borg society" argument.I'm not used to english-speaking reactionnaries. What does that mean ?

No, violence can be 'legitimated' by anti-social behaviour.Exactly. That's what I meant, but I tried to make it understandable without deep reflexion on the meaning of « anti-social » : an anti-social behaviour is a behaviour which has not the legitimacy to appear on the political scene. Criminals now have not the right to take part as such in a conscious return of the society on itself ('political engagement'), because their activity is labelled « anti-social ».

No time to answer the rest, don't have enough internets.

lvl100

19th September 2008, 18:58

These words are clearly revealing the severe mental problems of whoever pronounced them. It supposes a deep-rooted egocentric narcissism for one to believe honestly that he/she knows another person down to her/his most secret and guilty desires.

You do love to see yourself writing/talking just for the sake of it , isnt it :lol:
This is not about grandma` making about a freudian analyze about her neighbor.
Actually its exactly the opposite. About the average person who indeed cant see in someone`s mind. So that's why a mental illness (or at least a part of them) are dangerous and they can be discovered only after the harm is done.

I'm not sure of the terminology i used, but the nature and the existence of the illness is obvious for everyone, isn't it ? Mental illness doesnt mean only Alzheimer or autism.

Behavioral failures are not produced by the failures of the functionment of the brain. This is basically the main problem which you negate , probably because it denies you the future existence of your utopian world.

A fully functional brain its a machine designed to adapt to the environment, no matter of its nature. Its one of the most basic laws of specie`s continuity.
When the brain starts to be unable to adapt to environment , its clearly a physical brain failure. Because information (the human personality) can come and go , but it ultimately depends on the hardware for storage and interpretation. It cant exist independently from it.

You said about schizophrenia. One malfunction of the brain in this illness is a obvious abnormal activity of dopamine (an hormone) which (without rotting the brain) cause a major disturbance in mental balance.

Mental illness is the failure of the human social organization to accept certain states of mind.I agree on this. But that actully doesnt changes anything.
A communist era will put an emphasis on the social organization more than any other ideology. A human will still need be able to adapt to the enviromment and his peers.

I'm not used to english-speaking reactionnaries. What does that mean ?BORG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29)

19th September 2008, 19:41

hell no!They contradict each other.Who will decide who would be "guilty" and the police chase him/her and take them in courts?Who will decide on what they did?
What would be police job?To seat all over the place and waiting for someone to do something "bad"?We take power from production and we put them in unnecessary places which contradict communism/anarchism?Or we are giving power to a small group of people to adjust the "fortune" of others and judge them?Hell no,this isnt Communism/Anarchism!

Fuserg9:star:

Module

20th September 2008, 01:20

Exactly. That's what I meant, but I tried to make it understandable without deep reflexion on the meaning of « anti-social » : an anti-social behaviour is a behaviour which has not the legitimacy to appear on the political scene. Criminals now have not the right to take part as such in a conscious return of the society on itself ('political engagement'), because their activity is labelled « anti-social ».
What exactly is the point you're making?
There needn't be any deep reflection on the meaning of anti-social. This dictionary definition sums it up quite nicely; 'when someone acts in a way that is unfriendly or unpleasant towards others.'.

Forward Union

20th September 2008, 13:08

Annie K.

22nd September 2008, 17:11

But Im not going to repeat myself.Too proud ?

This dictionary definition sums it up quite nicely; 'when someone acts in a way that is unfriendly or unpleasant towards others.'It's a very incomplete definition, and this particular sense of the word has nothing to do with the discussion. Maybe you didn't pay attention : we were talking about crime and law enforcement. Both are "unfriendly", yet you wouldn't say that the second is "antisocial".
Wiktionary definition:
antisocial

Unwilling or unable to associate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/associate) normally with other people
antagonistic (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antagonistic), hostile (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hostile), or unfriendly toward others; menacing
Opposed to social order or the principles of society

I was saying that the first sense, to which you seemed to refer when you said that 'anti-social' behaviours could legitimate violence, was an intuitive or ideological translation of the third sense. Then you say that the only sense is the second... I hate dictionnary-based "debates".

