Well, at the moment there is a riot taking place in a prison in Rutland, and if you look at this report the spokesman from the prison officers association is criticising the high number of people in prisons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7994616.stm
It's easy to judge the ignorance. I don't believe in good and evil, I believe in different kinds of stupid and smart. There's smart people who're generally enlightened and have instant and easy empathy, there's stupid people who think they're the ONE the world revolves around - the kind of person who thinks animals were designed to be in their stomache or wrapped around them to keep them warm. The fact is, too many people are too stupid in today's world to look after themselves in a society without a 'big brother' figure to punch us up and lock us in the toy box when we're behaving like morons. I think as an anarchist you have to believe that people will mentally and socially evolve fast enough to create a peaceful world. But when we're trying to evolve to better people, we like to be comfurtable - and to be comfurtable we have to work hard and be uncomfurtable and end up entirely distracted and teaching our kids that they should grow up to be very well distracted too. The whole idea of an anarchist society with laws is frankly fcking stupid, it defies anarchism. Laws don't just drop out of the sky, they're laid down by the (supposedly) more intelligent people of society and enforced by others, thus meaning that you have a hierarchy and no longer are in anarchy.
Without a police force, people make mistakes alot quicker and do alot less damage. I grew
up not in opposition to the police but utterly ignorant of their existence, I had alot of experiences as a kid most people do as adults because I wasn't scared of anyone punishing me for them and I was instantly more mature and more understanding than anyone I knew at that age. The fact is, these things people end up doing as adults, while it seems really terrible are things healthy kids with very liberal parents experience very young in their own way and grow past it before they turn 6.
I think it takes believing that authority should only be used in the moment to protect someone, pulling the hand away from the flame. Not pulling the hand away from the flame and locking the kid in a cell. My mother used to say "let them do it while they're young and they'll grow out of it." and if you don't let them do it while they're young, they'll do it when they're older and it'll be considered disgusting and obscene.
I personally believe people can police themselves when given the right opportunities. Once a group of natural leading people get a good sense of intelligence and fairness society will follow.
But I'm new to anarchism in the sense of intelligent conversation, I'm fresh out of the "we should go back to the primitive, but take all of our secular knowledtge" ideals. lol
there's stupid people who think they're the ONE the world revolves around - the kind of person who thinks animals were designed to be in their stomache or wrapped around them to keep them warm.
Lets not get into this here, but animal rights and anarchy do not have as clear a connection as you think, actually they aren't related at all really.(in case it matters this is coming from a vegan) Here is a thread regarding that you might want to look at.
The fact is, too many people are too stupid in today's world to look after themselves in a society without a 'big brother' figure to punch us up and lock us in the toy box when we're behaving like morons.
annotation, I think that this is a really misguided statement here. It sounds like something that would come straight from the mouthpiece of the ruling classes. Most crime today is driven by a lack of resources and the hierarchical structures fighting against people not people being "too stupid". Hopefully, most of these types of crimes wouldn't be necessary in an anarchist society where people would contribute and receive enough to live on, diminishing the need for "crimes" that require doing an activity to provide for one's self or family.
There always have been and probably always will be sociopaths that rape and murder and these are crimes, I would imagine, not even a more understanding anarchist society can correct, this is the question we are trying to answer here is how to deal with these types of situations not matters of robbery etc.
My mother used to say "let them do it while they're young and they'll grow out of it." and if you don't let them do it while they're young, they'll do it when they're older and it'll be considered disgusting and obscene.
I think this assumes that most people actually want to commit crimes and I would have to totally disagree this is not the case here. I don't know many people who want to rob or drug deal just to get it out of their system.
Anyways I guess my point is: You seem to be concentrating on crimes of theft, drug dealing etc, which would probably not be a huge issue in an anarchist society, because people would not be driven to do these things due to resource distribution. However, sociopaths like rapists, pedophiles etc. are the issue here, these are crimes that just come from really fucked minds that probably can not be "fixed" with understanding from the community.
Humanity does not have an innate natural tendency toward anarchism and you cannot socially engineer away all of humanities negative tendencies. People don;t commit rape because they are ''stupid'' you cannot simply rationalise away sadism, negative desires or a pschological disorder.
In the same way people will still commit anti-social behavour. Why some anarchists think they won;t is beyond me, one can only assume they lead very boring lives. Afterall i can think of quite a few times on a night out where i've been pretty anti-social and a couple of times where if i'd had to spend a night in the cells, I wouldn;t really have had too much to complain about afterwards.
Most people speed or park on double yellow lines and so on, sure people might be a bit less anti-social in a society which they felt they owned more of a stake in, but the idea that somehow people will all turn into nice polite individuals who never go above 30 and always mind their p's and q's doesn;t seem like anarchism to me, it just seems to be some sort of weird 50's tv show.
Laws don't just drop out of the sky, they're laid down by the (supposedly) more intelligent people of society and enforced by others, thus meaning that you have a hierarchy and no longer are in anarchy.
If you followed this logic through to its conclusion, then in an anarchist society you wouldn;t have health and safety rules in a workplace because this would be constructed by experienced staff who knew more about the job and thus would be considred ''hierarchical''.
