Historically, cops have always sided with the aristocracy/bourgeoisie/land-owners/those with money.
Because it’s that state which they serve, obviously.
There's a fundamental difference between cops in socialist countries and those elsewhere. The police serves the state -- with the exception of some individuals, they act in the interest of the bourgeoisie in capitalist countries and the workers in socialist countries. "ACAB" is implicitly limited to capitalist countries; otherwise, it would be akin to anarchists denouncing all states
Gonna lock this thread. Sorry but I don't think the OP is arguing in good faith.
Moreover this is not something that needs to be had intense theoretical debate over. There are AES countries with people living in them under the authority of their police. It would be more instructive to seek their opinion (though I admit it is not easy or straightforward) rather than mull over hypotheticals.
I apply ACAB to capitalist countries. Their police operate as organized crime that protects capitalist interests and occasionally their stated purpose to keep up appearances and a false sense of service. In these countries, bad cops are common and "good cops" all either cover for the bad cops or get hounded out of the department.
Not that socialist countries haven't had cop problems, but it really has been fairly different in them. They tend to divide up the duties of cops and split them among different organizations. Like... the traffic cop doesn't carry a gun and instead calls for help when they see something go down. There are usually fewer cops per capita in socialist-run countries. There is less need to protect private property interests when there is less private property in the first place. In addition, you don't need cops to dehumanize and eject homeless people in front of businesses when you virtually eliminate homelessness. You also don't need as many cops if you don't have a racialized drug war to prosecute or a cartel to fight.
If you go to Cuba you will find cops just standing around, hanging out, not intimidating anyone. They're of the community. It's not simply good or bad, but it's very different from the ACAB conditions experienced in capitalist countries.
They tend to divide up the duties of cops and split them among different organizations. Like… the traffic cop doesn’t carry a gun and instead calls for help when they see something go down.
That's true for a lot of Western capitalist/imperialist countries too.
There are usually fewer cops per capita in socialist-run countries.
The less cops there are, the more socialist a country is?
you don’t need cops
Agreed.
If you go to Cuba you will find cops just standing around, hanging out, not intimidating anyone.
I'm sure you can see that in Palau and other Pacific Island nations, and a few of the Caribbean ones, too. Does that mean those countries are socialist? Cops being "chill" is more a result of the culture of the country they're in, rather than the main ideology of the state.
That's true for a lot of Western capitalist/imperialist countries too.
In capitalist countries they tend to wear different uniforms but are part of the same department. Sometimes just one big organization for the whole country, even! There's usually only one division and it's not very common - mental health first responders vs. cops.
The less cops there are, the more socialist a country is?
The reverse. Cops protect the interests of private property and as part of this address the contradictions of capitalism in favor of capital. Both are decreased in countries run by socialists.
I'm sure you can see that in Palau and other Pacific Island nations, and a few of the Caribbean ones, too.
Why are you sure?
Does that mean those countries are socialist?
This is the second such odd question you've asked. It doesn't follow from what I've said. I think you might be arguing with someone in your head rather than me.
Cops being "chill" is more a result of the culture of the country they're in, rather than the main ideology of the state.
Culture is also a product of material conditions and deeper political economic forces. But for cops in particular do you really think it's just "culture" and not the combination of these things?
The laws they are expected to enforce, written for private property interests.
The people they are expected to fight with, e.g. informal policing (gang violence) and cartels vs. the occasional drunk guys.
How well they are paid and by what metrics they are compensated.
Who advocates for their paychecks and who does not.
Their relationships with the downstream "justice" system.
Whether they are armed.
Whether they live within the community vs. apart from it.
Whether the societies in which they live create more or fewer crisis situations, e.g. serious untreated drug addiction, mugging, unwanted cohabitation.
These things are all shaped by the political economic forces at work. They cannot be overcome by "culture" by itself, they will instead redefine a culture and retell its stories in its own favor. For example, the convenient revisionism of Christian positions on profiting from debt. The "culture" was pretty clear that it wasn't okay but the political economy of Rome depended on it. Guess which one won.
Cops protect the interests of private property and as part of this address the contradictions of capitalism in favor of capital. Both are decreased in countries run by socialists.
Yes. And can you guarantee the police won't turn on the State if they are promised higher pay and more power in the new capitalist state after the socialist one is torn down? That's what happened in pretty much every ex-socialist state.
This is the second such odd question you’ve asked. It doesn’t follow from what I’ve said.
You said there are fewer cops per capita in socialist states. I'm saying that's not a metric by which you can tell whether a country is socialist or not, and that it often has nothing to do with the state being socialist. Countries like Palau have also fewer cops per capita, yet that doesn't mean that those countries are socialist.
