Are police a necessary evil? If so, how much?

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING.

This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.

You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.

• No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!

• No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.

Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.

If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

officers would still exist, but would be sworn to protect the people, rather than capital, and would have much stricter requirements to join. misconduct would be prosecuted. as for emts, they usually don't need weapons to restrain people.

The U.S. is borderline a police state

The USA is in no way borderline, they Just have a lot of propaganda and a population that thats taught to just accept and not really think about the police publicly murdering people with little if any accountability.

So, what would socialism do about cops? Would it be as simple as just… not having a police force?

More or less, depending on the situation intelligence agencies and so on may still be needed (The usa's history of funding terrorist and so on is huge) but in general we should see huge changes.

switching to an infrastructure of medical attention rather than violence would help, but is that enough?

Also end poverty, provide a wide variety of social supports to improve life, improve working conditions, work - life balance, education, employment opportunities, change the laws, democratic empowerment and so on. It would take a few years for that to reach full effect, but theres a lot of synergy.

Properly done, that would eliminate a lot of the frivolous laws that mostly exist to create penal slaves and punish the poor for existing while destroying the foundation for most other crime.

(AKA, whats the point of a million dollar drug empire if it gets you the same quality of life as some person working part time at commie McDonalds?)

Moreover, most, if not all, crimes come from a lack of resources. Being in debt, needing to feed your kids, being homeless and hopeless, or just not having the money for the therapy or medication you need. Having a society that actually meets the needs of its citizens fixes a lot of this. But assault and murder never go away, even in a perfect world, so how do we deal with restraining or stopping violent assailants?

Theres a lot of overlap between terrible working/living conditions and violence. Probably cant completely eliminate that, but with time for various changes to take effect, it should fade off to the point where very little enforcement is needed.

Do the EMTs and social workers now have to have basic weapon training? Or do we have separate officers, similar to our current detectives. We don’t want turbo-armed cops again, that’s the problem now. So would we give officers tranquilizers, tasers, rubber bullets? Those are all weapons, just slightly shittier.

Basically add in some bouncers. AKA people specialized in managing situations like that in a relatively controlled manner.

Numerous nations with all the problems of capitalism are able to work with unarmed/mostly unarmed police, without the problems of capitalism, we should be able to do better.

For special situations there would probably be some sort of SWAT equivalent.

There will always been a means of creating public safety, but that's not the same as police which are an authoritarian institution.

I recommend reading Stasi State or Socialist Paradise as to how the GDR police operated. They basically acted as legal liaisons.

The role of the police is to enforce the role of the State and specifically the class interests of it. Under capitalism this means the police uphold the supremacy of the capitalists and the role of private property. In a Socialist state then the police would still have a place so long as the class interests of the proletariat, who are the new and recent ruling class, needs protecting. Under Capitalism, the ruling class must always need protected and upheld as the working class cannot go away in any capacity, and thus can always threaten the ruling class. But when the roles are reversed under Socialism, the bourgeoisie are not needed as a class and thus at some point will go away completely, leaving only workers. The police would exist for as long as it is needed, which probably wouldn't be very long. The police institution thereafter would, theoretically, only focus on threats from the external bourgeoisie, counter revolutionary activity, and maybe other extreme crimes. We cannot forsee the specifics here since we won't know the exact material circumstances of this future Socialist state, but I think you're on the right track with the increased reliance on EMTs, social workers, and overall rehabilitation.

As for the military, well the military has the same role as the police except they do so abroad in other countries instead of domestically. So while the police only need to exist while the class rule of the proletariat is under threat by internal class struggle, the military is a necessity until the class rule of the proletariat is not under threat by foreign bourgeois interests. In other words, until at least most countries are also socialist. The socialist military however would not be upholding the class will of the bourgeoisie abroad, but the proletariat's. So any interference with foreign countries would be limited to supporting revolutionary struggles, helping socialist countries defend against the bourgeoisie, etc. So it would be an entirely different institution, and wouldn't be the criminal organization we know today. We see this historically with the USSR, who used their military to either defeat fascists or aid revolutionary struggles abroad first and foremost. Or China's military today who does not get involved in foreign revolutionary struggles, and as a result doesn't really do much compared to the US, who is always involved in some conflict.

So in short, the institutions of the police and military would radically change under a socialist State, and wouldn't be necessary forever while under capitalism these institutions must be present forever as there will always be class conflict under capitalism. Further, the institutions would behave very differently, and wouldn't be nearly as evil as they are under capitalism. So they aren't always necessary, nor necessarily evil.

Law enforcement is needed for a society to run smoothly.

But what we have now is an armed force that punishes citizens in the interest of capital and profit. In an ideal society you wouldn’t have to fear coos.

