You're viewing a single thread.
Serious question: What's the leftists position on police in the ideal but realistic socialist world? What would make ACAB irrelevant?
Probably some combination of:
- Require them to have a 4 year degree
- No qualified immunity
- Make them also liable to civil suits
- Heavily slash their budget
- Disarm all of them, save maybe for SWAT
- much, much better descalation training (pretty sure they're trained to escalate immediately)
I disagree with points four and five. The rest seem accurate though. Alternatively, cut the budget to fund a seperate but collaborate group for mental health and/or non violent incedent responses. Have police provide backup but have clear rules of engagement, and procecute when the rules are violated.
Can you elaborate on what makes you disagree with those points? Just for clarity, were talking the defunding and the disarming?
Sure!
Disarming: Social studies have shown that it's difficult to walk back changes to the social contract. We already have a society to reliant and accepting of guns to send police unarmed. Right now in the Cal Bay area you are very likely to be shot just for stopping someone who is stealing a catalytic converter. It makes no sense to have a deterent factor that can't actually deter behavior. De-arming would need to be combined or following stricter gun laws and significant cultural shifts. That said, reviewing and revising the arming strategies is something that should occur. That is of course, unless you aren't trying to prevent a potentially substantial rise is polics officer deaths.
Defunding: Removing funding without removing work load really just doesn't work logistically. This has led to breakdowns in everything from the airline to the railroad industry. I'm sure there is a way to better allocate funding, but simply removing it is a problem. Alternatively, may US children had (or have) terrible times in the US school system. Should we defund it as a corrective measure? How does that help?
But I am curious, how do you believe these approaches would help the situation? How do you suggest they get implemented?
I think disarming/defending would be two sides of the same issue. I meant to add to the list for defending, splitting police's workload with some other task force/committees like having dedicated traffic police that only deal with traffic issues/social workers for mental health crises, semi medical personnel (to help paramedics) for injured cases/domestic abuses. If force is necessary, there should be a highly trained specialized force they would call in.
Being a cop carries too many responsibilities, diverting some of those to dedicated teams/positions would create less scenarios where cops come and shoot your dog (or you) and create more jobs.
I don't disagree. My point is the discussion should be stated in a way that is less "shocking" than defund the police. While the goal is to gain traction with the shock value, at this point the narrative needs to be switched to a more nuanced and accurate description.
Also, apologies for being pedantic, but paramedics are already semi-medical personnel. It literally means alongside medic(cal). In truth, we should be also deploying nursing and medical staff into the outside environment that are supported by paramedics. Currently, the problem is cost and public interest isn't there.
I agree, maybe instead it should be "stop over paying police". Then we could change the discussion to shifting some of those tax payer funds to roles/positions that deserve it.
Disarming: I don't think there should be no weapons in the hands of law enforcement. Without significantly changing the mindset of how law enforcement must work in our society, yes, having the option to meet a significant resistance with firepower is required. To me, disarming is removing firearms from the average cop. None of the standard patrol officers you're going to run into in your day-to-day should be carrying a pistol on their hip. Keep it locked in your trunk if you HAVE to have it reasonably accessible. Keep less-lethal options the on-your-hip ready options. Too often we see cops go for the pistol before even engaging with their suspect. I've had it happen to me, and we've all seen videos I'm sure. Let's remove that from the equation entirely, keep the guns for after it's escalated.
Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. I'd rather just let the cat go and focus on the long-term solutions, like fixing the socioeconomic conditions that breed these crimes in the first place. This is also EXACTLY the kind of thing people are outraged over regarding police existing to protect property, not people.
Defunding: similar to disarming, you are correct in that simply removing funds won't work. Again, I don't think that's the realistic end goal. Defujd in the sense that they do not need military level equipment. More, it's reallocating the funds to things like training, oversight, maybe trading some armed officers for some mental health response personnel. Things like this.
Your comment: “Realistically, should the police even BE stopping something like someone stealing a catalytic converter? In an ideal world, sure, but right now the scenario likely ends in either a cat being stolen, or a shootout. "
Yeah... We fundamentally don't agree with each other. I don't see a point to continuing the discussion. Good chat though!
I would add a measure of public election for every branch of LE, at minimum. If I MUST have a boot on my neck, I may as well get to choose it.
In the UK, the training requirements for police is still surprising to me, as I had assumed it would take years to train as police.
Either way, our police meet a lot of the criteria here. The budgets are nonexistent, they aren't armed outside of specific circumstances, and they all go through regular de-escalation training.
It hasn't stopped many of the issues we see that are also shared in law enforcement in the states. Our force often uses force unnecessarily, there is institutional corruption and racism, and even in instances where the police have done something bad AND there is evidence it's very hard to find justice.
I think that a degree would help, or a training programme that takes many years and involves extensive training. It's depressing to say, but the demand for good jobs with decent pay and employment protection would probably result in people becoming police just for the pension. I would also add that a good avenue to policing would be for it to link heavily with the law profession. Add a route for police to train part-time to be criminal lawyers, or for lawyers to join the police force.
How are you gonna slash their budget if you add so many requirements and remove benefits? By default that will mean there will be less interest in being a cop, which means you'll have to offer a quite substantial increase in pay to compensate. And in most places there already is a shortage of cops.
My apologies, I submitted a comment regarding that elsewhere. By slashing their budget, I meant to say: divert it to other positions like to social workers so issues with mental health crises wouldn't introduce excessive force. I think police really should be focused on the Public Servant part.
They wouldn't exist in this form under anarchism at all. However they're still very much bastards under ML-regimes as well.
The conflict between ACAB and All Vigilantes Are Also Bastards has always been my primary concern with anarchism tbh.
I feel like people who enforce rules are necessary in any society. I note that cops in Scotland or New Zealand manage to do their job without killing lots of citizens. I dont think that being murderous unaccountable over-militarised gang is necessary to do the job.
At least vigilantes aren't above the law. We don't reeeeeeally have police police, but we could have vigilante vigilantes.
Who vigilantes the vigilante vigilantes? It seems like in the end you really just need some form of professional rule thug that just has actual public accountability.
At least they're held accountable to someone or something. Even if we have to have 40 layers of vigilantism, it's better than what we have with police today - essentially zero accountability. Qualified immunity exists, and police oversight boards are routinely voted against, etc.
I'm not an expert in this field, I don't have all of the answers. I don't think we can really get all of the answers on a topic as large as "how do we keep society safe" without trying things. I do think the thing we've tried for the last little bit has run its course, it's shown us it doesn't have much merit, and I'm ready for another system.
NGL that doesn't seem very convincing. Lots of what ifs and hypotheticals that sounds like the Office bit.
"Just krrrrsht and then you'll be saved."
Socialism removes the fact that Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people, so this inherently means they aren't class traitors.
There would be an expansion of social programs and services, better access to housing, and overall fewer crimes of desparation.
Police serve the wealthy, rather than the people
Are there common every day examples where this happens? I'll be honest my exposure to the police is extremely limited and from a UK perspective. Do you mean like the police will prioritise responding faster to wealthy people and are more likely to put resources in solving crimes against them than your average person?
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights and enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo.
No, I mean by upholding Private Property Rights
What does this mean though? Like if someone breaks into my house then they shouldn't be coming over to investigate?
enforcing racist and anti-poor laws they uphold the brutal status quo
Is this not an issue with the laws of the country rather than the police? I feel like it would be an even bigger issue if the police just became a law unto themselves and decided on their own what they should laws they should or shouldn't enforce.
No, that's not what I mean. I am not referring to personal home ownership, but the system of Capitalism.
The anti-poor laws and racist laws exist because of class dynamics, not vibes. The issue is Capitalism itself.
I am not arguing that police should just do whatever.
I honestly can't figure out what point you are making. I see a lot of buzz-words like anti-poor, racist, private property rights, status quo, etc. but I don't understand how you think this plays out practically. The person you are replying to was asking for real-world examples of the cops defending rich white people in instances they wouldnt support poor non-white people.
I'm not even saying I disagree necessarily, just that you haven't answered the initial question.
There are systemic issues core to how Capitalist systems are set up, and the violent arm that upholds these is the police.
Does that make sense?
Your comment speaks to high level concepts but you didn't provide an the example to ground it to reality.
Like others have mentioned they aren't seeing these examples of core issues having impacts on their day to day lives/communities. I'm not either. When it comes down to it, laws written to apply to everyone are generally enforced for everyone.
Catching violent perpetrators pretty much always takes priority over non-violent theft. When we see acts of violence get immediate police attention it feels like the image you are trying to portay is inaccurate.
I am not referring to unequal application of the law, but the law itself and the police as its enforcers.
Ok, for one example, after the 2008 housing market drop, banks bought the debt from other banks intentionally writing bad loans, which they then resold to third parties. This buying up of the debt of the banks that collapsed during this time lead to banks pushing families out of their homes, many of which were paid-up, but the lending institution behind them had failed, in order to resell the property later, when the market prices had recovered, or use the land for other developments. This was enforced by the police. Bankers did not go around forcing people out of their houses, the police did it at their behest.
Another is laws created specifically to punish people for being homeless. Laws like not being able to camp anywhere near a place they might be able to get themselves out of homelessness, e.g. a place with jobs, and other resources, not some place way out in the forest. These are also only effective because the police use violence to enforce them. Anti-solicitation laws fall into this category. Police often don't realize that (speaking for my country) they are not constitutional at the federal level. Police departments that know about this tell their cops to do it anyway because it's not like homeless people will likely be able to sue them.
A third is the enforcement of petty traffic fines. Things like window tint, or minor violations in situations where the safety concern isn't present. These fines are, often, the brunt of how they fund themselves. Petty violations, like tint, are also used to go on fishing expeditions, so they can either wrack-up more fines, or make an arrest, even if that means intentionally escalating the situation, lying about what happened, and giving false testimony in court. More arrests, more convictions, equals more money for the police, and the legal industry as a whole. If you work with, or around, police, like I have, you will hear them discuss things like testilying. Bouncing ideas off of each other as to how they can make bad arrests, and use illegal levels of force, while having a technicality to maintain their immunity, e.g. screaming quit resisting, while in a position where they know cameras can't really see what is happening. This is just the tip of this iceberg, I would need thousands, upon thousands, of words to detail all the shit I have heard police say, and see police do.
I can go on, but I think I have made my point.
I'm late to reply but thank you for the response, this is the kind of response and examples I was looking for.
Evictions, disproportionately of those most vulnerable, due to Austerity via the Neoliberal policies of Reagan and Thatcher which very much persist today, maximizing, subsidizing the profit of fortune 500 companies while making welfare a slur.
Cops break up people who are just trying to feed the hungry.
ICE; Locking children in cages -- No human is illegal. The Contras were perpetrated by the imperial core, and then the imperial family eats up the propaganda to hate the refugees fleeing those situations.
Prisons, during covid lockdowns, put prisoners in 24/7 solitary. Solitary is torture. It is so bad that is an effective motivator to force prisoners to instead labor for cents a day.
Cops illegally raid safe injection sites, and spread disinformation about People who use drugs, dehumanizing themselves in the process.
Read about the Comstock Raids, as far back as 1860s, the reason that motivated the Stonewall Uprising a century later, and dont think they up and stopped harrassing queer folks of color for doing so much as existing in public.
The origins of the police forces were to chase down runaway slaves.
It is not "a few bad eggs". It's not about a bug of the system, it's the features it was designed for, through Comstocks weaponization of the Post Office to control bodies and autonomy, into modern day surveillance state and militarization.
What we are talking about is Violence. SYSTEMIC Violence.
There is no more violent beast than the Settler-Colonial White Supremacist, with all it's manifest destiny. This Prison System's history is well documented, and evidence of it's violence is more apparent and accessible everyday.
Abolition is a process and it will take time, the two greatest things we can do to obsolete prisons and police are:
- encourage and popularize anti-authoritarian parenting methods and 2) build strong community groups and mutual aid networks.
We must be free from class, from heirarchies of domination. These are inherently violent
That Dang Dad on YT is a great resource, and that's a starting point, because there is no justice unless you adress the root cause, and the truth is always on the side of the oppressed.
Socialism isn't a model for policing, unless you love the secret police.
Nope, it's an economic structure that gets rid of the largest sources of poverty in Capitalist society, and poverty is the largest factor for crime.
How your country runs economically informs what kinds of laws you hold valuable in society, informs what kind of policing you have. Socialism isn't specifically about policing, correct, but to act like it's not all interconnected is ludicrous.
I agree with @[email protected] . You can either try to copy the policing model used in, say, East Germany or the USSR, with it's delightfully large secret police force, but that's more from the authoritarian political system rather than the socialist policies. Alternately, you could try to copy the policing model used in democratic socialist countries, the nordic model, which is more influenced by their political system rather than socialist policies. Countries with socialist programs have all kinds of different police systems. There's no policing model that always goes with socialism. I will say that socialism may or may not get rid of poverty, it really depends on the wealth of the country. If the country is poor, socialism isn't going to make them rich. Ideally it should reduce inequality, however we see that while it can reduce economic inequality, it does not always adequately address privilege.
I didn't say that the policing model goes away, or that we should have secret police a LA the USSR.
The words I said were: your country's economic model informs what laws you hold valuable.
This is easily true. We currently have the system in place of "get more, more good." An abundance of our laws, some of the ones we hold most dear, adhere to that. Protecting property is one thing that our legal system and police force does well.
Contrast to a more equality based economic model. If our society values raising people who are down up, sometimes at a mild cost to someone who's already doing well, then our laws change. Suddenly we see a value shift in our legal system from get more/protect what we have, to let's help the downtrodden a bit.
Second, I said that this all informs what policing you have.
Again, this pretty naturally follows from the previous point. Police exist to uphold the laws, at least ostensibly. Their interfacing with society depends on what society has said we hold valuable enough to codify into law. This is where you might get such laws as rent control, where we have determined it's valuable to set limits to the year over year increase someone has to pay for their dwelling, at the slight cost of some profit to the owner.
All of these things are connected. Correct, socialism isn't a method of policing, but our method of policing is born of what our society holds valuable. It's all connected.
