deleted by creator

Im being hyperbolic, consider my framing of ‘billions’ to just mean ‘a country with aprox a billion+ people’

But that's only 2 countries out of ~190. They are exceptions.

Its an anarchist strain of thought and it has a whole connation behind it with the term,

Lenin the anarchist.

he surely recongised the need to have a police force to defend the citizens of the revolution from bad actors

That's two different things. "Police" and "a force to defend the citizens of the revolution" are two different things. That's my whole point. In the Soviet Union you had the local militia

Show

and then you had the NKVD.

Show

So a "police" is a force than combines the two: "local policing" (stopping bar fights, getting drunk people off the street, investigating domestic violence) and then "state polcing" (fighting the enemies of the state). If you have one police with those wide powers, then that's a recipe for disaster.

housing owned by the people living there is personal property, not private property

"owned". If it's "owned", it's not personal property, it's private property. Personal property is owned by the State but given to you to use. That means after you die or no longer need it, it is taken from you and given to someone else. "Owned" implies that you can decide who to give it to and that your kids can inherit it.

How many citizens of AES countries have you spoken to to inform this opinion of yours? How many times have you interacted with AES cops even?

How many have you?

then you’re just some foreigner applying foreign principles to places that you don’t know or understand.

As opposed to you, The Great Understander and Knower? Should I make assumptions about you? You traveled to AES countries as a tourist and got treated nicely, because that's how they treat tourists with money.

I was acting in good faith up till now

I confused you with Blursty, they said "You’re reeking off anarchist “thought”." and you jumped into the same thread, so I thought it was you who had said that to me. I apologise.

It comes with ‘ACAB’, destroy all cops is a core princable; if not killing, abolishing all.

Would you agree to a year of re-educational labour for cops instead?

id call the police if I knew they wouldnt hurt them, which in a socialist society id have more confidence they wont, as they arent going to put them in prison, they are taking them home;

But are we talking about a hypothetical socialist society or AES? Because not all AES countries are the same, and AES countries have mixed levels of class consciousness.

Removed by mod

Cops in AES serve the state. The exists to subdue enemies and dangers to the socialist state and society.

The state police (like Stasi, for example in the DDR) subdue enemies of the state. Police are literally there to "clean up the streets". How can you be ignorant of this difference?

over some American idealist who never has.

Is the American idealist in the room with us now? Or are you calling me an American idealist? Insults aren't going to help your case. You are having a knee-jerk reaction to a difference of opinion. Grow up.

Are you implying that no socialist leaders ever wanted to be in power and all of them were just so nominated and begrudgingly accepted the position?

We're not talking about just the "leaders"? Didn't you say representatives? There's many more elected positions in a socialist state than just "the leaders". Also, "power" of leaders in socialist countries isn't absolute. Those are anti-communist talking points. Do you think Stalin had absolute power? He was nominated/elected general-secretary, he didn't say "I want to be general-secretary" and it was so. He also had to have his decisions approved, but that's a different conversation.

should we be killing every cop there?

Who said anything about killing?

next time a stranger decides to drunkly stumble into my garden at 2am, they arent invading our house,

You said "garden", but then imply they are invading your "house". What if your garden was 10 acres, would you still call the cops on them?

they are just friends we havent met yet :)

If you don't have a problem with cops, they serve your interests.

In a socialist society if you’re taking a nap somewhere, the police will give you a ride home.

And that's how it should be. The police don't need country-wide powers, 24/7 access to a criminal database or weapons to do this.

of course if someone is invading your home, they should still respond

Someone who takes a nap in your yard isn't "invading your home".

For most people, Haiti is a small island nation;

That's not how it works. Just because "most people" think something that doesn't make it true. An island nation is a country that comprises a whole island, or several islands. Iceland is an island nation, for example.

also we cant take micro-examples

They're not "micro-examples". Iceland has 176 cops per 100.000 inhabitants, while the European Union average is around 333. China has some 142. Does that mean Iceland is close to being socialist? Or is Iceland more socialist than the EU?

countries with billions of people.

What countries with billionS of people? China and India have about 1.5 billion each, and they're exceptions.

Again just putting a different name tag on the police and giving them smaller juristictions doesnt make them not police

Someone should have told Lenin that.

what ACAB represents

ACAB represents that "all cops are bastards", I don't think anything is implied about what should replace them.

I mean id hope they would do that, do you want someone sleeping in your yard you dont know?

Sure, but that's because I'm not scared of other workers and I don't think people are icky.

You said "cops don't protect private property in socialist states" but then you say "I hope they'd protect private property in a socialist state", so which is it?

90% of people in China own a house, the need for people to sleep homelessly is all but eliminated over there.

Who said anything about "homelessness"? What if you're drunk/tired and just need a place to rest your head for a few hours? Why do you think that anyone sleeping on the street is "homeless"?

Simply isn’t true of any cops I’ve encountered in AES countries.

OK? You don't think cops in AES countries beat people up or throw them in jail? They just come with blankets and cocoa? If you need the country you "defend" to be perfect in your eyes for you to defend it, I have bad news for you. I can recognise negative aspects of a country and still defend it and say it is preferrable to another.

"Simply isn't true that cops in AES countries beat people up and throw them in jail" lmao

Is Haiti not real to you?

Haiti isn't a small "island nation". Haiti is half of the island Hispaniola, the other half is the Dominican Republic. Dominica is an example of an "island nation".