This quite clearly is just completely ridiculous and demonstrates quite apty that an anarchist society, like any other society, definitely needs laws and rules.
I agree with anon above about the necessity for the development of consciousness up to and within a revolutionary society.
I tend to agree with a lot of what Barry K said.
Contrary to ajohnstone, the police are not "only a reflection of a society of 'pigs'" but they are a reflection, a very material reflection of capitalism, to be more specific, its ever-growing repressive wing. To see the police 'just like other workers', is to underestimate their repressive role for the state, at every level, in the here and now.
Armies are constructions of the capitalist state and represent the interests of their particular imperialism, which can include repression of the working class. But the history of the workers' movement tells us that the role of armies and navies (the bourgeoisie are much more careful about the air force) has been significant: it was the sailors of the German navy that ended WWI (within a much greater force); mutinies in all the belligerent countries; the role of sailors and soldiers in the German revolution. The possibility of a conscious class link exists because most soldiers, etc., come from the working class, conscription or not and are there to serve as cannon fodder in a way the police are not.
During the 84 miners' strike, many soldiers (not conscipted) were arrested on the picket lines and that persuaded the bourgeoisie to rule out using troops against the strikers.
Any police that want to defect to the workers' ranks would be welcome - with all due diligence - but the army, not as a bourgeois army but part of a general struggle, is an absolute necessity.
I spose I'd say that sociopaths ought to be restrained in what would better be described as a secure hospital rather than a prison.
they ought to be kept secure to protect the public, protect themselves from the lynch mob, and also to help them if they can be helped.
the article on the community police in mexico is enlightening.
Just a couple more observations on the police and the military:
Regarding the police, it's not a personal question but a question of which class they have to support. Personally, I've met some friendly coppers and some helpful ones in my time. I remember hearing of police who have resigned because of what they are expected to do. They can also be courageous and humanitarian. I remember the scarcely reported WPC resolutely contradicting official police evidence in court in the mid-70s fit up of the Birmingham Six. She was subsequently destroyed both personally and professionally by the courts and the force. Another example is the young PC at Hillsborough in 79 who wrote in his report words to the effect that he and a colleague slumped down with their heads in their hand crying, helpless as fans tried to rescue the injured. The senior officers who vetted and rewrote their statements (as they still do) marked on his, 'shows they were organised and we were not - has to be changed'. I don't suppose he lasted very long in the police. These small examples are important expressions of a common humanity, which is why they don't sit well in the police force as an organisation of the state represssion.
The police force are generally cossetted, isolated and very well paid without much risk (much less than a off-shore oil worker for example). They are extremely well equipt. As someone says above, the "canteen culture" is an anti-working class culture.
The army on the other hand is expendable cannon fodder with stronger links with to the working class. In the historical examples above I forgot to mention the role of the armed forces in Russia - absolutely decisive for the revolution with their role in the councils, demonstrations and so on. The uprisings and desertions of soldiers in Italy during and after WWI is also worthy of a mention. Another example of soldiers excercising their weight against imperialist war was the fragmentation bombing of officers tents by GIs during the Vietnam War. It was difficult to get hold of numbers but the deaths and injuries were rising and sufficient to alarm the Pentagon. There were also the growing demonstrations of soldiers coming home.
Desertions by the army, struggles against officers, taking part in mass actions and elected councils is part of the proletarian struggle that soldiers and sailors have taken part in , and will have to take part in.
I think that's a very important point actually - the difference between essentially individualist acts by police officers (and soldiers fragging their officers in Vietnam) and the collective action of army units and ships' crews electing strike committees, mutinying, sending truck-loads of armed sailors into Berlin and Petrograd in support of the revolution, etc.
I'm certainly not denying that there are humane coppers who go into it 'for the right reasons' (ie, because they think they can 'help people'), but there isn't much perspective for collective resistance in the police force.
On the other hand (I'm not a very good anarchist, some would say not really an anarchist at all, my own position on this is closer to the SPGB's as outlined by ajjohnstone), I've argued that Anarchists should support the police when they take what is in the UK at least illegal strike action and go up against the government in defence of their pay and conditions.
I was castigated on another forum for suggesting that Anarchists shouldn't go to police demos, to throw rocks at them and point out that their demonstration was illegal; and that instead of just doing what the police do in revenge, to 'let them know what it feels like', it might be better to actually support them.
I might make an exception if they were demanding machine guns and hand grenades to deal with G20 protestors, but while it's pay, overtime and that kind of thing, I'd say we should demonstrate in "solidarity", or at least, something approaching it. Frankly, come the day, I want as many police as possible going "well, you know, those anarchos supported us when we were protesting about government policy, maybe I shouldn't smash them over the head or chuck tear gas at them."
might be better to actually support them.I might make an exception if they were demanding machine guns and hand grenades to deal with G20 protestors, but while it's pay, overtime and that kind of thing, I'd say we should demonstrate in "solidarity", or at least, something approaching it. Frankly, come the day, I want as many police as possible going "well, you know, those anarchos supported us when we were protesting about government policy, maybe I shouldn't smash them over the head or chuck tear gas at them."
To what end? The ones that sympathise with us would most likely leave the police force, since they wouldn't be able to carry out their duties, and ultimately on the whole, we'd be supporting their desire to earn more money whilst giving us a kicking.
