Comments on: Aren’t Cops Workers Too?

By: directory

directory — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:19:59 +0000

I really like your site

By: Jason Schulman

Jason Schulman — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:22:14 +0000

Then why are you here, “e.p. thompson,” if everything we say and do is “futile”?

By: e.p. thompson

e.p. thompson — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:58:18 +0000

what futile exercises

By: Bhaskar

Bhaskar — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:31:17 +0000

I think you have a poor understanding of what YDS (and DSA) actually does and the real position the left is in today.

To begin with YDS chapters and campus activists are involved in anti-sweatshop campaigns, anti-war efforts, local union drives and worker outreaches, demonstrations (we had organizers work to help build the National Equality March that happened last weekend), we host panels, educate our peers, and have members involved in support for strike actions (recently NY DSA members were heavily involved in the struggle at the Stella plant).

Now, the left has been engaged in apolitical movementism for a long time… throughout our slow descent into irrelevance (not to downplay the role of objective factors). The fact that some members (we aren’t a monolith and are only broadly unified by our adherence to a few basic principles) are engaging in theory is a bit refreshing after decades of post-political movement building that basically amounting to hoping that disparate identity politics could be wielded together to form some coherent sphere of “resistance”.

Also, as unfortunate as it is The Activist is read by a few hundred left-activists everyday… not where a thriving mass movement is going to for agitation material. There is no doubt that some steps towards a re-foundation and unification of the left and the breaking of illusions about our present prospects for effective politics (both in the form of the inside-outside strategy or the building of microsects) are prerequisites for meaningful, relevant mass action. I like to think that some of the material that you malign on “The Activist” serves, at the very least, a purpose in at least getting a few activists to think critically about such things.

I think that the future may lead to the end of the left’s malaise and through this, an increase in consciousness and activity of a (larger) militant minority… but getting from A to B doesn’t involve just shutting about socialism and joining the Progressive Democrats of America or something like that. Old dead-ends — utopianism masquerading as pragmatism.

***
for an overview of democratic socialism:
http://theactivist.org/blog/archives/towards-freedom-the-theory-and-practice-of-democratic-socialism

By: e.p. thompson

e.p. thompson — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:01:07 +0000

if you really care about implementing practical ideas to change the consciousness of the masses then maybe you should dial down the Marxist language and avoid alienating a security entity that nearly everyone has some degree of support for.
this intellectual masturbation is fine I suppose. just seems like this blog is full of pointless infighting. i guess it’s a relevant observation to comment on police brutality in a protest. but uh….why don’t you guys actually outlay some plans to be implemented. i think it’s fair to say that many of the basic tenants for a progressive vision are already agreed upon and there is an ample base of historical work that shows how class consciousness arose in different places in different times. i think when you pursue showing off intellectual prowess and pursue largely irrelevant infighting that you show more concern for yourself than effective means of disseminating and educating people on the basics.

or….whatevs?

By: Jordy Cummings

Jordy Cummings — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:02:05 +0000

I think this is a thoughtful piece, and dead wrong. “Following orders” is no excuse, and progressive change happens when cops refuse criminal orders. Cops may be workers, but so are scabs, and any self respecting activist knows how to treat a scab.

Some workers are not our allies.

By: Jacob Richter

Jacob Richter — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:54:56 +0000

While cops exist within the wage labour system, unlike proper workers and even proper petit-bourgeoisie they do not further the *development* of society’s labour power or capabilities (by having a direct relationship with surplus value).

By: Bhaskar Sunkara

Bhaskar Sunkara — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:37:15 +0000

Not to take this into some weird sectarian terrain, but wouldn’t police be like technocrats, doctors, lawyers etc in the petty-bourgeoisie?

Btw I always avoided Deleuze and Guattari. I thought they were like Negri. What do you recommend? The Capitalism and Schizophrenia volume?

By: Matt May

Matt May — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:21:04 +0000

In general, I agree with Jason. The police are the armed guards of capital–have been and will be until the revolution. That is their job. Yet they are working class because class is a relation. Like other member of the working class they have to sell their labor to gain access to the means of subsistence. I do not think, then, that they are “outside” class but rather they are class collaborationists who have betrayed the class they belong to. Of course, the success of revolutionary moments has often depended on cops refusing to work (with-holding their labor). And, of course, there are many different types of cops. People policing all kinds of borders and little micro-fascist cops policing thought. Deleuze and Guattari had some beautiful things to say about all this.

By: Jason Schulman

Jason Schulman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:44:18 +0000

Police really are the armed guards of capitalism, who work to uphold the social and political dominance of the capitalist class. The subjective intent that some may have in becoming cops — to protect the innocent from street crime, etc. — doesn’t matter.

Yelling “fascist pigs!” and such is stupid, of course. Deliberate antagonism of the police is always stupid. But the social role of the police puts them outside the working class. Walk a picket line with striking workers and you’ll soon figure out why the cops come out — to protect private property, not to protect the workers.