The DPRK has cops…

Do they? Or do they have a local "militia"?

Find me a society with anything close to what you have previously described.

The Soviet Union. I corrected myself in other posts, I was wrong to name them as an example of counter-revolutionary cops. Lenin abolished the police in the Soviet Union and replaced them with local "militias". The difference was that these militia people didn't have country-wide powers, they were tasked with their own city. This means that they couldn't be shipped from one city to the next to "restore order".

This is not the case in socialist states.

Is there no private property in currently existing socialist states? Do you think if you go to sleep in someone's yard in China the police wouldn't come and take you away?

It’s a material undeniable fact.

How can "they act in the interests of the workers" be a material, undeniable fact? You can't just throw words and terms around.

In capitalist societies yes.

How can you be counter-revolutionary without a revolution?

Are all traffic lights bastards whether they’re in capitalist or socialist societies, since they have power over you?

Sure. There are more traffic lights

You’re reeking off anarchist “thought”.

You should learn to argue/debate without throwing insults. It makes you look insecure and immature.

Lenin replaced the police with a local "militia", literally what I am saying now.

I was wrong about the Soviet Union's militia. The local Moscow militia fought on the side of the parliamentarians against Yeltsin. So it helped a bit that there wasn't a country-wide "police" to be shipped from other cities to Moscow.

Wouldn’t this then be true for any political position with executive power too?

Yes, that's why people should be nominated by others, like it was in many socialist countries.

Cops protect the interests of private property and as part of this address the contradictions of capitalism in favor of capital. Both are decreased in countries run by socialists.

Yes. And can you guarantee the police won't turn on the State if they are promised higher pay and more power in the new capitalist state after the socialist one is torn down? That's what happened in pretty much every ex-socialist state.

This is the second such odd question you’ve asked. It doesn’t follow from what I’ve said.

You said there are fewer cops per capita in socialist states. I'm saying that's not a metric by which you can tell whether a country is socialist or not, and that it often has nothing to do with the state being socialist. Countries like Palau have also fewer cops per capita, yet that doesn't mean that those countries are socialist.

Why are you sure?

Because small island nations rarely have a big problem with "crime" as large countries with big cities.

the combination of these things

Majority of those factors that would create "bad" cops could exist in socialist states, too. Change of a society has to be total, you can't just put a red star on the same capitalist cops and call it a day. A police force borne out of capitalism has to be abolished in favour of something else. I can guess and imagine what that something else might be, but I can't know for certain.

The only country on the planet without a capitalist-style police force is the DPRK. That's because they have a politically educated populace that is also largely part of the defense forces of their country. They do not need "cops".

So your solution is to have thousands of indiependant police cells in countries that have billions of people

Most countries aren't that big. China and India account for 3 billion people, leaving 5 billion people across some 190 countries or so. It's not "thousands of cells" and "billions of people" in countries. I said neighbourhood/village. You're assuming that there's "crime" going on every second in every square km of a country, that's simply not true. You don't need that many cops to be "patrolling" the streets. And what are they doing anyway? Looking for petty criminals and people who are circumventing tax laws and regulations mostly.

Ah yes, lets just rely on our neighbours to violently de-escelate something, better hope your neighbour isnt a 70 year old women, il be moving into the bloc of MMA fighters and body builders to ensure my safety.

The police doesn't "de-escalate", the police comes and beats people up and throws them in prison.

to ensure my safety.

Does the police ensure your safety right now, or will they come after the fact to "investigate"? That neighbour who calls the police for you could also have stopped whatever was happening. The police can't teleport themselves instantly.

total abolishment is shock therapy.

First thing any new socialist country should do is throw all the police into the prison, then politically educate and hire a new cadre.

but they wouldn’t be betraying us for our bosses just by putting the uniform on.

In a perfect world, sure. But the problem still remains of giving certain people authority over all others. I wrote in another comment that the problem is the scope of their power/authority. Why can't we have neighbourhood police whose only job is to police the neighbourhood/village/small area? Why does the police have to have country-wide powers?

we’re focusing on the american conception of the police

You are. Cops were present in 17th century Britain, they served the aristocracy, the landed elite and the rich. They were tasked to round up "vagrants", poor people, etc.

That would ulimtiately just be a ‘police’, renaming it something different doesnt make it different.

Nope. Because the difference is the scope of their powers and where they are recruited from. A "police offcer" shouldn't have any authority outside of their neighbourhood/village, for example.

Where have socialist police ever been counter-revolutionary?

Every socialist country where the revolution was crushedt: Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Burkina Faso, ... in each of those countries the police was instrumental in taking power away from the people and giving them to the capitalists/imperialists. There's a reason why historically the communists have allied with the army and not the police.

Im asking how you would deal with issues like domestic abuse in a hypothetical that we just deleted the police

Pretty sure I answered that. By having a society where people give a shit about one another. If a neighbour hears/sees domestic abuse going on, they should do something. The other solution is to remove the causes of domestic violence, like I already wrote.

And replaced with what?

A neighbourhood watch. The problem is the scope of powers. Have a police, but have the police officer only have authority inside of his neighbourhood or a demarcated, small area. Why should a cop have city-wide powers. Do we expect the police officer to be familiar with every neighbourhood and people in a city of 200-300k people? There's just no way. And that's part of the problem why the police behave the way they do, they are effectively ruling over strangers, and not people they have to see/meet every time they go to the grocery store.