@ckaihatsu , you said;
This is just Stalinist branding. (Policing is *always* a function of the state, whatever state that happens to be.)
I'm not a Marxist exactly in my Socialism, and I am something of a Statist, because It will always be needed and will never ''whither away''. For all of Marx's realism compared to his fellow Socialists, this was a definite remnant of Utopianism in his thinking.
Do you think that a post-capitalist society would really need specialized *professional* policing? Here we are, still within *capitalism*, and there are already mass calls for the complete *abolition* of policing.
I recently posted the following to another thread, and it's relevant here....
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.... The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workmen's wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves.... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests.... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_( ... in_Marxism
So this is a statist-type *reform*, but I think that, fully post-capitalism, anyone and everyone could readily respond to a civil-type disturbance by instantly *publicizing* it (as through instant messaging of some kind), and *politicizing* it with information, commentary, analysis, etc., to create a local 'swarm' of awareness and response, all without any formal state-like separatist standing institutions. There *could* be guidelines, and time-tested norms, etc.
Hellas me ponas wrote:
Indeed, that is true and I've said it too before.
Suddenly everyone got sensitive about Africans in America, while some months ago they didn't even know what America even is lol
My point is other though, the basis of American existence, is that all men are born equal, freedom is a human birthright etc. Thus an American by definition can't be fascist, authoritarian or racist. That was my point. That how can someone claim he loves America and he is American if he behaves in such ways?
Yes, I see -- of course. But you've also just acknowledged the *darker* side, which is the racism and organized racist violence, the history of which I linked to.
And now we actually have a fascist in office, Trump, so there's a real-world counterargument to your more-positivist line here.
Hellas me ponas wrote:
Now when it comes to police etc, police is a state tool to keep order and civilisation. Thus I guess policemen have to be like soldiers, because they exist to preserve democracy and equality not to practice it. Thus fascist or racist elements might appear in there since they shouldn't be allowed to "think" .
But for the rest of Americans, this discussion shouldn't even be on the table.
No, I really *don't* 'get' whatever it is you're alluding to -- I don't presume to 'read minds' so if you want to discuss with me you'll have to be as explicit as possible.
Of course I know that individual cops are basically just following protocols and procedures, but there are also *abuses* of power, of course, as we've seen massive *protests* against.
It's the *institutionalization*, as you're indicating, that ultimately creates the social problem -- the 'institutional racism' that so many are now waking up to because of the BLM protests.
This is related to the segment above, in response to Annatar -- as soon as there's a *specialization* / professionalization of any administrative / enforcement kinds of social tasks, then those institutions which are *tasked* to those duties become *separate* from the larger society, as you've just aptly described.
This is a *problem* because there's not necessarily any real *accountability*, not even from so-called 'democracy', or 'elections'. I'd prefer to see the 'commune'-type reform described in the excerpt, but ultimately it's the *workers* of the world who need to control social production so that all elitism / institutionalization is eliminated *forever*. Workers can collectively be co-administrators over everything they do, and produce.