Why the Double Standard?
Jun 20 2008 11:05
#32
RoyceChristian wrote:
Quote:
The Military is a trained mob of killers and murderers whole sole purpose is to obey orders and kill those they're told to. How can you excuse the nature of their job?
, while D in the starting post summarized the typical anarchist attitude as :
Quote:
the police are virtually always regarded as vile, oppressors who could never be considered part of a revolutionary group or potentially comrades
What I want to know is when anarchists became so moralistic and when we can knock it off. I have no particular interest in "excusing" or "not excusing" soldiers or anyone else. I mean what about munitions workers if we are going to look down our noses at soldiers? How can their job be "excused"?......and this has no end. As Albert Meltzer, RIP, wrote in this connection years ago "Under capitalism all our jobs are dirty, when we take over we will make them clean" or words to that effect.
As for the police, I've met some vile ones and some OK ones; likewise anarchists.
There is however a good reason why we should oppose letting police into the workers movement and that is because their work puts them into an enormous and obvious conflict of interest with the workers movement, or with any movement for revolutionary change. Not only is the core purpose of their job to protect the status quo but they are engaged on activities at least closely related to that purpose every day. Soldiers sometimes are likewise, when they are effectively engaged in a policing role, but often are not. There will be occasions then when it will be possible to organise amongst soldiers as soldiers; any "organising" amongst police can only have the character of espionage. That is I think the difference.
Moralism is very dangerous, amongst many anarchists for example it has become impossible to talk sensibly about class because of the bizarre notion that class is a moral category.
Jun 20 2008 13:49
#33
Sean,
Quote:
Quote:
not be considered criminal - tax fraud, drug dealing, prostitution, drug addiction, speeding, drink driving -While I agree with all of those not being criminal per se, the last one doesn't belong. Are you seriously suggesting that the idiocy of drunk drivers isn't a bad thing? Or even speeding for that matter?
Hey, don't get me wrong. Some of the things I suggest, and many more, are bad things and I would not engage in them myself or even advocate that others do them. What it comes down to, in regards to drink driving, is the act of driving a car while drunk isn't a problem unless someone gets hurt. If it is the drink driver, it is their own fault and they must suffer the consequences. In that situation, who cares? If they kill someone or cause damage to something, they must accept responsibility and restore what they damaged either through compensation or some other means. Unless some kind of damage occurs as a result of that persons choice, they haven't done anything wrong.
jeremy,
Quote:
while D in the starting post summarized the typical anarchist attitude as :
Yes, but unless I misread something, there seemed to be others here who are tolerant towards the military and police. That's who I was addressing.
Quote:
I mean what about munitions workers if we are going to look down our noses at soldiers? How can their job be "excused"?......and this has no end. As Albert Meltzer, RIP, wrote in this connection years ago "Under capitalism all our jobs are dirty, when we take over we will make them clean" or words to that effect.
There is a huge difference between workers in a factory producing munitions and a soldier on the street killing in the employ of the state. Munitions can have possible productive purposes outside the military industrial complex. Those workers are not parasites themselves; unlike soldiers and politicians who live off the labour of others, those workers actually contribute to society. In fact it is those workers who are likely in the best position to prevent those munitions being used to kill people.
Quote:
As for the police, I've met some vile ones and some OK ones; likewise anarchists.
I agree to some extent. However, I find if you ever get a cop talking about what it would be like if they were able to enforce the law, their way, it's a remarkably scary thing. Power corrupts.
Quote:
There is however a good reason why we should oppose letting police into the workers movement and that is because their work puts them into an enormous and obvious conflict of interest with the workers movement, or with any movement for revolutionary change. Not only is the core purpose of their job to protect the status quo but they are engaged on activities at least closely related to that purpose every day. Soldiers sometimes are likewise, when they are effectively engaged in a policing role, but often are not. There will be occasions then when it will be possible to organise amongst soldiers as soldiers; any "organising" amongst police can only have the character of espionage. That is I think the difference.
I agree. But I would also add a sort of exception to the rule, veteran cops and soldiers who have resigned because of 'distasteful' experiences within their organisations. For example, there is that whole veteran anti-war movement in the US mainly populated by soldiers who have experienced PTS, seen people tortured/executed and the like. These people have value, they have been to the dark side and come out alive, so to speak.
Quote:
Moralism is very dangerous, amongst many anarchists for example it has become impossible to talk sensibly about class because of the bizarre notion that class is a moral category.