Come that day, the lines will be drawn very clearly, and they'll have to choose sides. There's no danger of that at the minute.
Really, to what end? Or is it a rhetorical question?
The 'end' is that I want as many coppers as possible questioning their training and the indoctrination they receive, because I believe that will mean things will go better for the rest of us. Sure there will be rabid thugs in uniform who want to give us a good kicking. I want as many of their less rabid and thuggish colleagues as possible going "hang on, is that right?" rather than "yeah, fuck 'em, they're all anarcho scum, let's get 'em".
Disorientation seems to me to be a better tactic than revenge-based violence at the moment. Do you disagree (not a rhetorical question)?
Agree that disorientation is better than revenge but don't agree with Sloth that we should support 'struggles' by the police because it does amount to supporting improved conditions for carrying out their repressive functions. Real workers' struggles are the means to disorient the more honest members of the police force and lead them to breaking from the police.
One way of putting this simply: we can imagine soldiers' councils in a revolution, but police councils?
One way of putting this simply: we can imagine soldiers' councils in a revolution, but police councils?
Weren't there a whole lot of police involved in the german revolution at on all sorts of levels, including Berlin Chief of Police and USPD member Emil Eichhorn whose dismissal was one of the main sparks for the uprising in January 1919. I'm no scholar on the events but I'd be suprised given the situation in germany and the nature of german socialist traditions at the time if they didn;t have ''police councils'' of some description, given that at that point in some places the councils had taken over distribution of food and disarming and rehabilitation of returning soldiers and the state had briefly caved in to the extent that there was a complete power vaccum in a lot of areas.
Not that I think Germany or Russia in 1918 offer us a definitive insight into Britain in 2009 obviously, but it'd be interesing to know, can you think of any any decent sources on eichorn and/or berlin at the time? Google seems to reveal very little other than wikipedia and a few lefty articles that mention it in passing. It'd be interesting to know to what extent the berlin ''workers police force'' was reformed
While agreeing with Cant that we can't transpose conditions from 1918 to now, we can reinforce the political lessons. There was a senior police chief on the side of the workers in Germany and many police must have been involved - it would be interesting to learn more about this. But to project from this police councils is a step too far. Police councils, councils for police in a revolution? Why? Not only are police isolated in their own councils that will inevitabley grow to represent their own distinct interests, it is an attempt, de facto, to undermine the sovreignty of the workers' councils. It was the weaknesses of the latter in Germany that contributed to the defeat of the German revolution.
On the TSG: the Met has just settled 60 grand plus costs in the Babar Ahmad case - he had the shit beaten out of him by about 5 of them and all refused to speak.
I think that they must have been involved in that shooting in London of two innocent "terrorists", and the child pornography that was probably planted on their computor.
Going on from a point Back2 made: He talks about the spread of information being a good thing and I totally agree. G20 is an example of the real nature of the state, but the latter is relentless in its propaganda. But examples, even bad examples can have a positive role. I don't agree its through "popular culture", but rather class consciousness that the working class confronts this attack.
I have no doubt that connections are being made. I was taken by events at Anfield yesterday. I bet there were connections made in that crowd and beyond on the role of the police. The indignation with the government minister as a clear representative of the state was expressive of an anger that demands solidarity itself.
The mention of the 1918 German Revolution reminded me of how the Kiel Sailors Soldiers Council demonstrated its political maturity when Noske , the future butcher of the Spartacists, became the head of that council . It is not for some months that he is eventually sidelined .
Meantime Noske is involved in the creation of the Eiserne Garde (Iron Guard) , A Friekorp-type unit that is later deployed to put down the Bremen Council Republic.
This article in the current International Review deals with the Eichorn affair: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/2009/136/german-revolution-1919. The article cites various sources in its footnotes but I think a lot of them are in German.
"With its back to the wall, the ruling class drew lessons from these first skirmishes with remarkable lucidity. It realised that the direct and massive targeting of symbols and identified figures of the revolution - Spartakus, the leadership of the workers' councils or the sailors' division - could prove to be counter-productive, provoking the solidarity of the whole working class. Better to attack minor figures, who would win the support of only part of the class, thus possibly dividing the workers in the capital, and isolating them from the rest of the country. Such a figure was Emil Eichhorn, who belonged to the left wing of the USPD. A quirk of fate, one of the paradoxes which every great revolution produces, had made this man the president of the Berlin police. In this function, he had begun to distribute arms to workers militias. As such, he was a provocation for the ruling class. Targeting him would help to galvanise the forces of the counter-revolution, still reeling from their first reverses. At the same time, the defence of a chief of police was an ambiguous cause for the mobilisation of the revolutionary forces!"
(1919) "The Winnipeg police, for example, had voted in favour of striking but remained on duty at the request of the strike committee to prevent the city from being placed under martial law."
Really, to what end? Or is it a rhetorical question?The 'end' is that I want as many coppers as possible questioning their training and the indoctrination they receive, because I believe that will mean things will go better for the rest of us. Sure there will be rabid thugs in uniform who want to give us a good kicking. I want as many of their less rabid and thuggish colleagues as possible going "hang on, is that right?" rather than "yeah, fuck 'em, they're all anarcho scum, let's get 'em".
Disorientation seems to me to be a better tactic than revenge-based violence at the moment. Do you disagree (not a rhetorical question)?
And yet, as I've pointed out, you're going to get many coppers quitting, whilst the ones remaining will be supported to kick our heads in, only for more money. This isn't gonna lead to sympathising at demos, or turning x amount of police into anarchos realistically, is it?
The only time I can ever see this being useful, as I said, is when the class lines are clearly drawn. Otherwise, it's as effective as shouting "shame on you" at riot lines.
And yet, as I've pointed out, you're going to get many coppers quitting, whilst the ones remaining will be supported to kick our heads in, only for more money...
Yeah, quitting works for me. If one of the things that persuades them to quit is seeing that anarchists aren't all arseholes, while a lot of their colleagues are, then that's good, right?
Another thing is, of course, that 20 Anarchos holding placards near a police demo isn't likely to bring the government to its knees. The action would not in that sense be "for" more pay for the police, merely to give police who may be in future more sympathetic something to think about.
... This isn't gonna lead to sympathising at demos, or turning x amount of police into anarchos realistically, is it?
Dunno. It seems more likely to produce sympathetic police than going to their demos in an attempt to throw rocks at them and call them scum, which is what I was arguing against.
You're right it's unlikely to make many of them have a political epiphany and realise that Anarchist-Communism (or whatever else) is the most sensible way forward for humanity. It might make some of them less touchy at demos, and as the situation escalates, it might make some of them more likely to take individual actions of resistance or refusal. Frankly if 10 fewer people are beaten up by coppers, or one less person 'falls down the stairs while trying to escape in handcuffs' I think that's a good thing.
...The only time I can ever see this being useful, as I said, is when the class lines are clearly drawn. Otherwise, it's as effective as shouting "shame on you" at riot lines.
By 'the class lines are clearly drawn' do you mean clear to us (they're pretty clear now, I would argue), or clear to them (class struggle is unlikely to feature high in the course content at police training college, I feel)? I'd rather try to undermine the mindset of the police sooner rather than later. I think if we haven't managed to 'neutralise' (politically, not by putting them in hospital) significant sections of the police and armed forces before a revolutionary situation develops, we're all going to die, quite honestly.
I really don't mind if you think that the tactic is not worth pursuing, that it's a waste of effort. I'm not going to fetishise it or go of in a huff if no-one (except the SPGB, maybe) agrees with me. It was originally posited in a context where the effort of making placards and going to the demo had already been proposed; I merely suggested a different tactic for the demo, one I thought was more likley to produce positive (for us) results. In short, supporting their illegal challenge to the government over pay and conditions seemed to me to be a better idea than throwing rocks at them.
BTW, I liked "shame on you". Who knows? Maybe some of them were ashamed of what they were doing. Maybe some of them saw the news reports later and thought, hang on, I know that what we did was bad, but the way the press was spinning it makes it look like the demonstators were all rioting, and I know that wasn't what was happening, maybe the newspapers aren't as unbiased as I thought...
However; having said I supported ajjohnstone's and the SPGB's point, I have to say that calling the Kiel Soviet over Noske is a bit rich coming from an organisation that believes the revolution can be delivered by parliamentary democracy, which has given us Churchill, Hitler, Blair, Bush, Thatcher, Clinton, Chirac, Mitterand, Reagan, the other Bush, Nixon, Kennedy etc etc. For every error that a workers' council has made, bourgeois democracy has produced ten thousand times those errors.
EDITTED to remove uncomradely sarcasm at the expense of the SPGB.
This all sounds a bit idealist to me, to be honest.
Many coppers are aware anarchists are normal human beings, that doesn't affect how hard their batons go down. I am not going to support these animals to bolster the rapport between us, whilst they strike to get pay conditions. Because surely, whilst no one would be under the illusion we'd be bringing the "government to its knees", we'd be advocating what those striking coppers want. Ridiculous.
If the police aren't up to the task of public order, they will be replaced, simple as. We've seen it all before, whether it is sympathetic soldiers or coppers; they are removed and replaced, by those who haven't the same concern with following their orders.
By class lines, I of course mean to them (if it was to us, would be a bit queer me being an anarchist and all, eh?). Didn't realise you would have to go police school to work out if society is in a state of revolutionary thinking! History has shown, those in the state's forces are likely capitulate on the eve of action; Paris Commune started with the army refusing to seize cannons from the National Guard.
Yeah, I'm sure there was many coppers crying themselves to sleep, how awful it was to be battering defenceless people, on such a unequal level. It is charming you think them so humanist.
Uncomradely sarcasm from you? Surely not.
This all sounds a bit idealist to me, to be honest...
And there I was thinking it was in continuity with a materialist analysis of class forces and how we could neutralise sectors of the repressive apparatus by attacking the propaganda they're fed. Is throwing rocks at them less 'idealist'?
...Many coppers are aware anarchists are normal human beings, that doesn't affect how hard their batons go down...
1 - I never said 'many', I think I said 'some'.
2 - I disagree about how hard the batons go down. As I said, if one less person dies in police custody, I think that's a good thing.
