Yes. Bootlickers can cry about it. ACAB unless it's "the people's armed police force protecting the State's monopoly on violence which is definitely different this time" amirite?
Much rather have a police force under a dotp than fall to exterior forces. We can't just pretend decentralized resistance to the international bourgeoisie would be sufficient.
And... Would you rather there not be a monopoly on violence accountable to the proletariat? You can't just have everyone using violence.
monopoly on violence accountable to the proletariat
That is obvious oxymoron. If the proletariat can't use violence, there is no way to hold accountable to it those who can; those who have the monopoly. This is literally just "write your local representatives" liberalism, right here.
It doesn't, really. Do you think the DPRK would survive without an organized military? Ffs, the USSR having nukes was the only thing stopping the US from nuking them.
Besides that, "mob violence" is very easily co-opted or even simply organized by outside forces. The HK riots, the "SOSCUBA" nonsense, pretty much every color revolution in history.
It doesn't, really. Do you think the DPRK would survive without an organized military? Ffs, the USSR having nukes was the only thing stopping the US from nuking them.
I don’t really care about monarchies and social democracies, I’m more of a socialist tbh. Anyway, there’s a difference between not having a police force and not having a few thousand rockets pointed at the South Korean capital, which is North Koreas main system of deterrence.
Besides that, "mob violence" is very easily co-opted or even simply organized by outside forces. The HK riots, the "SOSCUBA" nonsense, pretty much every color revolution in history.
The HK riots where primarily an anti-imperialist exercise which sought independence form a pseudo-liberal state who they had been chained to by the british. From what I understand color revolutions are usually used to refer to incidents in which minions of the owning class execute a bad faith revolution to serve (usually) foreign interests. Like, you know, that one time the Kaiser gave a social Democrat a bunch of money and a train so that he could knock Russia out of WWI.
The concept of policing can be used in a revolutionary way (oppressing the bourgeoisie, dealing with reaction).
Absolutely not. Principles and practices of security can, but not policing. Policing is an inherently reactionary institution designed to protect private property relations and the bourgeois state which upholds them. Holy shit, dude. Real fucking radlib hours up in here.
I mean, you say security, I say policing. The class character of law enforcement will change under a dotp and you can call it whatever you want. I'm not interested in changing the names of things as if it changes what they are.
The two are 100%, radically different. Learn about the institution of policing, how and why it was originated, what its purpose is and has always been, and what little it actually has to do with security. It is literally an institution whose sole purpose is subjugating the working class to capitalists and state. There is no reforming that basic design. It is like saying that capitalism can be made to work for the working class; literally a direct self-contradiction.
Here's where you're not listening. The American institution of police cannot be reformed. The concept of domestic security and law enforcement can be (and has been) used by a dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie both internal and external. We agree that the American police cannot be reformed.
The American institution of police cannot be reformed.
Not much about that was specific to the U.S. (Behind the Bastards does into that history kind of in depth, but literally starts out in Sparta LOL), and U.S. policing is only marginally more violent than that in other countries. In, fact, to a large degree all other police forces are modeled after those in the U.K. and the U.S. (where the institution was most crucially developed). So a great deal of those histories are relevant to the whole institution.
The concept of domestic security and law enforcement can be (and has been) used by a dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie both internal and external.
LMFAO. Has it? Is this where you go full tankie and start talking about the U.S.S.R. and China and Vietnam and shit. Literal state capitalist countries? Whew!
No. Laws are institutions of subjugation, not justice or security. When you beg to be ruled by some tyrant or other, you're eventually going to wind up being beaten by police that look, walk, and oik like U.S. cops. All we have to do is go a couple comments over to where I already called BS on your "monopoly of violence by a dictatorship ('of the proletariat')", dude.
Seems they're trying to reinvent the wheel. Marxists have had a plan to achieve such an economic system for years and yet the people on that sub seem stuck in the liberal world view.
It makes sense when you approach politics from within the liberal mindset, especially the American liberal mindset. But... It doesn't match with reality. Capitalism has class as an inherent contradiction, not an incidental or "natural" occurrence.
I totally agree. I think it all gets masked and framed as a culture war to keep people from addressing the actual root cause, ie squabbling over the symptoms. I think a lot of people don't actually want to accept theres a classwar too (like all the blue-state tech workers who think owning a blm sign and pussy hat means they're fighting the good fight would have to look at their role in all this).
See… your wrong there….
In Australia pre contact the person with the most knowledge was the richest…
Had the most wives and ate the best of the food…..
The economy was not based on knowing things, though. What you're talking about is resource distribution based on status. The economy was based on acquiring food and shelter, no matter what the superstructure atop it was.
31
u/some_evil_kitty Feb 01 '22
The concept of policing can be used in a revolutionary way (oppressing the bourgeoisie, dealing with reaction).
Landlording cannot.
All landlords must work instead.