You do love to see yourself writing/talking just for the sake of it , isnt itIt's true. Else I wouldn't bother to post here. But that doesn't change anything : i'm right you're wrong.
You're wrong because the damage done gives no evidence of the mental illness of the perpetrator. Grandmas are crazy, because they think they can see in other people's mind, but most of them will never directly kill someone.
Nice boys kill people, but most of them aren't crazy, because there is many rational reasons to despise or hate or fear normal people.
You're wrong, in other words, because you mix up mental illness and criminality. Notice that you're not the only one, and you're not responsible either : mental illness has been theorized in this perspective.
Now, back to where we started. Someone use the example of pedophilia as a socially-formed phenomenon to explain that the change of social structures will solve the problem of mental illness, and you answer that one can't predict who will commit the next mass-murder. That's right but inappropriate. You forget three things (sorry, i'm repeating myself) : first, mass-murder is not necessarily an unrational behaviour; second, as for any antisocial behaviour, the social structures intervene in two ways, by producing the frustration or the desire, and by defining the ways to react (even if the disgust/hate/fear could be a 'natural' feeling, the fact that now one's only choice is to fit in or die is to disappear with all social restraints); third, anarchy doesn't need monsters to justify social control by the penal and medical systems, and if mass-murder still exist, no one will care about predicting who will commit the next (maybe we will care about how to deal with the problem of death, but the causes of death don't matter for that).

A fully functional brain its a machine designed to adapt to the environment, no matter of its nature. Its one of the most basic laws of specie`s continuity. Nature don't make laws, and it designs nothing. There is nothing more right or wrong in an (not) adaptating brain than in a (not) rolling stone. Don't confuse « a brain's function » and « a brain's functionning ». A brain has no inherent function.
So to caracterize a brain failure, it has to be a failure in any social context.

One malfunction of the brain in this illness is a obvious abnormal activity of dopamine Hm. So what ? That abnormality is not the cause of the mental disturbance, it is (a part of) the mental disturbance. Brain functionning and cognitive processes are the same thing, i tought we agreed on this.

A communist era will put an emphasis on the social organization more than any other ideology. A human will still need be able to adapt to the enviromment and his peers. No. If he or his peers or both are able to adapt the social environment and their mutual relationships (and that's a unavoidable requirement, there can't be communism without communists), they will surely not have to adapt themselves (not in a constraining way, at least).

So, what, your problem is my use of the word 'crime'? « My problem » is that you speak about criminality and justice systems without explicitly referring to the atomization of power, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of all constraints...
My problem is that you have a really bad breath.

I can think of numerous punishments which would compensate the victim.Tell me about it, because I can't.

dealing with social problems is entirely different to dealing with 'natural' causes of death. Sure. When I wrote « if death and suffering still exist », I meant « after the social revolution ». In a communist society, social problems don't deal with you. We just solve them. If there is a political solution, the social problem won't survive tomorrow's small morning. If there is no political solution, then there's no social problem.

freakazoid

24th September 2008, 06:24

Basically, you want to call a post-capitalist, post-state institution, that will do fundamentally different work, in a fundamentally different manner, the same thing as a present day institution.

Factories are still going to produce things, the fire service will still put out fires, but the "police" will not shoot people for running away, will not have a hierarchy, will have a rotating non-permanent membership, will not "solve crime" (remember what I said earlier about the problems associated with having the same organisation "solving crime", prosecuting etc.?), and will be fundamentally different. That's why I think it is absurd to use the word police.

Why use the word "factories"then? Are they still going to be hierarchical oppressive places? Because if that is going to change then we should come up with a new name, lest the people become confused and think it is the same thing. Sure the ACTUAL functions are still the same, but there is no longer an oppressive hierarchy.

Valeofruin

28th September 2008, 20:28

In a socialist Society and especially under the dictatorship of the Proletariat yes.

Read Lenins "The State and Revolution"

Forward Union

28th September 2008, 22:45

Too proud ?

It's a very incomplete definition, and this particular sense of the word has nothing to do with the discussion. Maybe you didn't pay attention : we were talking about crime and law enforcement. Both are "unfriendly", yet you wouldn't say that the second is "antisocial".
Wiktionary definition:
antisocial

Unwilling or unable to associate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/associate) normally with other people
antagonistic (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antagonistic), hostile (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hostile), or unfriendly toward others; menacing
Opposed to social order or the principles of society

You're right. The dictionary definition didn't compensate for the characteristics that you pulled out of your ass. I'll write to them and tell them to include these literary advancements.