Moralism is dangerous when it becomes dogmatism. Dogmatism is a trap that too many fall into. I believe there should be consistency between theory and practice, but when it descends to fanaticism and inflexibility it becomes, in your words, very dangerous.
Jun 20 2008 13:58
#34
Re: drink-driving..... how could the driver possibly 'compensate' the family of their victim?
Jun 20 2008 14:02
#35
Reverend Tap
It was in reply to yourself and another, I believe - although I didn't include any names which definitely was a mistake. But if I wrongly targeted you, I apologise.
Jun 20 2008 14:06
#36
Royce,
Quote:
Hey, don't get me wrong. Some of the things I suggest, and many more, are bad things and I would not engage in them myself or even advocate that others do them. What it comes down to, in regards to drink driving, is the act of driving a car while drunk isn't a problem unless someone gets hurt. If it is the drink driver, it is their own fault and they must suffer the consequences. In that situation, who cares? If they kill someone or cause damage to something, they must accept responsibility and restore what they damaged either through compensation or some other means. Unless some kind of damage occurs as a result of that persons choice, they haven't done anything wrong.
So if i ran down the street swinging a chainsaw and no-one got hurt, it'd be ok?
Likely consequences should be taken into account when condemning or condoning personal behaviour, regardless of whether those consequences materialise, IMO.
Jun 20 2008 14:10
#37
Quote:
Re: drink-driving..... how could the driver possibly 'compensate' the family of their victim?
Assuming the victim isn't killed as a result of the accident and has some kind of family, I'd say it's justifiable that whomever caused the accident then becomes responsible for ensuring medical care is provided and that the person makes the best recovery possible, as well as compensating for any future discomfort they have created. You can't get much more specific because these things are mostly dependent on circumstances. But I'd much prefer that than the current system where there is a lengthy court proceeding and the driver is locked up, all at the expense of the victim who has no choice but to pay. That's not justice, by any means. I'd also be willing to hear your suggestion.
Jun 20 2008 14:32
#38
So you wouldn't mind getting run over and paralysed, as long as the drink-drive paid for your care? If someone is run over and dies, then what?
I think the way it works at the moment is quite good - stigmatisation of drink-driving, and punishment for those who are caught doing it (although of course this would work a bit differently in a communist society).
Jun 20 2008 14:39
#39
RoyceChristian wrote:
Sean,Quote:
Quote:
not be considered criminal - tax fraud, drug dealing, prostitution, drug addiction, speeding, drink driving -While I agree with all of those not being criminal per se, the last one doesn't belong. Are you seriously suggesting that the idiocy of drunk drivers isn't a bad thing? Or even speeding for that matter?
Hey, don't get me wrong. Some of the things I suggest, and many more, are bad things and I would not engage in them myself or even advocate that others do them. What it comes down to, in regards to drink driving, is the act of driving a car while drunk isn't a problem unless someone gets hurt. If it is the drink driver, it is their own fault and they must suffer the consequences. In that situation, who cares? If they kill someone or cause damage to something, they must accept responsibility and restore what they damaged either through compensation or some other means. Unless some kind of damage occurs as a result of that persons choice, they haven't done anything wrong.
jeremy,
I have to say I completely disagree with that poiint in bold. In terms of morals someone who drink drives and is lucky enough not to hurt any1 is just as bad as someone who does the same as has the misfortune of killing someone, often luck determines what may happen and luck cannot be considered a factor as to how bad a persons actions are.
By drinking and driving you are putting other peoples lives at risk, thats why is fundamentally wrong if it was just endangering your life then fine but it isnt.
how would u feel if a car company didnt make their cars adequately safe, if they were lcky enough that no one got hurt would that make their actions any more excusable?
Jun 23 2008 12:29
#40
The big difference between police and military is that you apply to be a cop by free will and you get drafted to the army against your will. They both function as tools against the working class of course but you could argue that the military could be an asset in revolutionary struggle due to these differences. I mean any one of us could be drafted to the army in a crisis but I guess none of us would ever end up in the police force. Now a days lots of countries have an army of paid volunteer professionals but up north in Sweden and Finland you don't choose to be in the army, you get drafted, still. Even in the United States they had drafts as late as -73. If there would be a full-blown crisis the draft could be activated again even there.
While I agree with all of those not being criminal per se, the last one doesn't belong. Are you seriously suggesting that the idiocy of drunk drivers isn't a bad thing? Or even speeding for that matter?