... I am not going to support these animals to bolster the rapport between us, whilst they strike to get pay conditions. Because surely, whilst no one would be under the illusion we'd be bringing the "government to its knees", we'd be advocating what those striking coppers want. Ridiculous...
It's not about bolstering the rapport, it's about disorientating the members of the police. And it's just posturing to refer to the police as animals. Some are brutal thugs. Some are cynical bastards. Some are just well-meaning but quite dim. They don't usually last long like that though; either they leave the police, or they turn into one of the two. I'd rather they left.
Now, I'm not sure whether you're actually advocating throwing rocks and demonstrating against striking coppers, or whether you think it's better to just ignore them, so I'm not going to try and put words in your mouth, but obviously I think that turning naive coppers into brutal coppers is a bad thing.
...If the police aren't up to the task of public order, they will be replaced, simple as. We've seen it all before, whether it is sympathetic soldiers or coppers; they are removed and replaced, by those who haven't the same concern with following their orders...
If they'll just be replaced, then it makes no difference what if anything we do. However, I don't believe there's an infinite capacity of brutal thugs willing to do the states's bidding. There's a lot of them, sure, but that to me means it's imperative we have a strategy for neutralising them, and, yet again, I have to stress that I don't regard 'the rock' as the perfect ideological weapon against the modern police force.
...By class lines, I of course mean to them (if it was to us, would be a bit queer me being an anarchist and all, eh?). Didn't realise you would have to go police school to work out if society is in a state of revolutionary thinking! ...
Well, if you think that it's important that the police are disorientated, which is what you seem to be arguing, then, all I'm asking is how do you think that will happen? Will they some to some idea of class consciousness or even just basic conscience if we chuck rocks at them? I'd say it's not likely, in fact we would likely confirm the ideology that is drummed into them. If we ignore them? I'd say it's possible, but not likely.
...History has shown, those in the state's forces are likely capitulate on the eve of action; Paris Commune started with the army refusing to seize cannons from the National Guard...
And did they come to this decision after the youth of Paris pelted them with rocks? No. Did they come to this decision under the inflence of both the proaganda and the deeds of the revolutionary Parisian proletariat? I'm pretty sure that was the key.
You seem to have quite a mechanistic view of the development of the revolutionary situation. It doesn't just assume its own course regardless of what individual human actors do. If we all just chose to stay home on "the day the class lines are drawn" then the Revolution wouldn't go about happening without us, on one side of a line drawn by History, that the coppers are standing on the other side of.
However, the army and the police really are different kettles of fish. The proof of this is that no-one would seriously set themselves against the idea of directing propaganda towards the army, would they? Obviously I wouldn't (but then, I'm an 'idealist', so who can explain my mad motivations, eh?) but I doubt many others on Libcom would have much of a problem with it either. Obviously, the issue of the police is far more contentious, precisely because their roles are very different.
...Yeah, I'm sure there was many coppers crying themselves to sleep, how awful it was to be battering defenceless people, on such a unequal level. It is charming you think them so humanist...
And it's shocking that you think that every copper is a piece of human sewage. It's an over-generalisation; not that I think there are no brutal thugs in the police force, of course there are. But you seem to think there are no coppers who can be forced to question what they're doing at all.
It's incoherent to believe that layers of the state's repressive apparatus are going to magically peel themselves away from their own ideology, while at the same time believing that these layers are merely the brutalised and brutalising animals without conscience that you've been describing. That's idealism.
Uncomradely sarcasm from you? Surely not.
So; I get sarcastic comments, because I tried to avoid sarcasm, while attacking someone that you disagree with? You really do know how to win friends and influence people don't you?
/sarcasm
It is if you think the singular acts of not throwing rocks is going to overturn their anti-class analysis they've been fed at home and at work. You don't half bang on about rocks, are you a petrologist?
Regardless of what you said, I think the majority of coppers are aware that we are no less human beings than they are. That doesn't change the fact they're happy to do their job quite obviously.
Anyone that is willing to follow an order without question, in my eyes, is an animal. For that's what seperates us, isn't it? The ability to think.
As to what action I'd take against striking coppers, that's irrelevant. What I wouldn't do is support them in any sort of way.
You hark on about materialism, yet that never seems to occur in your thinking; take the Miners' strike. The sympathetic plod from the nearby villages wouldn't lay a finger, whilst the unsympathetic ones could be targetted and given reprisals by the community. When they weren't policing the miners very well, they brought in police from London. Those few months were far more radicalising than any propaganda we could produce, yet the police didn't waver. This is the realism of the situation.
Class struggle starts at your home and your workplace. Eventually, the revolutionary consciousness will be strong enough that the state will start to act en masse. It is then a question of whose allegiance the coppers and soldiers lie with; the mass body they claim to serve, or the state which I'm sure they don't believe they're a puppet of. Aye, this is a real simplification of things, but that's how it's likely to end. Showing solidarity with coppers when they strike isn't going to dramatically alter things.
And yet, we're not at the eve of action.
I have a realistic view of the development of the revolutionary situation. Whispering sweet anarcho nothings in to coppers' ears at demos isn't going to change the fact that we're diametrically opposed.
