The POPO

Lets talk about the police. What exactly is wrong with the police in capitalist countries? Why would they act differently in a Socialist state? Do we actually need the police as an institution? What are some possibly alternative to police?

Other urls found in this thread:

revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv13n1/smolin.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

COPCUCK COPCUCK COPCUCK XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Define "wrong".

They're acting exactly as intended.

Police exist to protect private property. They need to be replaced by peoples militias which are held accountable to the people

...

Use the typical liberal response to police brutality as an example as they assume they exist to fight crime and help the population.

Ok, lets now assume they no longer exist to protect private property and now enforce the laws of a Socialist state. Now what?

Police brutality is irrelevant as to if they are doing their job or not. The role of the police is to enforce the law and uphold the state through violence. That violence is directed at the populace. It doesn't matter if it upsets you or if it targets innocent people.

The army doesn't "fail" in its role as an army when it causes collateral damage, it fails in its role as an army when it fails to meet its objectives.

HEY TANKIES, what do you think of capitalist police?

Do you really need to ask? They seem to shoot down any criticism of them and dismiss any one critizing them as an anarchist.

How are they held accountable to the people? Especially when they are (presumably) armed much better than the average citizen? How does the power dynamic actually change when this transition takes place?

As a Marxist-Leninist, go fuck yourself. The police are brainwashed proles protecting private property - Capital and its interests. Oh wait, I must be an anarchist actually, huh.

The capitalists have filled their brains with anti-communist propaganda. They have become their guard-dogs.

In an ACTUAL socialist state, not a Stalinist State Capitalism, they have class con and are not against the working class.

Yes. We are not ready, as a society to be without one. Even if you call it "Not police" you still need people to keep the peace and enforce what the community has set as law.

Ok buddy. Just ignore the fact that 95% of the copcuck shitposters we've had in the previous threads were Marxist-Leninists and tankies. And yes, I'm sure most of them would call you an anarchkiddie for that post, had you not said you're a ML beforehand.

By the party's and/or people's assembly. Because the predominant interests of a socialist government is necessarily the proletariat's interests (for once it stops pursuing these interests it ceases to be socialist), marauding or poorly-behaved peacekeepers will not be tolerated.

Otherwise, it's not rash to suggest that just as the military will implement drone combat robots in the near future, so may a future socialist government implement security robots (like in fallout, lol) that offer the same - if not greater - service as the human peacekeeper with far less deviation.

Goddamitthismemeagain.mp4
copy and paste:

"The USSR was socialist because the economy was consciously planned by society. Profit and the law of value were subordinated to production for social needs. The reserve army of labor (i.e. unemployment), inherent in capitalism, was abolished. Money was used by planners for accounting purposes. The principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" was implemented.

One major area Stalin focused on in his last years was the Soviet countryside. He wanted to replace commodity-money relations there with what was called products-exchange, see: revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv13n1/smolin.htm (This was promptly denounced as "left-deviationist" after his death)"

more:

"There was no bourgeois or any other exploiting class. The administration of the means of production was carried out by the state and/or by state officials in cooperation with the trade unions and other entities. Private ownership of the means of production was abolished both de jure and de facto.
Saying that the USSR couldn't have been socialist because "a different group appropriates and distributes the goods being produced" is strange. Where does that group come from? What classes is it obliged to serve? In the Stalin-era USSR managers and party officials, in other to retain their positions, were obliged to serve the interests of the proletarian dictatorship. The intelligentsia under socialism come from the ranks of the workers and peasants and is not its own class."

Ye, ye, ye.
Stalin ruined everything.
Fuck you tankie.

There isn't something intrinsic to ML-ism to make persons of the ideology "supporters of capitalist police" or whatever shit. Just means those specific tankies were stupid and spouting crap - as you quickly caught on to. Congrats.

I know it's not just me. I'm tired of Marxism-Leninism being absolutely shit on in here. It reeks worse than pol shitposts because at the end of the day people like you group them and us as fascists, of different strains or whatever.

If the boot fits

Anarkid solution to police: HAVE EVERYONE DEFEND THEMSELVES XDDD

...

You have no idea how shallow your understanding is. Fascism is a lot more complex than "oh it's an authoritarian state."

What defines authoritarianism to you? I could bet that definition would sufficiently describe most states that have existed. That is the nature of the state, it is the organ of class repression. And as such, under Stalin, the state ruthlessly stamped out the revisionists and opportunists (in order to ensure the survival of the young republic).