• save_vs_death [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I know it sounds dumb, but the essence of it is anti-cop. You can’t abolish the police and then create socialist cops, they’re same thing, you essentially changed nothing, it’s there to demonstrate that some instruments of state power cannot be reformed, no matter what political system is in charge.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        3 months ago

        but the essence of it is anti-cop

        No shit, but it misses that laws are not all the same, nor are the varying degrees of responsibility that you can hold law enforcement to (e.g. qualified immunity vs actual accountability). It’s just crass idealism and George Orwell-style “left”-anticommunism in practice. There’s nothing good you can glean from the quote except “bad things are bad”, it gives you no real understanding of why bad things happen, how they can be prevented, what they would be replaced with, etc.

        • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          also, the richest man on Earth should be beaten with the people’s stick.

          If you really believe Elon Musk is anti-cop in any way I got a bridge to sell you.

      • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        socialist cops are necessary until imperialism is no longer a threat I’m sorry to say. Proletarian defense forces protecting collective property is a fundamentally different thing than bourgeois agents defending private property. The conflation is fake. Even under pure final communism there will be armed bodies of people protecting the community from sabotage and anti-social behavior

        • save_vs_death [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          I appreciate your reply, but I don’t quite understand it. I fundamentally agree that protection of collective property is completely different from what cops do. And I’m sure we’ll both agree that when it comes to personal property and assorted antisocial behaviour we’d both think what’s most needed is something much closer to a social worker than someone who’s strapped. I agree the conflation is fake, because one are cops, and the others are not cops, because this kind of policing would be abolished.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            ·
            3 months ago

            Disarming the cops is a good idea once you’ve got some sort of stability going post-revolution. It disables a possible vector of counter-revolution.

            It’s not complicated to have firearms specialists who are called out to events where they’re needed while the general cops simply do not have weapons. This is common practice in a lot of countries.

            • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              It disables a possible vector of counter-revolution.

              Post-revolution the “cops” are your primary agents of suppressing counter-revolution. Disarming them will allow counter-revolutionaries to run rampant unchecked. Do you think the Venezuelan cops that arrested the mercenaries that invaded their country need to be disarmed? I think they need more weaponry tbh.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                25
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                The teams you send to deal with counter-revolutionaries are not the same people you send to deal with the kid shoplifting.

                I don’t understand why this is complicated. You have regular cops that are unarmed, then you have a specialist team with elevated training requirements. This team is sent to events where someone is said to be armed, otherwise the regular cops are sent.

                Every cop does not need a gun at all times. And every cop will not get shot just because they’re unarmed. The calculation for a criminal completely changes when the other person doesn’t have the means to fight back, having a weapon makes the cop and everyone around them less safe. It is significantly more preferable for the criminal to run away and for a team to get them later than for the badly trained cop to have a weapon causing the criminal to feel threatened and calculate they need to kill someone. They aren’t gonna add murder to their records unless they feel they have to, that’s what armed cops cause.

                Calculation for kid shoplifting when confronted with an unarmed cop: I need to run away.

                Calculation for kid shoplifting when confronted with an armed cop: I am going to die and I need to fight to survive.

                • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  17
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  OK but you’re just arguing specifics of how we are setting up the Proletarian Cop System, where there’s tiers with various levels of armaments. Fundamentally you agree that there ultimately will be a Proletarian Cop System.

                  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Sure but, 95% of them don’t need to be armed. You just have each station have a specific armed team with elevated training requirements.

                    A lot of the rest of the problems sort themselves out by not having armed cops. Criminals have totally different calculations about their own crimes, no need to add a murder to the rap sheet if there’s no danger of losing their life committing a property crime.

              • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                China still has armed bodies of men enforcing the state monopoly on violence. They still have cops, and that’s fine and necessary. So does DPRK and Cuba.

            • save_vs_death [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Indeed, which is why China has such a great track record w.r.t. deaths by cop as another poster in this thread pointed out, having disarmed cops (withing a wider disarmed society).

              • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                3 months ago

                Fundamentally China still has cops though. They still have some that are armed too. So at the end of the day, it comes back around to proletarian cops being necessary

                • save_vs_death [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The People’s Police is unarmed.

                  The People’s Armed Police is their version of the National Guard. It sprung out of the PLA and answers to the Military Comission and nobody else, unlike the civilian police. Nobody in this tread, or for that matter on this website is arguing that a socialist military should be armed with foam swords.

                  The fact you’re conflating the two just to be able to say “some chinese cops have guns” makes you look like you’re grasping at straws.

                  • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    The People’s Armed Police are Proletarian Cops.

                    You’re just playing word games, whether the prole cops are under the jurisdiction of the military or the civil government doesn’t change the fundamental relationship and role. Socialist revolutions will have armed bodies of people enforcing state monopoly on violence, and that’s fine and necessary. I’m not going to play along with the anarchist word games where we have cops but don’t call them cops (to idk, make ourselves feel better?). it’s flimsy and easy to see through.

          • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            The communist “not cops” are going to be strapped because guns are everywhere and reactionaries have them. Sorry to burst your bubble yet again.

              • QueerCommie [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                26
                ·
                3 months ago

                Just because socialist police will exist doesn’t mean they will do what capitalist police do. Note: China has a ton of socialist cops and they’ve killed 19 people ever in the whole people’s republic’s history, mostly violent criminals.

                • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  While China’s rate of death to law enforcement is really good, you’re wrong. 19 is just the number of boxes on the Wikipedia page (which doesn’t even have any deaths for the first 57 years of the PRC’s existance). In one event alone at least 28 people were killed by police. That event is also mentioned on the Wikipedia page, albeit with a dead link to a terrible website as the source.

                  (Totaling up the deaths on the Wikipedia page gives me 72 killed by Chinese LEO since 2006, but they cite RFA so take it with a grain of salt)

                • save_vs_death [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I wholeheartedly agree with you. I appreciate that the US is a special case w.r.t. the proliferation of guns, and you can’t hocus the guns out of socialist cops and expect great results if wider society is still armed.

                  That being said, I think China is such a great example precisely because it’s one of very few countries that have disarmed police (within a wider disarmed society) an obviously humane policy with a great effect.

                  • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Nobody here is arguing that having your beat cops not armed to teeth is a bad idea, this conversation started with a comment stating that Bakunin’s quote is a good sentiment and that we don’t want proletarian cops. We do need proletarian cops and that’s a brute fact, their various specifics of tiered armaments is not the subject of discussion - their very existence is.

                    Bakunin thinks there should be no people’s stick. This is deluded. We must wield the people’s stick to suppress the bourgeoisie out of existence.

                    Bakunin wants no proletarian cops whatsoever right, no armed bodies of men enforcing state violence? That’s a bad, idealist sentiment and not a realistic or revolutionary one. Such bodies will exist and must exist. It does us no favors to play word games to pretend we have abolished police when we haven’t and sets people up for disillusionment when the revolution doesn’t instantly create anarcho-communism without any legal enforcers.

              • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I’d send people with handguns to stop active shooters, stop saboteurs, stop criminal gangs, suppress reactionaries, break up cults, protect production lines, etc. yes.

                Where did I say cops should do wellness checks? Complete leap.