Outside America, cops have a union. It keeps them from getting overworked, ensures they’re trained in de-escalation, and provides mental care when needed.
Sounds like it’s something America could use.
Outside America, cops have a union.
They have “unions” in the US too. The shield them from consequences and fight against accountability.
Greece as well.
Sweet summer child.
Police unions are not always a force for good, specifically they can lack solidarity with other workers. In France they lobbied to keep their privilege while the retirement age was increased for everyone else.
Sure, there’s that. But no one is calling the bricklayers to disrupt union activities of other workers. The Starbucks local union organizers aren’t going to have to worry that the pipefitters union is coming for them. Cops on the other hand are literally the primary tool of unionbusting. It’s impossible to even pretend there is equivalence there while this remains true.
yeah their unions get wierd to and have unusual amounts of power. Chicago is so obviously mobbed up with its union its rediculous. Seriously go see their union rep talk.
No. All labour, including cops, need unions.
I think police unions becoming class un-conscious is the problem. Dissolve them and make them better.
Seriously lol? Is this a red fash thing? Like vanguard cops and MLM cops? No thanks.
All labour, including cops
Cops aren’t labour. They’re the rabid guard dogs of the elites.
I think police unions becoming class un-conscious is the problem
Nah. They’re fully conscious of which class they serve, to the detriment of everyone else.
Dissolve them
Yes.
make them better
Not really possible as long as they consist of cops.
I think unions are fundamentally for collective bargaining against consolidated powers typically capital. Police unions in the USA have been bastardized to favor their own and resisting change to a power structure that helps them, Aka losing class consciousness.
Let’s say the police departments started mistreating individual cops, overworking them and sending them into dangerous situations without proper training (hint: as they do currently), how so the individuals being mistreated fight back?
What I see in America is a concerted effort to construct a Us vs Them narrative in the police force. This includes dehumanizing the “policed” and protecting their own at all costs. This is essentially losing class consciousness, where a fellow working person is seen as fundamentally evil, and the real reason its so bad for cops.
What makes you think that police unions can not be “bastardized”?
“Not in all countries”
Outside of Murikan
moviesslave history & current media reports (UK included) Im glad that “cop” doesn’t mean the same type of people oppressive force it does in Anglo systems in places I lived.
Cops should be workers & have their union(s).
What they shouldn’t be is mobsters, a tool of the rich or politicians (but instead non-political personals), uneducated, untouchable, sadistic (as a job requirement), etc.What the “cops” the pic (which is an awesome piece of art!) is referring to are just not what cops should be & you should fight the system (you are financing) that doesn’t serve and protect you as ‘the people’.
No. We do not need cops. The police will always be a corrupt hand of state violence. As long as there are cops (as in special people who are allowed to use violence) in any form they will ultimately become corrupt. As long as law is enforced it is not equal, and it will never protect “the people”. The people are the only ones that can protect “the people”. You don’t need cops, you need everyone to start policing people around them. That is the only way everyone gets protection.
ACAB! All power to all the people!
Yes, people will govern & police themselves!!
They should perhaps form a sort of democratic system of their representatives (let’s call it totallynotagovernment) that would create and maintain a professional group of people versed in law & order, maybe call this group totallynotpolice …
/s
Seriously, what are you talking about?
What would be the motive to write or follow laws? Or have a monetary system? Would it be better to give all executive power to anyone with more violence?
In this case police is just as corrupt as the gov funding it (but I get it, in case of USA this was the case from the start - poor dudes & dudettes never even knew anything else, even police departments when first established over there were just hired current slave catchers groups).
Police is power from and for the people of the people control it.
Much like with laws, you want a legal system to give power to the people. If it doesn’t do that is barely a legal system, much just an oppression tool of the few (like US police), but at that point its semantics what you call it.
If the gov, legal system, or police opress the people thats is just not a democracy (eg if 3/4 of people support an idea but the gov doesn’t implement it, then thats not democratic, is it?).
Or a non-gov example of the same: western people seem to condemn CEOs as the worst and most brutal dictators … yet somehow forget that it’s the owner class that hires regular workers (CEOs) as their dogs/police/governors.
It’s not the CEOs/police or the existence of their function, it’s who/what they work for.It seems you have a very limited undertanding of a state or a stateless socitey.
Also https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-manifesto-for-the-abolition-of-the-police though I doubt they’ll read any of either…
I will so thank you!
I didn’t know that one yet. Thank you. (:
That library seems endless, always new info to discover!
Seriously, what are you talking about?
Anarchy. I’m an anarchist. I’m talking about anarchy. People do not need to be controlled/enforced/governed. We are perfectly capable of organizing a society ourselves. Stopping violence should not be the responsibility of a special group but everyone. Social pressure is more powerful than direct violence. Otherwise the police would not have such a cushy job.
What would be the motive to write or follow laws?
No one needs to write laws. Custom is already a ruleset that most people in a society follow. You don’t need laws on top of that. It’s unnecessary and creates cases where the right thing cannot be done because it’s illegal. Government creates a ton of unnecessary busywork that most people do not need to concern themselves with. What does the government do that you couldn’t do with free association and an empowered populus?