Even in Countries like Japan, if you lose your wallet or get lost, we feel comfortable walking up to an officer and asking for help. Even if someone is belligerent or violent it is almost unfathomable that they would be shot, injured or killed.
(Not to say that Japan’s police force doesn’t have it’s own set of problems)

Complicated question.

Short answer- no, a socialist society would need law enforcement and conflict arbitration (like any other.)

That being said, law enforcement would not be placed in the hands of a small cadre of violence specialists. Community policing, where all folks participate in protecting their communities (like with rotating assignments for law enforcement work) would be preferred in a socialist society. Tribunals, staffed by officials that are selected by lottery from the best suited of the community, would restrain the prerogatives of law enforcement staff. Violence, as a tool of law enforcement or community restitution, would be humane and extremely rare.

The key concerns here are 1. ensuring that law enforcement officials and judicial functionaries do not become a special caste, 2. that responsibilities are widely distributed, 3. that leadership is either selected randomly, or elected for limited terms with non re-electability, 4. that violence is only used when absolutely necessary, and that communal oversight restrains the authority of law enforcement.

It would also be advisable that all folks in the community are trained in self defense, and that firearms are held in communal receivership. That way the community could conduct self defense, with minimal potential for fire arm related violence.

I think it's chap 3 of state and Rev

In socialism absolutely yes.

The permanent lumpenproletariat under class are very very often reactionary so are the petitebougesie that need to be oppressed. The bourgeoisie needs to be oppressed. Petty crime will still occur. Less police will be needed closer to communism.

Vietnam recently arrested a banker and she is sentenced to firing squad. Police needed for that.

I feel like there might always have to be some sort of law enforcement around . Shit could happen whenever and some people are just dicks for the sake of being dicks sometimes regardless of where you go.

Law enforcement, like the army, would not be a separate body from the proletariat, it would be made up of them.

You need rules and laws in order to have social cohesion. You need social cohesion in order to march towards communism. People in a society will have different wills and ways, there's no way to flatten individuals into carbon copies of each other. Therefore, you need people whose job is to enforce these rules and laws. What you don't need are violent enforcers protecting the ruling class and shooting and imprisoning vulnerable classes and groups for dubious causes.

So, no, a socialist state would not have a "police" in the way we envision the term today. However, it would definitely have "agents of the law" or however else you want to name it. The key is around having public oversight on these people, requiring a proper level of education and backing them up with a robust social safety net and programs to not create a criminal class.

Are police a necessary evil?

Evil is a moral evaluation. Although we could make a moral argument, Marxists do not argue against police on moral grounds (although, again, you could do that). They argue against the function of police in a capitalist society.

Policing in the US came about from slave catchers and strike breakers. Policing as it exists in capitalist societies is about maintaining and enforcing private property.

So, what would socialism do about cops?

Would it be as simple as just… not having a police force?

Pretty much, a lot of the work police do is not needed. What's left is either already done better by other institutions like firefighters or emergency response; or could be done by others like social workers, security guards for dangerous/important locations, etc.

Of course, switching to an infrastructure of medical attention rather than violence would help, but is that enough?

Pretty much. We know police do not decrease crime, so investing in the things that actually prevent crime makes more sense. We know they do not solve crime, so having professional investigators working with the community is probably better. Go down the list and it's similar.

But assault and murder never go away, even in a perfect world, so how do we deal with restraining or stopping violent assailants?

Look up the statistics for violent crime, specifically rape. You'll notice an abysmal response, we already live in a world that basically ignores these things. Police do nothing for these problems. This is where professional investigators, mental health institutions, and other systems would do a much better job.

Do the EMTs and social workers now have to have basic weapon training?

That depends on the country. It's very unlikely for a country that doesn't deal with gun violence to have such a thing. However, places like the US already have guns, then if it were to become socialist there would be violence. Capitalist powers aiding fascists, which would need to be dealt with somehow. After this period how things are handled depends entirely on the conditions on the ground. We can only speculate based on what we currently know.

TL;DR: Do we need police officers?

Not really.

Would medical professionals do the same job better in all cases?

Pretty much, but some things need to be done by others like firefighters, social workers, professional investigators, etc.

If we did have officers, what would they be armed with?

We wouldn't, however it's likely things like security for dangerous places would exist. And due to existing in a Capitalist society, so will a standing army. Depending on the conditions of the society it's possible investigators or others might be armed, but we can't really know.

I’m also curious about the military, but that could be a whole separate post. Anyway, thanks for reading and for any answers I get!

So long as capitalist countries exist, socialists will need to have an organized military to defend themselves. Tho in today's age, having a nuclear deterrent is more useful than trying to compete with capitalists, like the USSR did with the US.

Would it be as simple as just… not having a police force?

Depends on what your concept of "police force" is.

If you have laws, then you must have law enforcement; a law with no enforcement is meaningless. So if by "police" you mean "anyone whose primary role is to enforce laws", then yes, there would always be a police force.