You're right, the army and the police are different kettles of fish. The former would be necessary from a pragmatic perspective, requiring men of arms and their training, with their outlook completely differing from the police; they believe they are protecting the populace from outward threats. Such is the case they've been deployed against workers on these shores seldom. The latter sees all of us as a threat given the right circumstances; G20 gave an insight in to their opinion of people demostrating. But then no one is arguing they are one of the same.
I'm still waiting for this anarchist alternative to prisons and a smaller police force and simplified legal system. I mean seriously step out of the anarchist ghetto for a minute. Imagine we're sitting in a pub and i'm an average punter; i'm 40 i've got two kids, i hate paedos, i hate the kids who smashed my cars wing mirror a few weeks back and i worry about my teenage daughter walking home late at night. I've just told you this no prisons idea sounds like complete shite because of rapists and nonces, so whats this supposed ''anarchist alternative'' your going to offer me?
I'm neither here nor there on supporting police strikes, theoretically you can;t really support them, in the same way you can't theoretically support a strike by the army for higher pay because both are just asking to be paid more to do the same repressive activities. However, if some radical group or other turned up and gave them a few leaflets or did an interview with one of their strike comittee or whatever i'd hardly see that as being a big deal or necessarily a negative thing, its not like i'd go around denouncing said group for betraying anarchist principles or something. Afterall one would assume any radical group would approach things with a little more subtlety that ''up the coppers'' or ''more money for our brave boys in afghanistan''.
Anyone that is willing to follow an order without question, in my eyes, is an animal
This is just rhetoric, it doesn;t really offer us much insight when applied to jobs, because most people do jobs to pay the rent not because they necesarily agree with x y or z.
This article in the current International Review deals with the Eichorn affair: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/2009/136/german-revolution-1919. The article cites various sources in its footnotes but I think a lot of them are in German.
Cheers i'l see if can dig some of the sources out. Always interested me, since most commentary i've ever read on the subject before seems to be somewhat vague as to whether the ''workers police force'' was the old police force reformed in some ways or more of an entirely new organ set up by revolutionaries or some sort of half way house between the two.
This is just rhetoric, it doesn;t really offer us much insight when applied to jobs, because most people do jobs to pay the rent not because they necesarily agree with x y or z.
Without question, is it? The like you'd be doing in the police force say? Don't think so, sunshine.
And I've given my preference rather than prisons; I don't believe there's going to be a great deal of criminal activity left in post revolutionary society that isn't sociopathic. So these people should be housed in a mental hospital facility. The anarchist alternative is going to be rehabilitation, not retribution. I'm sure it doesn't appeal to a bloodluster like yourself, but that's the only way crime will ever decrease.
It is if you think the singular acts of not throwing rocks is going to overturn their anti-class analysis they've been fed at home and at work. You don't half bang on about rocks, are you a petrologist?
No, I'm not. Nor do I think 'not throwing rocks' will overturn their anti-class analysis. I think that throwing rocks will confirm all the propaganda they receive that anarchos are violent trouble-makers that need to be stopped.
You bang on about animals a lot, are you a vet?
Regardless of what you said, I think the majority of coppers are aware that we are no less human beings than they are. That doesn't change the fact they're happy to do their job quite obviously....
I think that they know that we're human too. However, I also think that we define human differently. In the same way you describe them as 'animals', they describe us as 'animals'. So, we're as human as you make them, ie, not.
Anyone that is willing to follow an order without question, in my eyes, is an animal. For that's what seperates us, isn't it? The ability to think...
You'd think so, wouldn't you? And yet, you persist in calling them animals... they have the ability to think, to reason, to criticise; and yet, they don't use it, which for you seems to be what really makes them animals... not people who can be persuaded differently.
As to what action I'd take against striking coppers, that's irrelevant. What I wouldn't do is support them in any sort of way...
No, it's really not irrelevant. Fine, you wouldn't support them, even 'critically'. I get it. Would you advocate busting up their demos? Or ignoring them? The whole point of me bringing it up was to find out precisely what people's ideas were about what action to take about striking coppers.
You hark on about materialism, yet that never seems to occur in your thinking; take the Miners' strike. The sympathetic plod from the nearby villages wouldn't lay a finger, whilst the unsympathetic ones could be targetted and given reprisals by the community. When they weren't policing the miners very well, they brought in police from London. Those few months were far more radicalising than any propaganda we could produce, yet the police didn't waver. This is the realism of the situation...
So, the police wouldn't lift a finger, but they didn't waver? Not sure I get you old son. What you seem to be arguing there is that some police ('animals') can think for themselves; and that not all police have the same reactions; and that some are open to being politically neutralised, which is what I said several posts ago.
Class struggle starts at your home and your workplace. Eventually, the revolutionary consciousness will be strong enough that the state will start to act en masse. It is then a question of whose allegiance the coppers and soldiers lie with; the mass body they claim to serve, or the state which I'm sure they don't believe they're a puppet of. Aye, this is a real simplification of things, but that's how it's likely to end. Showing solidarity with coppers when they strike isn't going to dramatically alter things...
I agree that, should anarchos have shown even critical support for the police in their pay disputes, it won't dramatically alter things. But it may help some coppers see a bit more clearly what class lines are. I also agree that the majority of the police is likely to line up with the state, whatever happens. I'm interested in those police who can still be broken away from their adherence to the state, rather than re-inforced in it.