Seriously though. None of these characteristics are defining. I could have a pink car. But pink is not a defining characteristic of a car. It is possible for me to create something that fits the definition of a car, and yet is blue. In the same way a blue car would have all the defining characteristics of a car, the workers militia would have all the defining characteristics of the police.

chegitz guevara

30th September 2008, 07:33

The state is not a body of institutions. It is a system of class rule. No classes, no state. A police force and court system will still exist, but divested of their functions as serving as instruments of class rule, they will cease to be aspects of a state.

In fact, such roles will not be performed by rotating "workers' militias," but by highly specialized and highly trained members of the public. We want more science in solving crimes, not less. Should detectives and evidence units be performed by rotating workers' militias? The idea is ludicrous.

actmemb

1st October 2008, 15:18

yeah but what about thieves murderers and staff like that? we have to be a little realistic. hasta la victoria siempre

chegitz guevara

1st October 2008, 23:18

Thieves I'm not so worried about. Theft comes about largely because people lack the means to get what they want, which won't be the case in a communist society. As Engels points out, theft will disappear because you can't steal what's free.

Violent crime, however, will remain. Human beings are passionate creatures and we tend to overreact. Murder, rape, and other acts of violence are likely to always be with us. We need a force that exists in order to deal with these problems, not neighborhood watch committees. We need highly trained specialist technicians. Then we need some sort of impartial system of determining the facts and sentencing those found guilty of crimes.

FreeFocus

1st October 2008, 23:43

A society with police and courts as we know them today is not worth building, for it will end up the same as it is now.

chegitz guevara

1st October 2008, 23:45

Yeah, since we're not talking about doing that, your contribution was pointless.

Black Sheep

2nd October 2008, 00:04

Violent crime, however, will remain. Human beings are passionate creatures and we tend to overreact. Murder, rape, and other acts of violence are likely to always be with us. We need a force that exists in order to deal with these problems, not neighborhood watch committees.
And why is that?
Also,murder,rape,etc are ,too, byproducts of scarcity of material goods.A society where everything is free,as you mentioned,will reduce such incidents to a very low statistical rate.

Of course human nature is human nature, blah blah blah,however the thing i mentioned above,combined to not punishment but rehabilitation,and an advanced system of complete education will minimize such actions, and i find the idea of highly trained specialist unneeded and dangerous.

chegitz guevara

2nd October 2008, 04:10

And why is that?
Also,murder,rape,etc are ,too, byproducts of scarcity of material goods

Some are, some aren't. Crime will diminish. It will never entirely disappear.

i find the idea of highly trained specialist unneeded and dangerous

I find the idea that people will be arrested and convicted of crimes by untrained people far more dangerous.

Black Sheep

2nd October 2008, 10:50

I find the idea that people will be arrested and convicted of crimes by untrained people far more dangerous.
I take it you mean psychological training to avoid today's police brutality and such?

In the matter of courts, i would suggest the community to decide. And we are not talking about raging peasants condemning people to the gallows,we are talking about communism here.

chegitz guevara

3rd October 2008, 05:28

No, I mean people who don't understand how to interpret blood splashes, bullet fragments, fingerprints, etc. I mean I want people with specialized training handling that, just like I want people with specialized training being doctors and pharmacists, etc. I wonder why you are being so obtuse.

cop an Attitude

5th November 2008, 15:28

I find the idea that people will be arrested and convicted of crimes by untrained people far more dangerous.