But if you mean specifically "people walking/driving around with lethal weapons on a regular basis looking for immediately visible crime" - no, that's not necessary.

Police in the form of "beat cops" don't really do much to prevent crime - stopping violent assaults is a negligible fraction of their time. They may have a deterrent effect in some circumstances, but that is much smaller than the effects of "just give people the resources to not do crime", as you correctly note.

Very roughly speaking, you can split up crime into five kinds: crimes of personal interaction, crimes of poverty, crimes of greed, crimes of negligence, and crimes of culture.

Personal interaction: most crimes of passion, bar fights, domestic violence, etc. Things that come from direct person-to-person interaction and are mostly not about "stuff".

Poverty: things that arise from negative socioeconomic circumstances and lack of resources / life paths. Most theft, shoplifting, drug dealing, etc. falls in this category.

Greed: things that go beyond basic resources and into exploitation of others for wealth and power. Bribery, fraud, tax evasion, election tampering, labor rights violations, environmental regulation violations, political assassination, etc. Most corporate crimes fall in this category.

Negligence: doing harm, or creating risk of harm, by not recognizing or ignoring the consequences of your actions. Driving drunk (and most other driving laws); leaving children in a hot car; etc. Some corporate crimes fall into this category as well.

Culture: things that are criminalized on the basis of ideological, cultural, religious, or philosophical grounds other than the above. Note that this includes "bad" and "good" laws. Things like "being gay is banned" in homophobic regimes are crimes of culture; but the flipside, things like "racial discrimination is banned", are also crimes of culture.

The current structure of the most police forces focuses on crimes of poverty and crimes of personal interaction, with a specific subdivision (traffic police) focused on crimes of negligence. In some regimes, there is also a significant focus on crimes of culture. Police do nearly nothing about crimes of greed.

In an "ideal" or near-ideal socialist society, that distribution would be nearly flipped. The primary focus of law enforcement would likely be on crimes of greed. Crimes of poverty would largely be removed by socioeconomic forces rather than enforcement, and crimes of passion would hopefully be at least reduced by the same forces (poverty heightens social stress, leading to heightened conflict). You would still have crimes of negligence to deal with, probably at a similar level (still need to stop drunk drivers, for example). Crimes of culture would be highly specific, and hopefully focus on things like "racial discrimination is banned" - technically you can have a socialist structure that's still highly racist, sexist, etc. but most modern socialist movements are aligned with equality movements.

I think community self defense is the answer to both. Rotating self defense committees like in rojava. Assuming no capitalism people would actually have time to invest in self defense training and skill building. Power should be distributed.

A tragedy to avoid is something like in Ireland. The resistance militia became the "guards" and the guards became co-opted by liberal government and are now just cops like everywhere else protecting capital, etc.

It depends what you define as police. So long as a centralised government exists, there will be enforcers necessary to make sure the policies of the state are kept. If you have a less centralised state, there can still be "armed/trained" men who do the same. Once the state withers away so will the police. In capitalist societies we are strictly against cops, because the system they defend opposes our demands; they defend private property. In a DoP it would act as defender of the DoP against capitalist elements. Once the DoP is abolished so will the police disappear

Whatever systems that replace them would be so fundementally different that they wouldn't be called Police anymore. They are actively harmful and useless, and are a breeding ground for corruption

Have you read The End of Policing by Alex Vitale? It answers a lot of these questions. It's short, easy to read and each chapter examines another function of society currently delegated to the police that would be better served by a separate agency.

The main thing Police do is respond to and investigate violent crimes. That's what most of their training pertains to. The problem is they spend 99% of their time dealing with other things like traffic tickets, drugs, domestic disputes, mental health episodes, the homeless, protests, and so on. As a result, they end up treating those things the way they are trained to: as violent crimes.

Unfortunately, there will probably always be some necessity for an armed response to violent crimes, but we don't have to make those same armed agents responsible for so many other day-to-day operations of society.

Mutual Aid organizations to help improve areas and thus peoples lives so that there are no need for cops. As for a need for "armed security", democratic volunteer militias.

Then again, I lean more on the anarchist side of the plane. There are those who have said that cops will probably exist.

I like the idea of community peace officers who help keep people safe. Whether that's changing a tire, directing traffic, having social workers/EMTs help with medical emergencies & crisis situations etc. Replacing our militant police force with some of this would be a net gain. And investing in the people to lift people out of poverty since crime is directly related to economic despair/desperation. Also immediately legalizing drugs to stop the war on drugs.

Just because the police in the US aren't that great, it doesn't mean that they can't be used for good.

They are supposted to enforce the rules, but when they are just blindly followed without thinking of why they exist, or when they are just abusing their powers, it won't lead to anything good.

Also, the police being barely trained in the US doesn't really make it a high bar to become a police officer.