And yet, we're not at the eve of action...
Not sure what you mean by 'the eve of action'. Do you mean the revolution isn't breaking out tomorrow? I agree. Do you mean we don't have to do anything? I disagree.
I have a realistic view of the development of the revolutionary situation. Whispering sweet anarcho nothings in to coppers' ears at demos isn't going to change the fact that we're diametrically opposed...
Ah well, yes, that's how god made the world, isn't it? All the good anarchos on one side, all the evil animals in uniform on the other. There's no question that anyone from their side of the barracade could ever question why they're on that side of it. Silly me.
You're right, the army and the police are different kettles of fish. The former would be necessary from a pragmatic perspective, requiring men of arms and their training, with their outlook completely differing from the police; they believe they are protecting the populace from outward threats. Such is the case they've been deployed against workers on these shores seldom. The latter sees all of us as a threat given the right circumstances; G20 gave an insight in to their opinion of people demostrating. But then no one is arguing they are one of the same.
Right; the police see us as a threat; so, perhaps trying to crack that ideological certainty rather than re-inforce it isn't such a bad thing. But, again, I still don't know whether your favoured tactic would be ignoring their demos or busting them up/demonstrating against them, or something else like making sure that anarchos were in the same area but not actually demonstrating against the police demo per se, distributing their own propaganda saying "the police force acts for the state and the bosses against the working class - no support for more pay for the agents of repression".
So despite your levelling of ideas of idealism at me, and your assertion that my suggested tactic is not based on materialism, and your own 'realistic' appraisal, you still don't seem to made a single suggestion about an actual tactic to be recommended in the case of a police strike or demo.
To be clear; I think the options are - support, critical or otherwise (and obviously, I favour heavy criticism of the role of the police); counter-demonstration (ie, aimed at the police), violent or otherwise; seperate demonstrations and/or propaganda, aimed at the public, against the police's demands; ignoring the police demo or strike completely.
There may be others, but they're the ones I see. Really, it would help enormously if you would say what course of action you'd be in favour of; either, in a situation where some people had already proposed violent counter-demonstrations; or even in a situation where some people had proposed critical support.
...I'm neither here nor there on supporting police strikes, theoretically you can;t really support them,... just asking to be paid more to do the same repressive activities.... one would assume any radical group would approach things with a little more subtlety that ''up the coppers'' or ''more money for our brave boys in afghanistan''...
Yes, I agree; I was at the beginning a little cagey about using the word 'support', and I hate the term 'critical support', but I can't think of another way to put it, really.
It was less about actually trying to get increased pay and better conditions and more pointing out that when the police take illegal action against their employers, ie the government, they have more in common with us than they might think. It would not, as a tactic, be about subordinating our activity to their ends, but demonstrating that their activity is not so different from our activity; and if theirs is justified, in their eyes, why is ours not?
On your assumption about the subtlety of radical groups... not so sure. Bear in mind I was arguing with people who thought chucking rocks at strikers was a good idea (yes, policemen; but, also strikers... still not certain where that contradiction leads).
Without question, is it? The like you'd be doing in the police force say? Don't think so, sunshine.
I used to work in a call centre, ''unquestoningly'' reading a script that was designed to con the unwary, the old and the gullible into buying pointless shit. I did it because i had to pay the rent. Sure i'd joke about how it was pointless shit yadda yadda yadda but not in front of my boss. In front of the boss you generally just get on with it and did the job. hence why i think this ''following order makes you an animal'' bluster is just kinda silly.
And I've given my preference rather than prisons; I don't believe there's going to be a great deal of criminal activity left in post revolutionary society that isn't sociopathic. So these people should be housed in a mental hospital facility.
To be honest i think this whole idea of yours is just not really workable, if a guy gets drunk and pushes a girl about and gropes her and punches her when she resists, he's not ''criminally insane'' he's just a wanker. You can't lock the guy in a mental asylum, quite clearly someone who does that needs to do at least a few months in a secure facility. Sure he can see a counsellor while he's in there but you can;t treat him as a mental patient, because he isn't one.
Not to mention the fact that the majority of people who commit a violent crime should not be treated as if they're just insane but should be encouraged to feel guilt for their actions. Simply labeling them all as sociopaths completely removes any agency from them, sure the label fits some but using it as a catch all for all violenet crimes isn't a good strategy for rehabilitation..
Also these mental asylums still need guards to stop people escaping, because suprise surprise they are still basically prisons. In order to identify and aprehend rapists and sociopathic criminals your going to need a police force of some description and a legal system ensuring there is a fair trial and that their are minimum or maximum sentences in place.
Tell me cantdo, do you see reading a script as similar to violent police actions? That's precisely why I said, something without question, the like you'd experience in the police, in the bid someone wouldn't come out with the ridiculous lark you did.
I would say, on the whole, someone like that has possible problems with drinking. He's not criminally insane, but he could benefit from treatment. You speak much of current day mental ayslum, but given enprisonment would need a revolution in itself, these facilities would be worlds apart. I don't believe for many that it would have to be nearly as coercive as you suggest, or indeed as permanant.
