[Unthinking Majority]

Well, please excuse my upfrontness, then -- how long *should* society allow a thousand people a year to die at the hands of killer cops?

As long as it takes to create systems to hold them more accountable, more oversight etc., which shouldn't be that long. Bodycams helped a lot, but you need more. You need to disrupt that stupid cop "brotherhood" where they just protect each other.

[ckaihatsu]

As long as it takes to create systems to hold them more accountable, more oversight etc., which shouldn't be that long. Bodycams helped a lot, but you need more. You need to disrupt that stupid cop "brotherhood" where they just protect each other.

'Disrupt' -- ?

You may want to elaborate on whatever you have in mind here.

I'll remind that it's not about *interpersonal* dynamics, as you already know, since you're indicating *systematic* problems, like a typical lack of documentation of police occupational conduct, or misconduct.

Reforms, like bodycams or whatever, *cannot* be the 'magic bullet', *because* of that *institutional* grounding of material interests with the nation-state.

Controversy

Growing controversy surrounds the impact of police labor unions on law enforcement behavior. Police unions have been described as an impediment to organizational reform and as organizations that hinder discipline for officers involved in misconduct.[7][45]

In the wake of the police murder of George Floyd, academics from Columbia Law Review have begun to reexamine the nature of police unions, qualified immunity, and their continued viability in America.[46] Additionally, the level of power commanded by police unions has been described by academics as "concerning" and "preventing justice" by way of preventing or impeding the public from examining the employment history of officers.[47]

These unions have also been identified as an ironic obstacle to the stated purpose of "to protect and serve".[48]

Negative public sentiment

Anti-police language has increased since the murder of George Floyd. Examples include the use of the phrase "A.C.A.B." or "All Cops Are Bastards", reflecting the sentiment that all police become "bastardized", or corrupted, either personally or by the police system. Academics cite a link with perceived police union corruption and their shielding of "dirty" officers by organized labor.[49]

Another commonly cited statistic is that "40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence" based on the research conducted by the National Center for Women & Policing, showing officers and their families in the U.S. affected by domestic violence much more frequently than the general population.[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_un ... ted_States

[ckaihatsu]

(Again.)

As long as it takes to create systems to hold them more accountable,

It'll happen when Trump gets convicted and jailed.

[Deutschmania]

Would you mind *distinguishing* 'hierarchical authority' from 'authority in and of itself' -- ?

Well, hierarchical authority would be top down, and typically form a pyramid shaped structure , while under democratic confederalism authority would be characterized by grassroots democracy. This helps to ensure mutual accountability between the individual and the community. As it relates to anarchism, I have found that it all comes down to semantics. Is a libertarian municipality a free association, or is it merely a city state ? P.S. The only thing I would add to the points made by @Unthinking Majority is that , from a Marxist standpoint, this is why it would be necessary for there to be a new humanity, with socialist values and manners, before the civil society can eventually suitably advance into free communism , from the preliminary transitionary worker state, once the worldwide public is ready and willing to abide by the community standards of social etiquette . Until then, according to Marxist-Leninist theory, there must be democratic centralism. Since I already posted videos from Non-Compete, explaining what an anarchist society might look like, regarding societal structure, here is a video from his wife, the Vietnamese Communist Luna Oi, explaining what democratic centralism is, and how it functions, both in terms of democracy and centralization interrelationally.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, hierarchical authority would be top down, and typically form a pyramid shaped structure , while under democratic confederalism authority would be characterized by grassroots democracy.

Okay, thanks.

I can appreciate that the proletariat's 'vehicle' would have to be internally consistent and move decisively, hence democratic centralism, but the following 'grassroots democracy' sounds more like a *post*-capitalist, post-democratic-centralism kind of societal option, because it's about 'devolving' authority, to localism.

Grassroots democracy is a tendency towards designing political processes that shift as much decision-making authority as practical to the organization's lowest geographic or social level of organization.[1][2]

Grassroots organizations can have a variety of structures; depending on the type of organization and what the members want. These can be non-structured and non-hierarchical organizations that are run by all members, or by whichever member wishes to do something.[3]

To cite a specific hypothetical example, a national grassroots organization would place as much decision-making power as possible in the hands of local chapters or common members instead of the head office.

DM, have you ever considered that the conventional bourgeois 'executive office' might conceivably *not* be the best form of political organization -- ?

It has all of the overhead of entity-group *organization* -- keeping that cohesiveness.

I tend to think of the grassroots / workers co-op / workplace as being a *necessary* step, to collectivize each and every workplace as its 'geographical' / workplace own, but I think we *both* know the limits of anarchism in that it's inescapably *localist*, especially for its approach to social production / the material world.


