Results 1 to 20 of 53
Policing in a post-State society
I have no idea if this has been asked but I'm extremely curious, so apologies comrades.
So I'm pretty sure most people on here are either Anarchists (like myself), Marxists, or some other ideology which envisions the state ending, the predominant division, in terms of the revolution, is how to get there. So this should be pretty open to all of us.
In a post-State society, where the revolution has been thoroughly successful across the globe, how would policing be done? I had simply assumed the idea of the democratic militia, which I believe in, would work just as much for dealing with crime as it would be for destroying (or overthrowing as the case may be for certain comrades) the state and fighting revolutionary forces. After that a people's court made up of all members of the community would discuss how to deal with the person/s. A constantly rotating and democratic militia prevents a constant police force which becomes too powerful.
Then it occurred to me that cops do more than chase people. For example, in the case of investigating crimes. That's a situation in which a group needs a large amount of experience to apprehend the correct culprit. However, that experience wouldn't be likely in a system where normal people voluntarily rotate their militia role. But if that was not the case then these people would become too powerful and, in the words of Lord Acton 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.
This is obviously a just for fun question, as we are a long way off being ready for a revolution, no matter what you believe the prerequisites are. But it's still an interesting point.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
You're not too far off. I'd imagine some sort of affinity group would be on stand by just in case they were needed, people trained how to handle these situations well, investigate situations that need investigated, etc, all done under extreme transparency and direct accountability to their respective communities.
Some anarchists even prefer p2p justice, but that's a bit too much imo
Why do you think any sort of policing would be necessary in a socialist society?
Violence among humans is not something that is above the mode of production. Most violence today is about securing a comparative advantage of some sort, or enforcing class rule. Obviously neither would be possible in socialism. Not to mention that, again obviously, many of the crimes and "crimes" of the present make no sense in a socialist society. Like embezzlement or adultery.
What little violence exists will probably be dealt with by the surrounding people themselves; for example if I try to punch someone I will probably be restrained by people around me (unless that someone wants to be punched). You don't need a police or militia of any sort to do this.
And even if someone kills another person, what's the point in trying to find out who did it and then punishing them? It certainly won't bring the dead back to life.
I think a good example of the need for some kind of "policing" would be murder cases, which I suspect would not cease to exist in socialism, although socialism would inevitably lead to a decrease in murder cases due to reduced alienation.
Murder cases can be hard to solve. I doubt everybody would be able to decide whether a given suspect is guilty or not.
But overall, the police would cease to exist as such, since the primary role of the police is to protect private property, either directly or indirectly.
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
Why do you think someone would murder another person in a socialist society?
I cannot rule out the possibility. There are many reasons why someone would murder another person. I wonder whether eliminating capitalism will eliminate all possible motivations. Surely it will happen a lot less frequently, but it seems a bit over-optimistic to think that murder will cease to exist entirely.
Communism is absolutely necessary, but it will probably not be utopia.
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
Nah, no police. Fuck that.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
I'm not saying it will be. If anything, socialism would probably look completely alien to us born in class society. But nevermind that, I'm asking what possible motivation someone could have for murdering another person in a socialist society?
Profit? It won't exist.
Jealousy? Again, it won't exist, as the bourgeois family will have been smashed.
Political disputes? The government over men will have been abolished, leaving society with the technical tasks of organising production and distribution.
And so on.
What about those with antisocial personality disorder AKA psychopathy? Studies have shown there is a causal genetic link between family members with this.
"If you're feeling low, stuck in some bardo
I, even I know the solution
Love, music, wine and revolution."
-The Magnetic Fields
“The most violent element in society is ignorance. ”
― Emma Goldman
Even the craziest motherfucker hopefully never has a police force sent after them.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
870 doesn't believe in that psycho babble science. He upholds tabula rasa, although he does not admit to it. So in communism, he believes, there will be no mental health issues and no murder. Me suggesting otherwise in a thread caused him and QueerVanguard to go full wingnut and accuse me of being a fascist, a liberal, a reactionary, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a Transphobe, a rightist, a Glenn Beck/Fox News-watcher, a Proudhonist, a nationalist, a non-Marxist. I wouldn't bother with these two utopians, they are far too detached from reality.
There's a crucial difference in recognising the scientific finding that psychopathy has a considerable genetic component and while genetics create tendencies in people it is the social environment that shapes the degree to which genetic tendencies manifest themselves; and rejecting this scientific finding altogether because of ideological preferences as 870 does. For instance, a genetic predisposition for psychopathic tendencies does not mean that the person will become a serial killer. The chances of this happening depend on childhood. A loving, caring environment can stunt psychopathic tendencies, whereas a cold, disengaged environment can exacerbate them. So with the implementation of collective child rearing, psychopathic tendencies far are less likely to manifest.
Last edited by Tim Cornelis; 1st December 2014 at 13:38.
pew pew pew
Assuming that psychopathy/sociopathy/antisocial/dissocial personality disorder/however they're calling it this week is an actual, well-defined condition (and that is by no means clear at this point), all that means is that some people have lower guilt levels. Good for them. This still doesn't answer the question why they would want to kill another person. Human behaviour is articulated in class society and depends crucially on the economic basis of said society.
Marxists, when Marxists still existed, generally meant the stripping of the class/political character of the State by "withering away" or "abolition" of the State. It's basically sophistry.
In a socialist society, the police, like the state, would be stripped of its class/political character and become a servant of society. They probably won't call it police either, because again, sophistry.
These fucking part-timers and "people's militias" and irregulars and all that fucking shit is also sophistry. It's warlordism draped in "left" colours. Look at Afghanistan in the 80s and 90s. Look at Syria today. Look at the Donbass. That's what "militias" and all that shit leads to. Thousands of warlords.
I'd rather live in a capitalist society rather than in a society where people are constantly forming fucking mobs and private armies to enforce their particular ideas. Modern Day Ireland or Croatia is better than fucking Aleppo or Daraa.
How do you propose crime would be investigated comrade?
Say I'm a doctor in a post-State society. I screw up and a woman dies. The woman's partner is pretty pissed at my mistake and they have one of these mental health disorders, prone to violent fits of rage and chooses to end my life. An example, because obviously you need a specific one...
I agree. But a team of 'police', for want of a better word, would be required to investigate and identify the culprit.
Ignoring the fact that I don't think the state can be stripped of its political character. What I really meant was: how exactly could an effective police force still be kept in place whilst being a 'servant of society'.
I wasn't suggesting people would not simply form mobs. That's not what I meant by 'militias', I simply don't like using the word police; I still refer to a democratic and careful system of law enforcement. Call it what you like comrade.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
Of course it can. When the state becomes a tool for the administration of things after the abolition of social classes, instead of a tool of the rule of one class over other classes, it will not have a political character.
I think quite easily. When the police isn't being used as a club to beat the heads one class by another class, it will have nothing else to do besides serving society.
So basically you want to do the same thing the Soviets did, rename police to militia?
Sure, that's a nice change. But it's a cosmetic one. Soviets also called Lenin Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars but he was still essentially the Prime Minister.
I think the police, in fact anyone in a position of power, are quite capable of becoming corrupt without class even existing...
No, I believe a total restructure is in order, but the function will essentially be what we are told the function of the police is. Law and order. The issue is simply making the 'police force' democratic and accountable, which would probably change its entire shape.
I don't want to get sidetracked but what's to stop those who occupy those administrative positions, which obviously hold power, from misusing and abusing their power. Essentially becoming a bureaucratic dictatorship.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
Ignoring for now some of the assumptions you're making about the sexual lives of people in the socialist society, why do you assume the first response of the woman's partner would be to kill you? That's what many people would do today (or at least think about it), sure. But again, we are dealing with a particular form of class society. In previous forms of class society, their first impulse might be to blame, not you individually, but your family, clan or ethnoreligious (sub)group. Sometimes your guild or commune. All of these reflected the particulars of that form of class society. In capitalism, the logic of commodity exchange is also reproduced in these matters: someone has taken something from you (as sexual exclusivity is "seen" - it's rarely made explicit but that's how most people act - as possession), so you take something from them.
Obviously this would not be the case in the socialist society. Here, one would hope, people would realise that "revenge", "justice" etc. won't do anything positive.
But let's say this really happens. What then. How is the police going to protect you? By the time the police arrive, you'll be dead. If the killer is stopped, it won't be because of the police (the police very rarely stop killers), but because of your efforts or the efforts of people around you.
The parameters of this scenario are that this man/woman had a mental condition which made him prone to immediate aggression and incapable of logical thought when aggressive.
And yes, I make the assumption that some people will likely have one continuous relationship, similar to a marriage, this is not necessarily sexually exclusive, but people will still seek emotional companionship.
Even if I'm dead the killer still has to be caught. This requires the expertise of what today we'd call a professional to carry out that investigation. The general community may accidentally contaminate evidence if they were all clumsily involved in the process.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
Be that as it may, you still haven't given us a reason to think that, in the socialist society, this person would immediately blame you and seek to harm you.
Why?Originally Posted by RedBlackStar
It was my screw up in this situation which caused the woman to die. This person, who is prone to illogical and irrational anger can't be reasoned with, as he knows that I am responsible.
In the situation that someone has committed an act of rape/murder/theft(still can happen in socialism)/any other crime which would harm another individual they need to be identified, so to stop them from recommitting.
I'm amazed that you can't grasp these very basic concepts.
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin.