There's also no reason someone responsible for that sort of unmeditated crime couldn't be dealt with on the outside, through counciling. Why on earth would you immediately want to put someone away? How is that going to solve the problem, given we've seen centuries of that thinking and it's not worked (you've yet to address this point once)?
The most important point of all, I've never said there should be no legal or policing system in place. I just disagree with your basic replication of capitalist 'justice'.
Tell me cantdo, do you see reading a script as similar to violent police actions? That's precisely why I said, something without question, the like you'd experience in the police, in the bid someone wouldn't come out with the ridiculous lark you did.
Of course its not exactly the same, but the principle is similar, hence my point was we don't call police and squaddies ''animals'' for following orders because its overblown rhetoric.
..well unless your talking about the paras or SGC that is 
..No but seriously, its just not good rhetoric to use on a public forum.
I would say, on the whole, someone like that has possible problems with drinking. He's not criminally insane, but he could benefit from treatment. You speak much of current day mental ayslum, but given enprisonment would need a revolution in itself, these facilities would be worlds apart. I don't believe for many that it would have to be nearly as coercive as you suggest, or indeed as permanant.
Personally i'm not volunteering to work with rapists and sociopathic murderers in a non-secure environment. So we can talk about non-coercive environments all we want but in reality it would need to be a secure envoironement for the safety of staff and inmates and that requires a whole bunch of co-ercion.
More importantly I would assume its going to be a secure unit in the sense that they are going to be taken there whether they like it or not and they would not be able to leave. Hence its a prison.
Perosnally i don;t feel that forced psychiatric treatment is going to be the libertarian utopia your looking for. Also my points still stand about psychiatric treatment not being applicable to most violent crimes, some form of punishemnt actually being necessary and the idea that simply treating people as being mentally ill removes any ability for them to feel remorse for their actions which is surely a key part of rehabilitation.
There's also no reason someone responsible for that sort of unmeditated crime couldn't be dealt with on the outside, through counciling. Why on earth would you immediately want to put someone away? How is that going to solve the problem, given we've seen centuries of that thinking and it's not worked (you've yet to address this point once)?
If somoene comitted that kind of sexual assault on someone i knew, (or anyone really tbh) in front of me, my first thought wouldn;t be, ''oh they need counselling'', my first thought would be ''oh they need to be beaten senseless''' thankfully of course any society constructs a legal system so that instead of revenge or mob justice an applicable punishment is administered.
It would also prevent them form immediately re-offending in a way that counselling obviously doesn't and also places a taboo and a moral and physical sanction on the action which whether you like it or not does deter people from doing it. I mean do you seriously want to live in a society where there is no detterrent for rape and where the worst you'll get for comitting rape is some counselling?
The reason i haven't gone over this that much in my posts is because to me what i just said is just common sense, whereas you seem to be coming from a position totally alien to me and to the bulk of the population, thus the onus is more on you to explain what exactly you have that will replace prisons.
The most important point of all, I've never said there should be no legal or policing system in place
Ah at least we agree on something then.
I think there is a world of difference between a bus driver having to ask for a fare, and a copper wading into people with batons and riot gear, not to mention worse. People that haven't enough qualms doing that, on a basic human level, regardless of their politics, are animals.
Again, unlike crime in capitalism, which is treated as something homogeneous, I don't think that sort of thinking has any place in the post revolution. Whilst sociopaths of any kind should be housed in a secure environment, petty 'criminals' could be in less coercive areas, perhaps coming for treatment regularly.
You seem caught up on the notion that I would dismiss everything as mentally ill; regardless of the crime committed, I feel it is most progressive to tackle crime in a rehabilitative state. That doesn't exempt them for their wrongs. Not everyone can be treated the same. It should be a personalised style for each 'criminal', from counciling for those suffering with alcoholism, anger management and such, to dealing with the mental issues of sociopaths. Imprisonment should be as broad as the anti-social behavior that threatens, not assuming all crime and criminals are alike.
What you suggest exists; it's how capitalism deals with sexual assault, and it doesn't deter people very well. If we, as a society, can't separate the moral reaction to the just decision, we're truly fucked. This satisfies nothing bar the bloodlust. Also, given the scenario, I wouldn't wish to brand a drunken incident as indicative of that person. If you put that person in prison, they will not offend immediately, sure, but they are likely to at a later date. What I would want is for that person to address their behaviour, and why they feel they can treat women in this manner. Actually tackle the issue rather than enclose it away for x amount of months.
Frankly, I don't have all the answers. But I would see it as a human failure if all we could manage in a revolutionary society is maintaining the current justice and prison system. I have seen how that works, and it's not well.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
When organizing around housing, there are almost always extenuating circumstances like bank fraud and illegal actions by property managers and landlords. But what about when there isn't? Do we...
A US military officer reports on the increasing incidence of insubordination, desertion and rebellion in the US army over the course of the Vietnam War. While we obviously don't agree with...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Best I clarify that I don't see imprisonment, in a post revolutionary society, as punishment. Whilst rapists, and dangerous folk with mental issues will need to housed in some sort of confinement for their own safety and others, I would not wish, nor find it anything other than fruitless, to do it as punishment. These facilities should only be there to help these people.