OK but you're just arguing specifics of how we are setting up the Proletarian Cop System, where there's tiers with various levels of armaments. Fundamentally you agree that there ultimately will be a Proletarian Cop System.
Sure but, 95% of them don't need to be armed. You just have each station have a specific armed team with elevated training requirements.
A lot of the rest of the problems sort themselves out by not having armed cops. Criminals have totally different calculations about their own crimes, no need to add a murder to the rap sheet if there's no danger of losing their life committing a property crime.
Alright, but this is a very different argument than the one you were just making that these new prole cops would possible be counter-revolutionary. Everything I've seen about socialist revolutions and experiments has been that counter-revolution comes from the petty bourgeois, organized crime and Liberal intelligentsia/reformists - not from the low-level enforcement agents of the socialist state. It wasn't the Soviet cops that shot Lenin, it was the succ dem intelligentsia (and maybe there should have been MORE soviet cops present to prevent this!). It wasn't the Venezuelan cops that aided Guaido in attempting to run the border, it was Liberal NGOs and local fascists and cartel criminals. It wasn't the Polish cops who overthrew their socialist state, it was the trade unionists and Liberals.
Every time it's the Liberal intelligentsia, the rich and local criminals and fascists doing the counter-revolution. These groups are suppressed by the proletarian cops, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to suppress these classes out of existence with force. I'm completely fine with the agents of the revolution being as armed as they need to be to fulfill their historical role of active red terror.
On 9/11, while the head of the Carabineros de Chile (national police) was loyal, a significant amount was not. Mendoza (one of the four members of the Junta) was high ranking, and more Carabineros died fighting against Allende supporters than any military branch.
"the Liberal intelligentsia, the rich and local criminals and fascists" are not the only people that engage in counter-revolution, they were just, for a variety of reasons, more successful in their counter-revolutions. Even peasantry can be counter-revolutionary, look at the Tambov Rebellion.
Chile was not a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, they had no revolution and the cops were the ones remaining from Liberal bourgeois society not proletarian enforcers. Electing a socialist president doesn’t convert the entire system into a dictatorship of the proletariat by magic, that requires revolutionary struggle and turnover of the state.
This process happened over a decade of suppressing counter-revolution in Venezuela and is still an ongoing partially completed struggle. In Chile, the process barely even began before it was aborted in the womb. What the cops in Chile did doesn't matter because they were bourgeois cops still, there had been no purge and re-making of society. The solution wasn't to disarm the "counter-revolutionary" bourgeois cops and leave them in their jobs, the solution was to purge them all and install armed proletarian cops in their stead.
Ok, even with Allende's reforms of the Carabineros, perhaps that wasn't the best example.
At the beginning of the breakup of Yugoslavia, local police forces fought for their (non-communist (the minister of defence of Slovenia was a liberal, for example)) breakaway, rather than for Yugoslavia. In Operation Action North, Slovenian police blocked Milošević supporters. Slovenian police fought in the Ten-Day War. Croatian police fought against Serbs. These police forces were all formed prior to the independence of their respective republics, and basically all of these police officers had served for a number of years.
OK but you're just arguing specifics of how we are setting up the Proletarian Cop System, where there's tiers with various levels of armaments. Fundamentally you agree that there ultimately will be a Proletarian Cop System.
Sure but, 95% of them don't need to be armed. You just have each station have a specific armed team with elevated training requirements.
A lot of the rest of the problems sort themselves out by not having armed cops. Criminals have totally different calculations about their own crimes, no need to add a murder to the rap sheet if there's no danger of losing their life committing a property crime.
Alright, but this is a very different argument than the one you were just making that these new prole cops would possible be counter-revolutionary. Everything I've seen about socialist revolutions and experiments has been that counter-revolution comes from the petty bourgeois, organized crime and Liberal intelligentsia/reformists - not from the low-level enforcement agents of the socialist state. It wasn't the Soviet cops that shot Lenin, it was the succ dem intelligentsia (and maybe there should have been MORE soviet cops present to prevent this!). It wasn't the Venezuelan cops that aided Guaido in attempting to run the border, it was Liberal NGOs and local fascists and cartel criminals. It wasn't the Polish cops who overthrew their socialist state, it was the trade unionists and Liberals.
Every time it's the Liberal intelligentsia, the rich and local criminals and fascists doing the counter-revolution. These groups are suppressed by the proletarian cops, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to suppress these classes out of existence with force. I'm completely fine with the agents of the revolution being as armed as they need to be to fulfill their historical role of active red terror.
On 9/11, while the head of the Carabineros de Chile (national police) was loyal, a significant amount was not. Mendoza (one of the four members of the Junta) was high ranking, and more Carabineros died fighting against Allende supporters than any military branch.
"the Liberal intelligentsia, the rich and local criminals and fascists" are not the only people that engage in counter-revolution, they were just, for a variety of reasons, more successful in their counter-revolutions. Even peasantry can be counter-revolutionary, look at the Tambov Rebellion.
Chile was not a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, they had no revolution and the cops were the ones remaining from Liberal bourgeois society not proletarian enforcers. Electing a socialist president doesn’t convert the entire system into a dictatorship of the proletariat by magic, that requires revolutionary struggle and turnover of the state.
This process happened over a decade of suppressing counter-revolution in Venezuela and is still an ongoing partially completed struggle. In Chile, the process barely even began before it was aborted in the womb. What the cops in Chile did doesn't matter because they were bourgeois cops still, there had been no purge and re-making of society. The solution wasn't to disarm the "counter-revolutionary" bourgeois cops and leave them in their jobs, the solution was to purge them all and install armed proletarian cops in their stead.
Ok, even with Allende's reforms of the Carabineros, perhaps that wasn't the best example.
At the beginning of the breakup of Yugoslavia, local police forces fought for their (non-communist (the minister of defence of Slovenia was a liberal, for example)) breakaway, rather than for Yugoslavia. In Operation Action North, Slovenian police blocked Milošević supporters. Slovenian police fought in the Ten-Day War. Croatian police fought against Serbs. These police forces were all formed prior to the independence of their respective republics, and basically all of these police officers had served for a number of years.
Or take Hungary in 1956, where local police participated in acts against the Hungarian People's Republic. Or how Ceaușescu was arrested by local police. Local police, even created from the ground up in AES, are not trustworthy.