a community focused on union news, info, discussion, etc
Friends:
“Amazon’s strategy is very blatantly: get the Latino vote,” said Medelius-Marsano. “What we hear from people in all departments, in all shifts, is that Amazon is painting CAUSE as a black union and saying, ‘All the black folks are lazy and the Hispanics are the ones that work the hardest, and the union is only trying to protect lazy people.’”
Amazing. Racist fucks.
This reads like a headline from the 1970s. Fuck, we moved back so much. Next segregation will return...
Capitalism
Police executing their core duty.
People splutter with the "but their motto is 'protect & serve'" without ever asking "who"
"so the police acts as the repressive arm of the bourgeoisie?"
"always has been"
Everything old is new again.
And this is why we have to be reminded occasionally that in any revolutionary or resistance situation, it's the police that are the primary and first adversary. That's who you go after first, not politicians, not mayors or governors or CEOs.
Where is this theory coming from? Because I’ve never heard it. This sounds much too 1) simplistic and 2) universalized. Every revolutionary moment happens under its own specific conditions, necessitating its own specific responses. Violence may come from the police, from the military, from the “intelligence community,” from private security, from organized crime syndicates, from paramilitary brownshirts, or any combination thereof.
It comes from partisans and us history.
While the police in the us have been infiltrated by the far right, there are other people willing to get in there and observe.
Secondly, look at uprisings in the past and present the cops are the first line of offense against the people. That's kinda what the post is about, cops being used as a tool of the state to oppress workers. Look at some of the union wars from back in the day, it was cops that were the first line used to try and beak protests and disrupt unions.
If shit ever pops off, it takes time to mobilize national guard, and even longer for other forces. But cops are in every town, every city, every county, and they've been militarized heavily. They've been trained to think of themselves as warriors against the populace, wherein the populace are the bad guys, and they're the thin blue line.
This is backed up by people that are cops, and know damn good and well that the infiltration by the far right is in there, waiting for when it's time to stop pretending. There are way less people in there on behalf of left wing groups, but they exist.
But there is a limit to it. Once there's enough power secured, the pretense goes away, and the police become an army in every way that matters, an ss, a gestapo. At that point, we're deep into dystopia and revolution is no longer a realistic option, it goes to resistance and a gradual push, asymmetric activity.
With the cops, it isn't really infiltration. It is already a far right institution and they know when to make racist jokes amongst themselves vs. how to act in public.
The task is to spread consciousness of the function of the police and why the criminal punishment system will not provide justice, just oppression of the left. To combat cops we must be organized and knowledgable, which by and large most people are not, including those who call themselves left, socialist, etc.
If any reader is not in an org, I recommend that you join one. If you don't feel comfortable choosing one yet, then focus on your political education until you can. Read the history and theory of socialism, become media critical and literate, and be ready to understand the world much better, e.g. of needing to know productivity, export values, and balances of payment in order to correctly orient yourweld politically. You can only find correct ideas by discriminating between them using facts. And then, once organizing, make sure to educate others and recruit organically but with urgency.
We need more leftists to become police officers.
Absolutely not. That is class traitor nonsense.
The cops are the enemy. You can try to get information out of some of them when things go down, maybe, but they are already an enemy gang.
So you think leftists can't infiltrate and take over organizations like the right can?
Taking down from within is a fully valid tactic when dealing with an enemy dude.
So you think leftists can't infiltrate and take over organizations like the right can?
Not the cops, no. Of course not. By the time the left was large enough to try that it would have no need to, but really it is inherently a far-right institution. It's like saying your big plan is to infiltrate and take over the Nazis by doing Nazi things for decades. Friend, you don't do that, it is counterproductive. You shoot the Nazis.
As I said in my other comment, the right isn't "infiltrating" the cops. The cops have always been far right.
Taking down from within is a fully valid tactic when dealing with an enemy dude.
Being this vague means it is an unserious idea. It feels like we are talking about cartoons or Batman vs. Superman or something. The only orgs the left can usefully take over - really, lead - are those with which we have some kind of alignment and expectation of useful outcomes. Historically, institutions like unions. Even then, we are not taking them over, we are gaining trust and power so that we can ensure alignment of organized labor with our ends rather than those of the ruling class, which will constantly try to defang labor.
Cops are our enemies. They are, inherently, a force for ruling class interests. The only valid end goal of "infiltration" would be to get them to all shoot each other or something, and even that is silly because they're not going to do that because we are sheriffs or something. They would do that if their little gangs have turf wars due to a destabilized state.
Being this vague means it is an unserious idea
"Take down the cops". So you're suggesting we just shoot them all? Is that your idea of a not vague idea?
We do need some sort of police force, always. As much as they suck, some people will always suck, and you need an enforcement measure to help prevent theft, rape, and murder and remove from society those who commit the latter two.
"Take down the cops"
Is already more specific in a useful way. Look, not just a vague idea of "the enemy"! Now we can think about who they are, how society relates to them, and start coming up with realistic ideas for opposing them. Contrast this to, "this tactic works against enemies", lmao.
Though of course if you look at what I've written it's hardly just, "take down cops".
So you're suggesting we just shoot them all? Is that your idea of a not vague idea?
Shooting or jailing are the most likely outcomes for an opposing gang that must be overcome for us to be free. They're not going to just go away on their own without a fight. They are a violent arm of the ruling class and they will be increasingly funded and expanded as conditions degrade. Of course "shoot them" is not a plan and it was not offered as one. It is just a necessity given what they will be doing. You're not going to "infiltrate" them from the left, that is absurd. You will have to fight them.
We do need some sort of police force, always. As much as they suck, some people will always suck, and you need an enforcement measure to help prevent theft, rape, and murder and remove from society those who commit the latter two.
Policing as you know it was invented in the last 200 years or so, coinciding with the maturation of industrial capitalism. It is not some iron law of humanity, that is capitalist propaganda that regularly tries to equate its way of things with what is natural and the default despite only existing for a few hundred years of humanity's hundreds of thousands.
The idea that modern capitalist policing prevents theft, rape, and murder is similarly absurd and those occurrences do not correlate with a smaller number of police. The police prevent almost nothing, they are a reactive group that responds to calls (sometimes) and harasses people deemed violating private property interests in some way.
Finally, unless you are talking about summary executions by police in the field, cops don't remove anyone from society. That is left to the criminal punishment system: judges, juries, bailiffs, prisons.
Though all of this is neither here nor there. Cops right now are here to protect private property interests. They are the people enforcing evictions of the poor and marginalized, making people homeless. They harass the homeless for similar reasons, taking their possessions. They will increasingly be there to break your strike, harkening back to some of their origins. Protesting without a permit? Think again, have some jail time. Better not walk while black or the pigs are liable to find some excuse. They're not going to stop doing any of that because some confused liberals think they can reform their essential function by being paid to do cop things. Best case scenario, the cops will harass them relentlessly until they have to move and hide their identity. Cops already do that when one of them temporarily grows a conscience.
already more specific in a useful way
It's not more specific. You could argue more useful. But it's not more specific.
Policing as you know it was invented in the last 200 years or so, coinciding with the maturation of industrial capitalism
It has been around for literally thousands of years. Policing as in, punishing crimes, is NOT a new invention. It's hilarious that you think the usa is the first to use it as such. Some form of cop has been the strong arm of the elite for longer.
The word "police" was invented around 200 years ago. Not the concept of a law prevention/punishment/investigation guard.
Also that far back kinda fucking sucked. Far less peaceful, greater quality of life disparities(though not income, quality of life is a more important difference to me, you can argue against that if you like), no clean water. Not exactly a good example to prove your point.
The idea that modern capitalist policing prevents theft, rape, and murder is similarly absurd and those occurrences do not correlate with a smaller number of police.
Putting rapists away does, in fact, reduce rape. Same for murderers. Modern capitalist police don't do a good job of it--- that's why I want them burned to the ground--we just don't agree on the method. I want it more metaphorical. You want it literal.
That is left to the criminal punishment system: judges, juries, bailiffs, prisons.
...who do you think gets them into the court room. They sure as hell rarely walk themselves in.
Again, you seem to be some how turning me into a pro modern cop person inside of your head. I'm not pro capitalist union busting pig. I just think taking them out from the inside is an acceptable way to do it
It’s not more specific. You could argue more useful. But it’s not more specific.
It is and I explained how in the next sentences you did not quote. If you disagree and want to argue it, you can reply to those. While I'm very patient I'm not going to waste my time if you're going to act in bad faith. Let's call this strike 1.
It has been around for literally thousands of years.
Incorrect. What you would recognize as the police is just a few hundred years old and is a capitalist formation. In the places that adopted what you would think of as policing, it was quite controversial, and previously was done on a volunteer basis, with much less coverage, and arrests were generally left up to a local population. Get together a posse, bring the accused to a (possibly volunteer) constable or similar figure that could never hope to patrol the area to which they were assigned. Or, often, the posse itself would carry out vigilante justice, the quality of that justice being relative to the population's views and biases.
Policing as in, punishing crimes, is NOT a new invention.
Theoretically, the police are not in the business of punishing crimes. They make arrests and "keep the peace", etc. You are clouding your understanding by being non-specific, and again, when you don't know something, you can just ask instead of trying to fight me. It is not the end of the world when someone else knows something that you don't, right?
It’s hilarious that you think the usa is the first to use it as such. Some form of cop has been the strong arm of the elite for longer.
Law enforcement has existed for as long as there have been laws, and we can be very general in how we think of these things, sure. But that is not what you would recognize as the police, a police force, which are a modern invention.
The word “police” was invented around 200 years ago.
It is a loan word from French that was adopted into English around 200 years ago. It was frequently used derisively, as an oppressive force that the continentals used but that, say, Britain would not, supposedly, tolerate. In French, the term is older.
Police forces were established around Britain starting around 200 years ago or so, adopting part of the French model. First volunteer, then professional. It was fairly controversial. Why would something that always existed need to be established? Why would it provoke a backlash?
It coincided with the establishment of industrial capitalism and spread where capitalist modes spread. The US merged it with their slave catchers and strikebreakers, like Pinkertons.
Not the concept of a law prevention/punishment/investigation guard.
I'm not being that vague or fuzzy in my thinking. I'm speaking to actual history and "the police", the people that will be trying bashing your head in if you stand for something on the street. Not some temple guards of ancient Mesopotamia that guard the money.
Also that far back kinda fucking sucked. Far less peaceful, greater quality of life disparities(though not income, quality of life is a more important difference to me, you can argue against that if you like), no clean water. Not exactly a good example to prove your point.
What kind of illogic has led you to believe I am harkening back to a pre-police golden age or something?
Putting rapists away does, in fact, reduce rape. Same for murderers.
I am clearly referring to the claimed deterrent effect of policing. I even said so explicitly. You're confusing yourself with words again, now you want to talk about reduction, which would mean having to actually interrogate your new claim and what it could mean.
CW: SA
Tell me, how does "putting rapists away" reduce rape? Is it that a rapist is always a rapist, so removing them from society means they don't rape anyone else? Well, that is not true, as rape is fairly common in prison, including by the guards. Do you track, longitudinally, how often it happens for a given rapist? Prisons don't. They are complicit in it.
In addition, we are speaking to the establishment of a police force to deter rape. The police budget is a huge, often the largest, budget item for any municipality under capitalist extremes. To what extent do the cops or the criminal punishment system effectively prevent/stop/respond to rape, including interventions where there are accusations? Cops are notoriously terrible with regards to this, and are often rapists themselves, coercing sex from those threatened with arrest. Particularly prostitutes. But back to prevention: cops often bury claims of rape or otherwise ignore them, preferring to spend their time looking after business' broken windows or people ODing on drugs or homeless people, i.e. safe situations where they don't really need to do anything but that align with local bourgeois interests.
Ask yourself whether there might be alternatives modes to protecting people than a non-responsive, violent force that acts in the interests of capital over the interests of people. We are, for example, often highly isolated from one another, and have no community that a person could go to instead. We are left with the cops or nobody. Perhaps that massively inflated police budget could go to the establishment of community, towards people and how we relate to one another, preventing isolation, rather than cops that tend to make problems worse or create them themselves.
Modern capitalist police don’t do a good job of it— that’s why I want them burned to the ground–we just don’t agree on the method. I want it more metaphorical. You want it literal.
I speak of actual concrete things embedded in history and political economic understanding and how they can be achieved. There is nothing realistic and actionable among liberal progressives, who have been propagandized to think that simply having the right ideas is the same as doing something about it! Or that the policy they were handed down from on high (more money for cops, e.g.) was actually their own very good idea and wow they sure did make change, eh? Liberal politics is a passive exercise of rationalization, not one of actually building the organs to effect meaningful goals for the wider population. You are not responsible for liberalism - this is not a personal attack. But it is important to recognize internalized liberal propaganda in ourselves and how it manifests, e.g. thinking a metaphor about burning down policing is somehow better than actually doing it.
…who do you think gets them into the court room. They sure as hell rarely walk themselves in.
In the US or Britain, usually a cop or bailiff. This does not contradict what I said: you are confused about the difference between cops and the court system, and who (theoretically) is in charge of arrests vs. punishment. I am highlighting how playing fast and loose with terms will lead you to self-confusion and that you are not making any meaningful points here, just thought spaghetti.
Again, you seem to be some how turning me into a pro modern cop person inside of your head.
No, I just recognize capitalist realist tropes. They infect everyone under capitalism and their core is to normalize capitalist formations and suggest they are immutable and have always existed, despite being created within the last few hundred years. I would guess that you are very new to left ideas and therefore don't know how to do self-crit, dialogue, or investigate before sharing guesswork opinions, and you will have a lot of trouble doing so if you are this willing to be combative rather than ask questions when challenged with easily verifiable facts. If you don't address what prevents you from actually engaging with and investigating challenges to liberal ways of thinking, your leftward development will become stunted and you'll end up doing something useless or counterproductive. And again, this is not a personal attack: virtually every single socialist or proper anarchist on the planet started this way as well. We all had entrenched internalized liberalism that we needed to recognize and combat through education and humility.
And just to drive the point home, if someone were being this ignorantly combative in a group space, they would eventually be asked to leave or otherwise make space for others. There is often a person very willing to share incomplete ideas at the expense of others, particularly in baby left spaces. We have to be patient with them but not let those who are certain in their incorrectness, eager to take up space, and unable to engage directly with the material from disrupting others' learning.
I’m not pro capitalist union busting pig. I just think taking them out from the inside is an acceptable way to do it
And you are completely, 100% incorrect about that for the reasons I have already explained. Cops are inherently a reactionary force in defense of capital. The most you could ever hope for is to get harassed or dead. We must organize against cops, not within them. And if you are thinking you might convince cops as the way forward by meeting them where they are, well that is a concept known as "tailism" and it must be rejected outright, as it is how you turn baby leftists into white supremacists and Nazis.
Once you start throwing class traitor and bootlicker around, you become the asshole. Don't become the asshole.
Cops are literally class traitors. They are workers employed by the state to oppress workers in favor of bourgeois interests. They organize their efforts around protecting shops from perceived threats to profits - unhoused people just exustinfmg nearby, often the same for black people, teenagers just spending time together, etc. They are strikebreakers and the front line enforcing state-sponsored marginalization, itself a reflection of ruling class interests.
I am using the term correctly and it is not some kind of schoolyard insult.
Here's the problem with all that. You weren't calling cops class traitors, you were calling a fellow user a class traitor for suggesting that the left infiltrate the cops to counter the influence of the right, and thereby weaken or dismantle the institution.
So, you know, maybe don't pretend that's not what you were doing so you can pound your pulpit some more
Here's the problem with all that. You weren't calling cops class traitors, you were calling a fellow user a class traitor for suggesting that the left infiltrate the cops to counter the influence of the right, and thereby weaken or dismantle the institution.
Actually I called what they said, "class traitor nonsense". Nonsense that is class traitor-ie. They are advocating for class traitorism.
So, you know, maybe don't pretend that's not what you were doing so you can pound your pulpit some more
As a general rule, I would recommend that you take paths of de-escalation when you get hints that you might be wrong.
Wait, are you actually claiming that advocating the risk of infiltrating an enemy organization is somehow a betrayal? That's just stupid.
Nope. I am not speaking particularly vaguely.
Do you know what a class traitor is and how this term is used by the left re: cops? It is okay that you don't seem to. What is not cool is tripling down on being dismissive rather than trying to understand. You can ask me questions, for example.