Most say that they want a milita but that can just lead to mob rule and crimes going unenforced. A police is needed but it also need to be totally rebuilt. Elected officers would only hold their poistion for several years and can be impeached by a community vote. There would be no national police organization obiously due to the fact that their would be no state. the police would be trained, carry nonleathal weapons and not be involved an any victimless crimes. they would be in total contol of the community thus making them work for the people and not enforce the people as it is today The community would make the laws and enforce them as they see fit. If a militia was to form then it would only lead to problems. would they be armed with guns or with nonleathal weapons. If they have guns then they may just shoot anyone commiting a crime, after all what would you do if it was up to you to stop a criminal that is armed. Nonleathal weapnons take training and proper use, something a militia would not have. Plus it is much more ineffecitant to train hundreds of militia men to act as lawmen in their spare time rather than making someone work at that postion for their full time. A communial jury would judge crimes or judge if an officer is abusing his staus. Untrained, unpaid, unregulated militias are dangrious and a threat in a post capitalistic society.

redguard2009

5th November 2008, 23:07

A two-tier level of security is necessary for a future society (in my opinion);

A popular militia composed of volunteers and organized at the community level, who may or may not be armed, and double as a local defense reserve but who's main focus is deterring and dealing with small-scale petty crime.

A conventional police force organized on a larger more centralized scale which can co-ordinate security over a larger area.

The popular militia is a basic necessity for two reasons; first, there needs to be an immediate ground-level force which is fully answerable to the public (for it is directed by them and local community/municipal councils). Yes, volunteers should have some measure of training, this much is obvious, much like the National Reserves of modern capitalist armed forces have "light" military training which they continuously take part in for the duration of their enrollment in said reserve force. The popular militia will in a way take the form of an "armed neighbourhood watch".

A conventional police force is also necessary in order to carry out security tasks which require more specialization. They will be full time employees of the community and will oversee the management of the popular militia.

The idea that a popular militia will lead to some sort of post-capitalist "warlordism" is frightfully silly. We're not talking about armed bands of people roaming the streets; we're talking about a group which is regulated by local community councils who in essence form the command of said militia. Any and all infractions made by militia members can and should be brought up to the local council who can deal with it at the ground level -- unlike today's police forces where infractions by officers are investigated and resolved completely internally without any co-operation with the public.

Annie K.

5th November 2008, 23:59

"]Seriously though. None of these characteristics are defining. I could have a pink car.Huh ? Which characteristics are not defining what ?
I was trying to explain how any law enforcement system, in a revolutionnary period or in a advanced socialist society, could only increase the overall level of violence. I don't care if you absolutely want us to call the workers militia police, since i oppose both.

We need highly trained specialist technicians. Then we need some sort of impartial system of determining the facts and sentencing those found guilty of crimes.Why ?

The idea that a popular militia will lead to some sort of post-capitalist "warlordism" is frightfully silly. We're not talking about armed bands of people roaming the streets; we're talking about a group which is regulated by local community councils who in essence form the command of said militia. Any and all infractions made by militia members can and should be brought up to the local council who can deal with it at the ground levelThat bring many unsolved problems.
How can the local council deal with such infractions ? By the rule of a majority, there is a risk of a local-scaled oppression system, where the interests of the militia are protected by the dominant part of the council, and vice versa. By consensus, if the militians are not excluded from the council they can protect themselves, and if they are, it's no longer an equal society.
If criminals remains, monsters remains : child molesters, for example, or maybe priests. The concept of crime suppose the separation with the "honnest citizens" and the occasional bursts of violence against a criminal. If the militia lynch a child molester and if almost all the community approves, what happens ?
Such bursts of violence can even happen in a revolutionnary context : the chinese Red Guards could reappear on a more spontaneous base in the system you describe.
Should the conventionnal police force intervene then ? How ?

freakazoid

6th November 2008, 03:17

+1 for Mao More Than Ever.

If the militia lynch a child molester and if almost all the community approves, what happens ?

This wouldn't happen. The same thing could be said of the "police" "If the police lynch a child molester and if almost all the community approves, what happens ?"

redguard2009

6th November 2008, 04:49

Annie, what you are saying essentially is that the rule of law is better determined by a closed-door group of people devoid of any public accountability or responsibility on the basis that "the people" would be more likely to commit acts of injustice.

By the rule of a majority, there is a risk of a local-scaled oppression system, where the interests of the militia are protected by the dominant part of the council, and vice versa. By consensus, if the militians are not excluded from the council they can protect themselves, and if they are, it's no longer an equal society.

Hence higher, more centralized echelons of security overseeing the public security militias. If militia members are involved in any sort of community council, they will not control it; community councillors and elected officials prescribe policies and actions and the "people's courts" deal with accountability for the rule of law; how exactly does a militia supercede this and become immune or prone to corruption?

We're only implying the need for a more publically-accountable force of community volunteers who act in the community's best interests, rather than beauraucratic parasytic security organizations who are completely detached from public justice and enforce the law with impunity. What you're describing is the current state of things in capitalist society.

Sendo

6th November 2008, 05:43

quote: If the militia lynch a child molester what happens?

We pick oru battles and move on. So one group exacted revenge instead of getting the guy a shrink. Whoop dee do. I don't advocate bloodlust, but any father would want to lynch the abuser of his children. Anyone who disagrees is a fool or a hypocrite. What stops most people is the fear of going to prison for a long time probably. Otherwise, if anything like that happened to someone I know, people would have to hold me back before I killed someone.

Annie K.

6th November 2008, 14:31

This wouldn't happen. The same thing could be said of the "police"And sometimes it is said. But now, the principal support of the police are not the "honnest citizens", and the police rarely murder common-law criminals. Workers militias supported by an entire community would murder different persons for different motives.

Annie, what you are saying essentially is that the rule of law is better determined by a closed-door group of people devoid of any public accountability or responsibility on the basis that "the people" would be more likely to commit acts of injustice. No. I meant that the "acts of justice" commited by a worker militia or any communautarian law enforcement group can be as violent as those commited by the current legal system, because the discretionnal power of the community to define what is justice and what is injustice is as great as those of today's democratic governments.
The capacity to enforce law has become with the disappearance of the feodal justice institutions the capacity to exclude a group of individuals from the community. This capacity can be held by a dominant class, or by the community as a whole, and the motives for the exclusion would differ, but the exclusion remains along with the violence allowed by the subsequent loss of solidarity with the individual. I didn't described the current state of things, but as you want to keep its principles concerning common law, similarities are to be expected.
Well, frankly I can't say which system would be the most violent against excluded individuals, I lack concrete examples to compare. All I know is that some people will die and suffer because other people died and suffered, and that disgusts me.
"J'aime pas le travail, la justice et l'armée !"

community councillors and elected officials prescribe policies and actions and the "people's courts" deal with accountability for the rule of law; how exactly does a militia supercede this and become immune or prone to corruption?It would never become totally immune, but for the sake of law and order, or by the potential prestige of the institution, it can gain a certain independence from the rule of law. The particular status of the police and the army in modern democracies was created in this view : as they have a certain autonomy from common jurisdictions, they have an obligation to keep silent on political questions.

We pick oru battlesWhat's that ?
I'm probably a fool, but i don't strive for fatherhood. I would gladly destroy patriarcal properties as all the others, and I would gladly kill for my pleasure, but never for revenge. Relief is one of the lowest of all human emotions, along with jealousy.

________________________________________
I have no time for hate or love
Hey child, you're so full of woe
I have no time for hate or lying
Hey child, you're no child of mine

spice756

9th November 2008, 05:23

The poll is kinda fake has some communist and anarchist want police,laws and court and others do not .

The people who do not want police,laws and court the other people say it will be like mad max and chao thus no democracy and others say not.

There is nothing in the communist manifesto that talks about this.And people seem divided.

The communist and anarchist that do want police,laws and court will like it to be different than down that is base on the rich and moey making.And not helping people and class rule.

wigsa

25th November 2008, 23:09

I am an avid believer that there must be,and feel anyone who believes a society can exist without police is fucking crazy,and not in the good sense.

As I've said in previous threads,crime will not cease to exist along with capitalism.People will still commit crimes,and bad ones at that.Murder,rape,unprovoked assaults,will all be around.Drug use and drug dealers will be as prevalent as ever,UNLESS there is a serious clampdown.Unless we have a zero tolerance attitude towards drug dealers and drug addiction(not all drugs,heroin/speed for example),society will crumble.Unless we have a police force people fear,and a judicial system which will punish,people will see the freedoms offered by communism as an oppurtunity to do whatever the fuck they want,to whoever the fuck they want.Bad people will be in their element.Therefore,I reiterate that a tough police force is needed,along with a tough judicial system,for a communist society to be a success.Crime will never disappear,and we need to make a hell of a better effort to stop it than we are doing at the moment.