Do you follow laws just because you’re afraid of the police? Or is it because of the social pressure to not cause a fuss. Do you need rules to be written down on a piece of paper for you to follow them? I think not. I’ve followed a lot of “made up” rules because I understand these rules make my life better. Human beings are capable of working together without needing someone else to tell them how to live their life. We did it for millennia before archy clawed it’s way into every society (by colonizing the anarchic ones because they were “primitive”)
It’s not the CEOs/police or the existence of their function
Yes it is. You cannot have police that doesn’t abuse their power. If you have a position in society that gives people power, It’s the power-hungry that fill them. Everyone that doesn’t want to dictate other peoples lives will not fill those positions. so sooner or later they are going to be filled by people who want power and nothing else. It’s no coincidence archy keeps devolving into fascism and totalitarianism. It’s inevitable. Society elevates people who want power so you end up with people who believe they are god and can do no wrong.
Just as with other systems, in anarchy, you control the lesser power (individual) with a bigger power (the “ourselves”).
Its just less formalised. And having spontaneous mobs forming to upholds the customs requires everyone to have the same customs … or there are disputes, that form sides which organise into wars. And well, social pressure doesn’t really work well when an outside force attacks you (like another nation/kingdom/corporation/family/etc). It’s not like humans didn’t arise from more anarchist structures.
And no, I don’t follow laws because in affair of the police (or other legal deterrent), but bcs Im pretty sure if someone attacks me/robs me I will be waiting a long time for townspeople to notice, form a mob, investigate, exert social pressure, get things back in order etc.
But I’m not really afraid to “cause a fuss”, society doesn’t give two shits about individual behaviour in general, and even seems to worship the ones that go counter social pressure and intentionally defy customs for their personal gain.Also customs and social status is often dictated by the powerful. With economic systems without any administration (so no money) that means whoever owns the most stuff or is a better
“politician”speaker/entertainer.And I think you can have police that doesn’t abuse their power as long as they are kept in check by a bigger power - and here I agree, social pressure is the power (I just called it ‘more democratic’, but same thing).
What does the government do that you couldn’t do with free association and an empowered populus?
Imo: form specialised panels that need funding, write rules of commerce (not to disrupt the commune, which I’m all for, but for the intra-commune relationships to prevent at least some wars), plan projects via gathering data, even just keep up with regular basic administration such as stock supplies, writing minutes, etc).
you control the lesser power (individual) with a bigger power (the “ourselves”).
to quote: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca213
anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose “collectivism” and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them.
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life
Anarchism rejects the abstract individualism of capitalism, with its ideas of “absolute” freedom of the individual which is constrained by others. This theory ignores the social context in which freedom exists and grows.
In practice, both individualism and collectivism lead to a denial of both individual liberty and group autonomy and dynamics.
The link goes into more detail.
It’s not like humans didn’t arise from more anarchist structures.
A Definition for a term I’m about to use:
Archy - Hierarchy, Rule, structure of command and subordination, opposite of anarchy.How did humans “rise” from anarchist structures? I wouldn’t call whats going on right now any better than the pre-archic societies. Those societies were destroyed because they didn’t have the structures to protect themselves against archy anarchy isn’t just no archy, it’s conscious opposition to archy. Now that we understand archic structures and their influence we can start opposing it. Pre-archic societies couldn’t
having spontaneous mobs forming to upholds the customs
Why would you need mobs? often times a single other person would be enough to stop/deter anti-social behavior.
as long as they are kept in check by a bigger power
Who controls that bigger power and what’s stopping them from becoming corrupt? There is no bigger power than the state and police is the state. You can’t have anything bigger. As soon as you have representative democracy the people will go from humans to a resource. They will be grown and molded to not care about their society and just root for their team. Governance isn’t something you can delegate to others. It makes you lazy and means you will stop thinking about the actual problems and start fighting with anyone who disagrees with you.
Representational democracy does not work. The state is a living system that has interests of it’s own and those will always be prioritized over the citizens. Sooner or later every state devolves into authoritarianism. All the while screwing over anyone who wants to live without it.
Idiot.
Thank you for your insightful comment. :)
ACAB!
I’m surprised that an anarchist position is getting downvoted in this community. I guess the libs came to party.
What they shouldn’t be is…
But they are, and have been from their inception and by design, so maybe, they simply shouldn’t be…
They are workers but because of their special role they shouldn’t get their own independent and centralized unions. Each precinct cops should have to join the local service workers’ union, ideally also split by function (eg, patrols with truckers, guards with restaurant workers, corrections with teachers, etc). They should be unionized, just not with each other.
They are workers though, despite me also agreeing that ACAB.
Whether we like it or not, they do a lot of road work, street traffic work, clearing wrecks, gathering insurance information, etc.
They just shouldn’t be separate from other labor unions.
Take that up with the police “union”. You’re not wrong but that shit is.
Many many “jobs” under capitalism are a form of guard labor. Cops are just the most explicit.
It’s so funny when people realize unions are just special interest groups
Yes a coal miners union fights to keep coal mines open and police unions fight to protect their members from consequences, there’s no reason to expect them to conform to leftwing politics just because the left in general likes unions
So what is a confederation of different industries ? Why many of those confederation accept every industries but not cops association ? Finally, people organized tend to have share some analyses and goals, and some of them appends to be left-wing. It’s not u surprise than people struggling for their rights meat the same issues, and share some common interests. Being smash by cops for no reasons when you just want to keep your job is an example why organized workers consider that cops have not the same interests