Socialism ends up causing all the problems you think it's gonna solve. Name one time in history that it was successful.
What on Earth are you talking about? This is utterly vibes based.
Socialism factually does work this way.
I completely agree with you on ACAB in capitalist countries, for the same reasons you mentioned, but cops in "actually existing socialist" countries like Russian and China are no better. They still use authoritarian violence to oppress anyone who steps out of line with the will of the State. There are many, many historic and more contemporary examples of socialist countries using the [secret] police and/or troops to quell dissent from unions, anarchists, and other leftist groups, because anyone who protests the actions of the State, no matter how legitimately, is considered to be an enemy of the State, whether that State is capitalist or not.
Russia the Russian Federation, or Russia the USSR? Very different deal there.
Either way, I feel like this is vibes based analysis. Committing crime is illegal, yes. Even Anarchists like in Revolutionary Catalonia punished criminals, even putting them in labor camps. Would ACAB apply to Anarchists? No, I would argue not, just like I would say ACAB wouldn't directly apply to a Socialist State.
The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is stark, a Socialist State is run by the Workers, rather than a Capitalist State run by the bourgeoisie. An analysis of Capitalism, it's accumulation-based nature, and how this impacts the state, is necessary analysis.
What do you think of Chekism?
In theory. Never works in practice.
Socialism works in theory and practice, Capitalism does not.
Capitalism works if the systems goal is to accumulate wealth to monopolies and the capitalists.
It does not, because it contains within itself the necessity of its decline due to factors like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
We can always colonize other planets, if they exist. /s
China, Cuba, Vietnam…
Those are your success stories? Fucking laughable how stupid you are.
Pertaining to this meme and subject, yes.
Despite having less than a quarter of China's population, the U.S. also has the highest overall prison population at more than two million. China's is approximately 1.7 million. Globally, the U.S. accounts for 4% of the population and 25% of prisoners.
Some context:
Not only does the U.S. have the highest incarceration rate in the world; every single U.S. state incarcerates more people per capita than virtually any independent democracy on earth. To be sure, states like New York and Massachusetts appear progressive in their incarceration rates compared to states like Louisiana, but compared to the rest of the world, every U.S. state relies too heavily on prisons and jails to respond to crime.
For one, the US is a terrible example for incarceration rates in any case. If you look at Europe, the incarceration rate on average is very comparable and in many Western European countries like Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. it’s closer to half that, sometimes even less than half.
And also, China has a comparatively huge number of political prisoners and some places in China (particularly where a lot of Uyghurs happen to live) have incarceration rates of more than 3700 per 100000.. That’s a lot higher than the US and more than double than even the US‘s incarceration happiest state Louisiana with ~1400/100000.
And even ignoring that, I wouldn’t use China as a great example for a socialist state either, for the reasons that they have a totalitarian government that doesn’t like it very much if you don’t like them and that they very much do take part in capitalism, being the worlds cheap production plant.
the US is a terrible example for incarceration rates in any case.
The United States leads the world in total number of people incarcerated, with more than 2 million prisoners nationwide (per data released in October 2021 by World Prison Brief). This number is equivalent to roughly 25% of the world's total prison population and leads to an incarceration rate of 629 people per 100,000—the highest rate in the world.
The Uyghur situation is immaterial to the original comment of whether socialism works.
China considers the country socialist.
If the uyghur situation is immaterial then so is incarceration rate in general. Especially since there are a bunch of capitalist countries with a significantly lower incarceration rate than China.
And if they say they’re socialist it must of course be true. Authoritarian regimes have never misrepresented themselves ever. /s
All of those examples were successful in comparison to what came before. The ROC had a life expectancy in the 30's, and made no effort to address the basic needs of the vast majority of Chinese people. Cuba had a corrupt, authoritarian gangster state under Batista. Vietnam was suffering under brutal colonial rule. Under socialism, life expectancy, literacy, food security, and medical access rose dramatically and greatly improved the lives of the people living in these places.
So yes, they are success stories, they objectively solved many of the problems they were trying to solve and improved people's lives across a wide number of metrics.
lol. Got live in China. Tell me how that works out for ya. So stupid.
The Western world got a headstart through centuries of colonialism and slavery, while China, Cuba, and Vietnam were all victims of that exploitation. Of course somewhere like Vietnam, that was subject to extreme exploitation and then bombed to smithereens, with Agent Orange dropped everywhere, is going to have some challenges developing, especially when they then face economic sanctions from powerful nations afterwards. Yet, as I said, all of those nations performed remarkably well despite that serious adversity. When the communists first came to power in China, life expectancy was about 35, while it was nearly double that in the US, now, their life expectancy has even exceeded ours.
Western nations remain wealthier due to continued exploitation of the third world, and I'm afraid I don't have the means to immigrate. I am grateful for your highly intelligent and informed response to my points, though.