Would the police force exist in a Socialist world?
- This topic has 129 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello everyone. Just by the way today I want to talk about the subject of the police, and whether the police force would exist in a socialist world.
Now, this is my ideal vision of a socialist world, and this vision may not represent that of the World Socialist Movement. Anyway, my vision is a world where ALL Central Governments are abolished, as they never have or never will act in the interests of the people, all Central Governments do is work with private corporations and repress the people. That brings me on to my next group, and that group is private corporations. In capitalism, privtae corporations have just as much if not more power than Central Governments, and in a socialist world, like Central Governments, ALL private corporations must go, beccause all private corporations have done is repress the people for centuries.
So, now we have discovered what we don't want, lets look at what we do want. What we do want is all power and decision making to be made by the people, and for each individual citizen to have equal shares in democratic workers' Councils and the media, as well as there being democratic ownership of producing and distributing wealth so that we have a society of REAL democracy.
Now, because all power rests with the us, the people, it is up for us to decide how we want to govern ourselves, whether this be through all power to commonly owned local Councils worldwide, whether we have one commonly owned world union, whether we have both commonly owned local Councils and one commonly owned world union, or whether we decide to completely abolish the state and let nature one hundred percent unfetteredly deal with itself.
Personally I would like to see a society with commonly owned local Councils worldwide and one commonly owned world union, but this is all up for the people to democratically decide.
Now, the final topic I want to mention in this thread is the root topic of this thread, and this root topic is should police exist in a socialist world? Well this is up for the people to decide, and if we did, let's say, have a police force, would it be run by the commonly owned local Council or by the commonly owned world union. This too is up for the people to decide. Though what we must acknowledge is, if we want a police force, then there MUST be revolution in the police force just like there is revolution in all other industry. Currently under capitalism, as the police are partly run by the Central Government and are partly run by Private Corporations, this means they have more power thatn the people and thus they, like the Central Government and Private Corporations, repress the people on a day to day basis. If, in a socialist world we do have a police force, then the police force MUST work in the interests of the people and be there to protect the people and society against a handful of dangerous individuals, not be there to protect a few individuals against society like the police force which we have under capitalism today.
Anyway, these are just my views, and if anyone else has any opinions on this matter then please feel free to reply to this thread.
I think and of course when it comes to speculating about a socialist future it is only my personal opinion that some functions of policing will disappear but some will be undertaken by other agencies.We don't take the totally utopian view that there will be no crime whatsoever and everybody in socialism will be angels. Crimes of passion could still take place.I'm sure there will still be traffic "police" ensuring safety on the road but it may be undertaken by car break-down rescue or highway maintenance patrols.Perhaps there may still be a formal trained organisation for crowd control at public events but they would be more like the stewards we have now. Psychiatric services have certain compulsory powers to prevent self-harm and harm to others for those with mental health problems. I am sure those involved can see how their work can be adapted and applied when cost is no longer an issue..Likewise those currently in the prison service industry may raise alternative possiblities for those classed as a risk to society but with no treatable psychological disorder. Maybe some council departments will exercise "policing" roles on anti-social behavior, just as they do now by mediating between feuding neighbours or sound abatement complaint squads in regards to noisy partying.I think some form of detective/forensic department will still remain to investigate what crime occurs but they would be more like public health inspectors or accident investigators, sleuths in tracking down the culprit or cause. Specialist Sherlocks.The co-ercive role of the police would be redundant, and the riot shields and batons would disappear into museums to stand alongside the swords and suits of armour.The debate on law is a long-standing one within the socialist party and certain members take slightly differing views and emphasis.See this blog entry on the subject of law in socialismhttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/05/socialism-and-law.html
Shouldn't that be "will a police service" rather than " will a police force" exist? Surely, whatever survives or is adapted wouldn't be a "force" as this implies some sort of repressive function which couldn't exist in socialism.
My opinion is there are two minimums:1) There should/would be no organisation with special powers of arrest/violence. That is, the power of 'common law' arrest/violence, if you will, will have to be a universal power available to all citizens. Now, that doesn't mean, as per above, there may not be a body dedicated to public order, but in much the same way, I'd suggest, as a baker stands to the unviersal right to make bread, as a specialist.2) Whatever such body existed could only work by consent, and would have to be internally democratic and subject to the general democracy of the community. So, no ranks, military styles or, even (maybe) uniforms.Let's not forget that police in the modern form have only existed for the last two hundred ish years, but the capacity of communities to protect themselves from deliquent behaviour (and to protect the deliquents themselves) is a unviersal feature of community.
Young Master Sweet, I agree. It is up for the people to decide whether they do or don't want a police service and, if they do want a police service then we, the people, one hundred percent decide how they run and how they can work purely in the interests of the community.
Yeah sorry ALB, I got it wrong. In a socialist society the police are there to serve the people, not repress the people and therefore you are right. It would be a police service, not a police force.
Given that private property would cease to exist in socialism 95% of the raison d'etre for police would disappear. I agree that people will still fall in and out of love and there will still be cases of unrequieted love – these exist now but it is rather unusual and uncommon for people to murder after this. And the emotional anger in this society is in 99% of cases entwined with financial battles over who gets what and who lives where. Remove the financial aspect from the equation and things might just go a little more smoothly. Where I suspect socialism may have problems is if a lynch mob decide to take justice into their own hands and kill a suspected paedeophile e.g. I also do not discount that a socialist society may democratically decide that there should be a death penalty for paedeophiles. Socialism will not be a utopia but the very alienation inherent in capitalism may go some way to solving some of the above issues.
alanjjohnstone, fair enough, so what you are basically proposing was like what I was saying, let the people democratically deicde.
jon brown, I agree with you that crime would drop under socialism purely due to the fact that materialism would no longer brainwash the masses, as under our corrupt capitalist system today 60% of crimes are money related so, if money is abolished and we, the people, create a socialist world of the democratic ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth, then crime will drop significantly. I agree with you that a small amount of authority will be necessary, because, even though in the socialist world the majority of people are good people, there will unfortunately still be the few idiots and hence this is why the people's police service will be there to act in the interests of the majority and protect the majority against a few dangerous individuals.
Just on a similar point, and to perhaps give a little credit to our political opponents. Although it does sound a bit twee. When Lyndsey German was standing for Left List Mayor of London, part of her manifesto was more bus conductors and park keepers, as a part of a public order measure and, also, employment). Now, i'll admit to being a little impressed by that, a small reform suggestion but one that bounced the law 'n' order debate into a new territory of supporting civil society as a bulwark against deliquent behaviour.Is the swimming pool attendant a cop?Incidentally, the political right have a virtuous circle on law enforcement. Cut the cost of the state, which drives up crime, then demand stiffer penalties for the criminals, whilst slashing the costs of prison and the police (whilst making them yet more draconian), thus driving up crime, etc.
Let the people decide…as long as it is not a lynch mob In deciding justice, even capitalist court system recognises some situations have to be sent to other less biased or less prejudiced communities for a fair jury. But I am confident that those occasional obstacles can be resolved.
jon brown wrote:I also do not discount that a socialist society may democratically decide that there should be a death penalty for paedeophiles.I'm not too sure about this, in fact I'm not sure about it all. I take it you would only be talking about someone who killed as well as sexually assaulted kids. But personally I can't see socialist society restoring a penalty which even most capitalist states have abandoned. More likely that such a very rare person would be restrained by being confined somewhere.
ALB- I hope you are correct. Although many capitalist states have abolished the death penalty I suspect that in some cases the reason is that they are afraid of being sued by the relatives of someone later found to be innocent. It is also true that capitalist states spend a lot of time and money in brainwashing members of their armed forces to overcome their inherent abhorence at being ordered to kill fellow human being. But whilst i realise that opinion polls can be geared to produce the "correct" answer many unfortunately do seem to show that a majority would be happy with a return of the death penalty. I would hope in a more tolerant and open society that the maximum would be to incarcerate them to protect society and themselves. It may be the one area where capitalist "solves" a problem better than socialism in that in current society a paedeophile who has enough money can go to places like Asia to satisfy his whims whereas in socialism no woman or man will ever be forced to prostitute themselves to ensure that they can pay the gas bill. Also the concept of paedeophilia is relative, the ages of consent being different in different cultures and countries. it could also be argued that arranged marriages when one or both parties is/ are unwilling is also a form of paedeophilia. It goes without saying that in socialism noone will be forced to marry (if the concept of marriage still exists in socialism) or live with someone against their will. Even in the most religous of communities the arranged marriage has it's origin in financial terms rather than religious ones. I would hope that people who are rational enough to organise themselves and bring about a socialist society are also rational enough to ditch religion but a few fanatics may survive even this and continue to carry out their rituals.
This could head off in a different direction, but since it has been mentioned, I only put this out to generate some thought that could be discussed (if wished) on a separate thread.What is the basic objection to a death penalty existing within a socialist society for extreme cases?I am not a supporter of a death penalty, (before I get it in the neck) I am simply interested in what motivates socialist objections. Material or emotional?
Socialist Punk- I think in a socialist society the only motivation would be to ensure there was no repeat of the act. None of the available evidence shows that it acts as a deterent, in fact quite the opposite. Of modern capitalist societies in the west only USA retains it in some states. Your chances of getting it commuted to life imprisionment depends not just on how good your lawyer is but on whether the governer is facing (re)election. If s/he has an election imminent and wants to appear to be tough on crime then your chances are much slimmer.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.