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

Spoiler: show

---

This helps to ensure mutual accountability between the individual and the community. As it relates to anarchism, I have found that it all comes down to semantics. Is a libertarian municipality a free association, or is it merely a city state ? P.S. The only thing I would add to the points made by @Unthinking Majority is that , from a Marxist standpoint, this is why it would be necessary for there to be a new humanity, with socialist values and manners, before the civil society can eventually suitably advance into free communism , from the preliminary transitionary worker state, once the worldwide public is ready and willing to abide by the community standards of social etiquette . Until then, according to Marxist-Leninist theory, there must be democratic centralism. Since I already posted videos from Non-Compete, explaining what an anarchist society might look like, regarding societal structure, here is a video from his wife, the Vietnamese Communist Luna Oi, explaining what democratic centralism is, and how it functions, both in terms of democracy and centralization interrelationally. https:// m.youtube.com/watch?v=4YVcQe4wceY

I'll get to the video, but in the meantime I'd just like to introduce my own *post-capitalist* conception -- since there would be no *private* interests, there would be no 'turf' to 'manage', as organizationally, and nothing would be *fixed* socially-organizationally, as for unchanging turf, territory, capital, properties, personnel, infrastructure, productive assets, or natural resources.

I mean to say that social production could then be entirely *per-item*, and all necessary social production supply chains would collectively self-organize at whatever geographic scales necessary on the basis of the *item* / product, and not according to arbitrary (power-based) turf-type standing organizations.


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, DM, saw the video -- there's a diagram that Luna shows that's similar-looking to one *I've* made (just for reference).


Rotation system of work roles

Spoiler: show

(F.y.i., I don't *advocate* this approach -- it's for illustration.)

Luna's diagram likens dialectical materialism to *Brownian motion*, basically, which is problematic conceptually, because physical matter is *non-conscious*, while society *is* individually conscious, per person, and is also potentially *collectively* conscious, through journalism and politics / administration, unlike inert matter.

So this is to say that we shouldn't *conceive* of our human social-organization as 'inheriting' physical-dynamics like Brownian motion, even if dialectical materialism *validates* Brownian motion for *physics* / natural reality.

In other words natural physical reality and human *social* reality are *not* the same thing -- I also happen to think that we shouldn't necessarily 'inherit' our ideas about human social organization (families, etc.) from *animal* / natural social-organization, since animals are mostly running on genetic *instinct*, while *human* society is vastly more complex and collectively intentionally reconfigurable.


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

Is capitalism actually broken？

[ckaihatsu]

(Bump.)


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

If you don't *mind*, then, I'd like to try something out.

I developed a *single question* that's meant to be a 'litmus test' of sorts, if you're willing.

The question is 'How would you valuate a factory?'

viewtopic.php?p=15253314#p15253314

[ckaihatsu]

(Last one. Promise.)

You're saying 'supply-and-demand', but you haven't addressed the point about this that I've raised previously, about money having to do a physically-impossible *triple-duty* of valuating these three *different* economic components: [1] manufacture, [2] supply-and-demand, and [3] the consumer's own subjective use-value, or 'utility'.

viewtopic.php?p=15253101#p15253101

[Deutschmania]

I really don't even get what you are going on about, and trying to get at. If I may provide you with a self criticism, which I only give to those I consider to be in any way my fellow comrades, I would personally critique you as coming across as constituting a dogmatic pedantic idealist standpoint. Your abstract ideas are not grounded in practical material existence /experience, and therefore are nothing more than intellectual masturbation. I might be wrong in some areas, just as you might turn out to be wrong. We cannot know for sure how developments will play out, or even if things will work out, until theory is put into praxis. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What matters is what works.

[ckaihatsu]

I really don't even get what you are going on about, and trying to get at. :?: If I may provide you with a self criticism, which I only give to those I consider to be in any way my fellow comrades, I would personally critique you as coming across as constituting a dogmatic pedantic idealist standpoint. Your abstract ideas are not grounded in practical material existence /experience, and therefore are nothing more than intellectual masturbation. I might be wrong in some areas, just as you might turn out to be wrong. We cannot know for sure how developments will play out, or even if things will work out, until theory is put into praxis. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What matters is what works.

Let's both say that you're putting your bet in *now*.

[ckaihatsu]

To *refine* the argument (counter to the metaphor of Brownian-type physical heat / motion diffusion, for 'modeling' social relations), I'll argue that physical-type natural dynamics as a *metaphor* necessarily implies 'on-the-ground', *interpersonal* -- not necessarily *formal*, official, *class*-divided relations.

I've developed a *qualitative* / low-road-high-road kind of general taxonomy for *interpersonal*-type exchanges and positioning.


Interpersonal Meanings

Spoiler: show

philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show