Why are you sure?
Because small island nations rarely have a big problem with "crime" as large countries with big cities.
the combination of these things
Majority of those factors that would create "bad" cops could exist in socialist states, too. Change of a society has to be total, you can't just put a red star on the same capitalist cops and call it a day. A police force borne out of capitalism has to be abolished in favour of something else. I can guess and imagine what that something else might be, but I can't know for certain.
The only country on the planet without a capitalist-style police force is the DPRK. That's because they have a politically educated populace that is also largely part of the defense forces of their country. They do not need "cops".
Yes. And can you guarantee the police won’t turn on the State if they are promised higher pay and more power in the new capitalist state after the socialist one is torn down? That’s what happened in pretty much every ex-socialist state.
china model. economic dominance and providing such a good deal to everyone its never even considered
Because small island nations rarely have a big problem with “crime” as large countries with big cities.
Is Haiti not real to you?
The only country on the planet without a capitalist-style police force is the DPRK. That’s because they have a politically educated populace that is also largely part of the defense forces of their country. They do not need “cops”.
The DPRK has cops....
Find me a society with anything close to what you have previously described.
Is Haiti not real to you?
Haiti isn't a small "island nation". Haiti is half of the island Hispaniola, the other half is the Dominican Republic. Dominica is an example of an "island nation".
The DPRK has cops…
Do they? Or do they have a local "militia"?
Find me a society with anything close to what you have previously described.
The Soviet Union. I corrected myself in other posts, I was wrong to name them as an example of counter-revolutionary cops. Lenin abolished the police in the Soviet Union and replaced them with local "militias". The difference was that these militia people didn't have country-wide powers, they were tasked with their own city. This means that they couldn't be shipped from one city to the next to "restore order".
Haiti isn’t a small “island nation”. Haiti is half of the island Hispaniola, the other half is the Dominican Republic. Dominica is an example of an “island nation”.
Its all relative, if you keep moving the goalposts till only criteria that you have defined is met, of course you're going to be right. For most people, Haiti is a small island nation; also we cant take micro-examples and expect them to work in countries with billions of people.
Do they? Or do they have a local “militia”?
Yes, they have police.
The difference was that these militia people didn’t have country-wide powers, they were tasked with their own city. This means that they couldn’t be shipped from one city to the next to “restore order”.
Again just putting a different name tag on the police and giving them smaller juristictions doesnt make them not police, and isnt what ACAB represents, which is deleting the police outright, not just renaming them and giving them a different coat of paint.
For most people, Haiti is a small island nation;
That's not how it works. Just because "most people" think something that doesn't make it true. An island nation is a country that comprises a whole island, or several islands. Iceland is an island nation, for example.
also we cant take micro-examples
They're not "micro-examples". Iceland has 176 cops per 100.000 inhabitants, while the European Union average is around 333. China has some 142. Does that mean Iceland is close to being socialist? Or is Iceland more socialist than the EU?
countries with billions of people.
What countries with billionS of people? China and India have about 1.5 billion each, and they're exceptions.
Again just putting a different name tag on the police and giving them smaller juristictions doesnt make them not police
Someone should have told Lenin that.
what ACAB represents
ACAB represents that "all cops are bastards", I don't think anything is implied about what should replace them.
What countries with billionS of people? China and India have about 1.5 billion each, and they’re exceptions.
Im being hyperbolic, consider my framing of 'billions' to just mean 'a country with aprox a billion+ people'
ACAB represents that “all cops are bastards”, I don’t think anything is implied about what should replace them.
Its an anarchist strain of thought and it has a whole connation behind it with the term, usually tied to just burning down the police force as it stands.
Someone should have told Lenin that.
No need, he surely recongised the need to have a police force to defend the citizens of the revolution from bad actors and yeeted the police of the monarchy/tsar into the shadow realm.
They’re not “micro-examples”. Iceland has 176 cops per 100.000 inhabitants, while the European Union average is around 333. China has some 142. Does that mean Iceland is close to being socialist? Or is Iceland more socialist than the EU?
What seperates the two is ideology, obviously.
That’s not how it works. Just because “most people” think something that doesn’t make it true. An island nation is a country that comprises a whole island, or several islands. Iceland is an island nation, for example.
Point taken, its half a island nation.
Im being hyperbolic, consider my framing of ‘billions’ to just mean ‘a country with aprox a billion+ people’
But that's only 2 countries out of ~190. They are exceptions.
Its an anarchist strain of thought and it has a whole connation behind it with the term,
Lenin the anarchist.
he surely recongised the need to have a police force to defend the citizens of the revolution from bad actors
That's two different things. "Police" and "a force to defend the citizens of the revolution" are two different things. That's my whole point. In the Soviet Union you had the local militia
and then you had the NKVD.
So a "police" is a force than combines the two: "local policing" (stopping bar fights, getting drunk people off the street, investigating domestic violence) and then "state polcing" (fighting the enemies of the state). If you have one police with those wide powers, then that's a recipe for disaster.
The less cops there are, the more socialist a country is?
yes
I’m sure you can see that in Palau and other Pacific Island nations, and a few of the Caribbean ones, too.
They will be the ones throwing you out if you cant make rent. I dont think Cuban cops will be doing the same thing!
I dont think Cuban cops will be doing the same thing!
Are you sure about that? Nobody in Cuba pays rent, there are no landlords and everyone just lives for free?
thats exactly my point
My reasoning is that it is a position of power over your fellow citizens/countrymen/people and only bastards would be attracted to such positions.
Wouldn't this then be true for any political position with executive power too? It seems like a flimsy criteria to me.
Wouldn’t this then be true for any political position with executive power too?
Yes, that's why people should be nominated by others, like it was in many socialist countries.
Are you implying that no socialist leaders ever wanted to be in power and all of them were just so nominated and begrudgingly accepted the position? I'm not really sure that's how it went down in the general case, sure sometimes it probably happened but I don't think we yet have a mechanism to keep people that want power away from power.
Are you implying that no socialist leaders ever wanted to be in power and all of them were just so nominated and begrudgingly accepted the position?
We're not talking about just the "leaders"? Didn't you say representatives? There's many more elected positions in a socialist state than just "the leaders". Also, "power" of leaders in socialist countries isn't absolute. Those are anti-communist talking points. Do you think Stalin had absolute power? He was nominated/elected general-secretary, he didn't say "I want to be general-secretary" and it was so. He also had to have his decisions approved, but that's a different conversation.
Personally, I believe that A CAB. Yes, all cops are bastards, no exceptions. Yet I have met people who think that cops in socialist countries aren’t bastards.
This is framing the entire world in the lenses of western liberal issues, its chauvinism to a degree.
ACAB makes most sense in the west, american police kill 1000 people+ a year in cold blood and oversee the largest prison population in humanities history, slave labour and racial terror.
Chinese police on the other hand, have killed about 20 people in 30 years.... and typically in response to being attacked first, or in response to mass terror events. They are simply not comparable.
The idea is they too eventually get phased out, but it is base idealism to think you can vanish the police over night. They get removed because of contradictions leading to solutions, as marxists we should recongise this; even after the revolution, or seizing power, or gaining power; we will still need to defend it, we will still need 'police'; the benefit is there will be no landlords, so they will not serve the landlord class, and we will direct them to serve socialist interests (read althussers theory of the state apparatus, they are the club of the brain of the state)
Since our end goal is the dissolvement of the state, it comes to think they will be disolved too eventually, and it is our end goal; but you cant jump straight to the end goal.
Chinese police on the other hand, have killed about 20 people in 30 years…
So have police in other Western imperialist/capitalist nations. If you're going by "murder by police" statistics to determine which police is better than others then the US police is in a league of its own. In some Western countries police don't even have guns on them 24/7. It's a poor metric.
They are simply not comparable.
In the OP I named things that I'm sure every cop in every country in history has done: helped a colleague over what's right/fair, enforced a law they don't agree with, beaten up someone, and things like that. Violence isn't only murder, there's false imprisonment, charging an innocent person with a crime, mistreating a prisoner, those are all objectively negative things that don't involve murder and make a police force "bad".
So have police in other Western imperialist/capitalist nations. If you’re going by “murder by police” statistics to determine which police is better than others then the US police is in a league of its own. In some Western countries police don’t even have guns on them 24/7. It’s a poor metric.
The metric im using is the one in which ACAB was born out of, as a response to the terror of american police, and largely in part due to the drug war.
Violence isn’t only murder, there’s false imprisonment, charging an innocent person with a crime, mistreating a prisoner, those are all objectively negative things that don’t involve murder and make a police force “bad”.
Sure, its part of the 'monopoly of violence', it typically serves the ideological means of who ever is in control. We want that to be socialist as socialism/communism looks to phase this out by transitioning away from statism, untill then we still need to grappel with capitalism pitting everyone against each other so a police force is needed to stop violent acts. We all know the police do 'bad' things, I do believe they can be controlled to do what we want though, as ultimately they will just do whatever who is paying them tell them to do.
What would you suggest a socialist country do? Pull the rug out from the police and abolish the whole institute? What about domestic abuse? It would inherently hit the vunerable; thats why I called it 'idealism'
The metric im using is the one in which ACAB was born out of, as a response to the terror of american police, and largely in part due to the drug war.
That view ignores the history from which the police was born out of (not just a slogan). Police were bastards long before the US war on drugs in the 1970s. From their inception the police was a violent, mercenary group that did the bidding of the landed elite. The police crushed workers' protests in the 19th century, long before the war on drugs.
so a police force is needed to stop violent acts
No, it is not. A people's militia could do the same, or the army/national guard, citizen-soldiers, a people's army, whatever you want to label it.
ultimately they will just do whatever who is paying them tell them to do.
Precisely. So how can you
What would you suggest a socialist country do? Pull the rug out from the police and abolish the whole institute?
Sure. Police have been historically counter-revolutionary and if a capitalist wants to undermine your State they will first attempt to bribe the police. Because now they have an armed force that is present all over the country. Having the police in a socialist country is like having a snake in a kindergarten.
What about domestic abuse?
Wjhat about it? Do you think the police prevents domestic abuse? LMAO. To stop domestic abuse you have to remove conditions which enable it: patriarchal capitalist society and its culture of "household breadwinner". There's also drug and alcohol abuse. These are all problems that the police can't fix. Police can however make them worse. Also, police officers are some of the worst domestic abusers, so I really don't know what your point is.
Neighbours who hear domestic abuse can stop it. But that requires that people actually give a shit about one another and take responsibility for the place they live in, and not just call "the police" and wash their hands off it.
It would inherently hit the vunerable; thats why I called it ‘idealism’
No, the vulnerable are the victims of police violence. You are the one who want to believe the police can be a force for good. I'm saying that "the police" as in "people who's job is to police/control people and effectively rule the streets" are inherently negative and cannot be reformed, they have to be abolished.r
That view ignores the history from which the police was born out of (not just a slogan). Police were bastards long before the US war on drugs in the 1970s. From their inception the police was a violent, mercenary group that did the bidding of the landed elite. The police crushed workers’ protests in the 19th century, long before the war on drugs.
It doesnt ignore this, again we're focusing on the american conception of the police. Of course a state born out of slavery and genocide will continue to evolve its police based on its own ideological conception. Other countries dont have this same relationship; the chinese police where not born out of a slave state, they where born out of a socialist revolution.
No, it is not. A people’s militia could do the same, or the army/national guard, citizen-soldiers, a people’s army, whatever you want to label it.
That would ulimtiately just be a 'police', renaming it something different doesnt make it different.
Sure. Police have been historically counter-revolutionary
Where have socialist police ever been counter-revolutionary?
Wjhat about it? Do you think the police prevents domestic abuse? LMAO. To stop domestic abuse you have to remove conditions which enable it: patriarchal capitalist society and its culture of “household breadwinner”. There’s also drug and alcohol abuse. These are all problems that the police can’t fix. Police can however make them worse. Also, police officers are some of the worst domestic abusers, so I really don’t know what your point is.
Again, yes in a capitalist system they often make things worse. Im asking how you would deal with issues like domestic abuse in a hypothetical that we just deleted the police from existance, some form of sanctioned violence needs to be weilded in the function of a government, its idealist to think otherwise.
No, the vulnerable are the victims of police violence. You are the one who want to believe the police can be a force for good. I’m saying that “the police” as in “people who’s job is to police/control people and effectively rule the streets” are inherently negative and cannot be reformed, they have to be abolished
And replaced with what? Im fine considering your ideas, but you need to consider what comes after, otherwise a vaccum emerges and the people who rely on others to exist (the disabled, the vunerable) will be easy pickings for people with bad intentions.
we’re focusing on the american conception of the police
You are. Cops were present in 17th century Britain, they served the aristocracy, the landed elite and the rich. They were tasked to round up "vagrants", poor people, etc.
That would ulimtiately just be a ‘police’, renaming it something different doesnt make it different.
Nope. Because the difference is the scope of their powers and where they are recruited from. A "police offcer" shouldn't have any authority outside of their neighbourhood/village, for example.
Where have socialist police ever been counter-revolutionary?
Every socialist country where the revolution was crushedt: Yugoslavia, ~~Soviet Union~~, Burkina Faso, ... in each of those countries the police was instrumental in taking power away from the people and giving them to the capitalists/imperialists. There's a reason why historically the communists have allied with the army and not the police.
Im asking how you would deal with issues like domestic abuse in a hypothetical that we just deleted the police
Pretty sure I answered that. By having a society where people give a shit about one another. If a neighbour hears/sees domestic abuse going on, they should do something. The other solution is to remove the causes of domestic violence, like I already wrote.
And replaced with what?
A neighbourhood watch. The problem is the scope of powers. Have a police, but have the police officer only have authority inside of his neighbourhood or a demarcated, small area. Why should a cop have city-wide powers. Do we expect the police officer to be familiar with every neighbourhood and people in a city of 200-300k people? There's just no way. And that's part of the problem why the police behave the way they do, they are effectively ruling over strangers, and not people they have to see/meet every time they go to the grocery store.
A neighbourhood watch. The problem is the scope of powers. Have a police, but have the police officer only have authority inside of his neighbourhood or a demarcated, small area. Why should a cop have city-wide powers. Do we expect the police officer to be familiar with every neighbourhood and people in a city of 200-300k people? There’s just no way. And that’s part of the problem why the police behave the way they do, they are effectively ruling over strangers, and not people they have to see/meet every time they go to the grocery store.
So your solution is to have thousands of indiependant police cells in countries that have billions of people and expect it to just work out without any centralization of methodology or ideology and accountability to any central power? I can think of 100 ways this falls flat due to abuses of power....
Pretty sure I answered that. By having a society where people give a shit about one another. If a neighbour hears/sees domestic abuse going on, they should do something. The other solution is to remove the causes of domestic violence, like I already wrote.
Ah yes, lets just rely on our neighbours to violently de-escelate something, better hope your neighbour isnt a 70 year old women, il be moving into the bloc of MMA fighters and body builders to ensure my safety.
Every socialist country where the revolution was crushedt: Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Burkina Faso, … in each of those countries the police was instrumental in taking power away from the people and giving them to the capitalists/imperialists. There’s a reason why historically the communists have allied with the army and not the police.
The police in the USSR didnt crush the revolution, america did that economically, they also didnt act as houndogs for landlords.
I think we agree in parts though, the best way for a socialist country to get rid of cops is to eliminate all the conditions that require them, thats what i was getting at with 'contradictions leading to solutions', total abolishment is shock therapy.
So your solution is to have thousands of indiependant police cells in countries that have billions of people
Most countries aren't that big. China and India account for 3 billion people, leaving 5 billion people across some 190 countries or so. It's not "thousands of cells" and "billions of people" in countries. I said neighbourhood/village. You're assuming that there's "crime" going on every second in every square km of a country, that's simply not true. You don't need that many cops to be "patrolling" the streets. And what are they doing anyway? Looking for petty criminals and people who are circumventing tax laws and regulations mostly.
Ah yes, lets just rely on our neighbours to violently de-escelate something, better hope your neighbour isnt a 70 year old women, il be moving into the bloc of MMA fighters and body builders to ensure my safety.
The police doesn't "de-escalate", the police comes and beats people up and throws them in prison.
to ensure my safety.
Does the police ensure your safety right now, or will they come after the fact to "investigate"? That neighbour who calls the police for you could also have stopped whatever was happening. The police can't teleport themselves instantly.
total abolishment is shock therapy.
First thing any new socialist country should do is throw all the police into the prison, then politically educate and hire a new cadre.
Back in the 90's (no idea how that would be now), at Cuba. police was formed mostly by people doing its military service (which was, at the time, 3 years).
Many of my highschool friends worked as proximity police because of that.
So no, not all C AB.
Said that, I would say that there are a ton of material and social conditions to ensures that, at least in a capitalist country, the role is fullfilled by Bs.
It's a question of what is meant by "bastard". Does it just mean someone interpersonaly shitty or is it being used as a shorthand for a more specific political characteristic? In a capitalist society any cop is a class enemy by definition and therefore a bastard in the political usage of the word regardless of their individual character. Under socialism I would expect the role to still attract aggressive unpleasant people for the reasons you list but they wouldn't be betraying us for our bosses just by putting the uniform on.
but they wouldn’t be betraying us for our bosses just by putting the uniform on.
In a perfect world, sure. But the problem still remains of giving certain people authority over all others. I wrote in another comment that the problem is the scope of their power/authority. Why can't we have neighbourhood police whose only job is to police the neighbourhood/village/small area? Why does the police have to have country-wide powers?
Why can't we have neighbourhood police whose only job is to police the neighbourhood/village/small area?
That's most police in the U.S., if you include cities.
You could. I agree that it would be a good idea.
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest