19
Do you believe that ACAB? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Personally, I believe that A CAB. Yes, all cops are bastards, no exceptions. Yet I have met people who think that cops in socialist countries aren't bastards.

My reasoning is that it is a position of power over your fellow citizens/countrymen/people and only bastards would be attracted to such positions. While a person may go in with "good intentions", invariably they will be at some point in their career be expected to do something "not good": cover up for a colleague, arrest someone for law they don't agree with, beat somebody up, and so on. If they do it and remain a cop, well they are a bastard, no matter how many old ladies they help cross the street or whatever.

Let's also not pretend that a full communist utopia where every single law/regulation/rule is fair is possible in our lifetimes (or at all likely), there'll always be people who will want to abuse their power and take control, cops are an easily bought section of society that makes it possible for them. Historically, cops have always sided with the aristocracy/bourgeoisie/land-owners/those with money.

Your thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (15 children)

There’s a fundamental difference between cops in socialist countries and those elsewhere.

And that difference is...?

The police serves the state

The police serve whoever pays them.

they act in the interest of the bourgeoisie in capitalist countries and the workers in socialist countries.

That's an idealist view, just because you say it doesn't make it true. Yes, in theory the police should "act in the interest of the workers in socialist countries", but then why didn't they do that in the Soviet Union before its dissolution? Why did the police side with the people who wanted to tear down the Soviet Union?

edit: I was wrong here. The Moscow militia actually fought against Yeltsin.

“ACAB” is implicitly limited to capitalist countries; otherwise, it would be akin to anarchists denouncing all states

Not at all. It is recognition of an institution that has no revolutionary potential. It is an institution that has historically been instrumental in counter-revolution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    And that difference is…?

    Cops in capitalist societies are there to protect private property and little else. This is not the case in socialist states.

    The police serve whoever pays them.

    So do the workers. This is not saying anything.

    That’s an idealist view, just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

    It's a material undeniable fact.

    why didn’t they do that in the Soviet Union before its dissolution?

    The Soviet Union was a decrepit state with poorly principled people all over. You were expecting the police to be the vanguard of maintaining socialism there? This is unserious and silly.

    Not at all. It is recognition of an institution that has no revolutionary potential. It is an institution that has historically been instrumental in counter-revolution.

    In capitalist societies yes.

    Are all traffic lights bastards whether they're in capitalist or socialist societies, since they have power over you? You have some neck to be calling anyone else idealist. You're reeking off anarchist "thought".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -6 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    This is not the case in socialist states.

    Is there no private property in currently existing socialist states? Do you think if you go to sleep in someone's yard in China the police wouldn't come and take you away?

    It’s a material undeniable fact.

    How can "they act in the interests of the workers" be a material, undeniable fact? You can't just throw words and terms around.

    In capitalist societies yes.

    How can you be counter-revolutionary without a revolution?

    Are all traffic lights bastards whether they’re in capitalist or socialist societies, since they have power over you?

    Sure. There are more traffic lights

    You’re reeking off anarchist “thought”.

    You should learn to argue/debate without throwing insults. It makes you look insecure and immature.

    Lenin replaced the police with a local "militia", literally what I am saying now.

    I was wrong about the Soviet Union's militia. The local Moscow militia fought on the side of the parliamentarians against Yeltsin. So it helped a bit that there wasn't a country-wide "police" to be shipped from other cities to Moscow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Do you think if you go to sleep in someone’s yard in China the police wouldn’t come and take you away?

    I mean id hope they would do that, do you want someone sleeping in your yard you dont know? 90% of people in China own a house, the need for people to sleep homelessly is all but eliminated over there.

    How can “they act in the interests of the workers” be a material, undeniable fact? You can’t just throw words and terms around.

    Because workers controll the government, who tell the police what to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    I mean id hope they would do that, do you want someone sleeping in your yard you dont know?

    Sure, but that's because I'm not scared of other workers and I don't think people are icky.

    You said "cops don't protect private property in socialist states" but then you say "I hope they'd protect private property in a socialist state", so which is it?

    90% of people in China own a house, the need for people to sleep homelessly is all but eliminated over there.

    Who said anything about "homelessness"? What if you're drunk/tired and just need a place to rest your head for a few hours? Why do you think that anyone sleeping on the street is "homeless"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Who said anything about “homelessness”? What if you’re drunk/tired and just need a place to rest your head for a few hours? Why do you think that anyone sleeping on the street is “homeless”?

    Because rough sleeping is usually tied to homelessness.

    In a socialist society if you're taking a nap somewhere, the police will give you a ride home. Capitalist societies literally criminalize this.

    You said “cops don’t protect private property in socialist states” but then you say “I hope they’d protect private property in a socialist state”, so which is it?

    Cops dont act on behalfs of landlords, they act on behalf of the people; of course if someone is invading your home, they should still respond; dont be inane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    In a socialist society if you’re taking a nap somewhere, the police will give you a ride home.

    And that's how it should be. The police don't need country-wide powers, 24/7 access to a criminal database or weapons to do this.

    of course if someone is invading your home, they should still respond

    Someone who takes a nap in your yard isn't "invading your home".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    And that’s how it should be. The police don’t need country-wide powers, 24/7 access to a criminal database or weapons to do this.

    Its already how it works in China, should we be killing every cop there?

    Someone who takes a nap in your yard isn’t “invading your home”.

    Il let my family know your thoughts on this matter next time a stranger decides to drunkly stumble into my garden at 2am, they arent invading our house, they are just friends we havent met yet :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    should we be killing every cop there?

    Who said anything about killing?

    next time a stranger decides to drunkly stumble into my garden at 2am, they arent invading our house,

    You said "garden", but then imply they are invading your "house". What if your garden was 10 acres, would you still call the cops on them?

    they are just friends we havent met yet :)

    If you don't have a problem with cops, they serve your interests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Who said anything about killing?

    It comes with 'ACAB', destroy all cops is a core princable; if not killing, abolishing all.

    You said “garden”, but then imply they are invading your “house”. What if your garden was 10 acres, would you still call the cops on them?

    If they where shitting in my garden and sleeping in it at 2am, id call the police if I knew they wouldnt hurt them, which in a socialist society id have more confidence they wont, as they arent going to put them in prison, they are taking them home; they wont have a gun, so they wont shoot them. This isnt guarenteed in liberal society, so id likely take it into my own hands and risk whatever violence comes my way.

    If you don’t have a problem with cops, they serve your interests.

    My interests are marxism-leninism, if the police agree with that then no, id have little issues with them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Yes, because to you Marxism-Leninism is just another hobby, like video games, or stamp collecting.

    I was acting in good faith up till now but if we're degenerating this conversation to personal insults, im out. Have a good one!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 2 years ago

    I was acting in good faith up till now

    I confused you with Blursty, they said "You’re reeking off anarchist “thought”." and you jumped into the same thread, so I thought it was you who had said that to me. I apologise.

    It comes with ‘ACAB’, destroy all cops is a core princable; if not killing, abolishing all.

    Would you agree to a year of re-educational labour for cops instead?

    id call the police if I knew they wouldnt hurt them, which in a socialist society id have more confidence they wont, as they arent going to put them in prison, they are taking them home;

    But are we talking about a hypothetical socialist society or AES? Because not all AES countries are the same, and AES countries have mixed levels of class consciousness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    housing owned by the people living there is personal property, not private property; the former should certainly be protected in a socialist country

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    housing owned by the people living there is personal property, not private property

    "owned". If it's "owned", it's not personal property, it's private property. Personal property is owned by the State but given to you to use. That means after you die or no longer need it, it is taken from you and given to someone else. "Owned" implies that you can decide who to give it to and that your kids can inherit it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    Private property is property that's used to generate capital. There is no such thing as "ownership" that transcends the state -- personal property is "owned" insofar as anything can be "owned", and being able to give it to your children or other relatives doesn't make it private

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent