To defend the state against the people who live within it
It’s a class distinction, who controls them and for what purpose, the common worker is not in control of Chinese police behavior tactics or actions, it only theorhe5ically acts in their interest the same way cops do here, albeit substantially less of a lie in the case of China it does not suddenly make Chinese cops revolutionary vanguard
I definitely agree that there’s a class component to the police, but then I don’t follow that police in China is the same as police in e.g. Europe or the USA, because the class character of the Chinese state is demonstrably different than that of the US France or Britain.
Unless you don’t believe that China is a DotP but the way you phrase your argument makes it to be a constant that applies to all states, so that’s what I have trouble understanding. If there’s a class component to the police, then it doesn’t follow that all states will also have the same class characteristic as each other. Otherwise there is no point in saying that there’s a class distinction to the police, it’s just the police.
This is the problem with dealing with anarchists, especially those from the west. They view all authority as bad because they cannot comprehend the idea that other countries governments may be different than their own.
The mere idea that Chinese law enforcement works for the people, and actually exists to serve and protect said people, is incomprehensible to them.
It’s as simple as that. “My only experience with law enforcement and government is bad thus all law enforcement and governments are bad.” Something something bedtimes.
I’m not trying to be snarky or pedantic when I ask, what is a cop to you? Would you consider a cop to be any enforcer of a formalized state structure that has a monopoly on violence? Anyone who takes on an armed role for organized community defense?
It’s very easy and sensible to go with ACAB for the US, but when we’re talking about for example a communist vanguard in defense of a working class state socialist project, if we just say it is identical fundamentally, then what are we left with to defend against the violence of the colonizer, imperialist, etc.? Or if we were to say it’s bad when it’s a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but good if it’s community defense, what constitutes the difference and how is the 2nd one strong enough on a practical level to achieve liberation?
In other words, ignoring the context and interactions of a category is the same as removing the dialectics from materialist analysis. Then we limit ourselves to analysing the reality with metaphysics.
They are police! ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS? since when was this a new concept
ACAB is about how American (and British) police are bastards because they serve capital it’s not some inherent quality of law enforcement.
What would you say is the role of police in the state?
To defend the state against the people who live within it
It’s a class distinction, who controls them and for what purpose, the common worker is not in control of Chinese police behavior tactics or actions, it only theorhe5ically acts in their interest the same way cops do here, albeit substantially less of a lie in the case of China it does not suddenly make Chinese cops revolutionary vanguard
I definitely agree that there’s a class component to the police, but then I don’t follow that police in China is the same as police in e.g. Europe or the USA, because the class character of the Chinese state is demonstrably different than that of the US France or Britain.
Unless you don’t believe that China is a DotP but the way you phrase your argument makes it to be a constant that applies to all states, so that’s what I have trouble understanding. If there’s a class component to the police, then it doesn’t follow that all states will also have the same class characteristic as each other. Otherwise there is no point in saying that there’s a class distinction to the police, it’s just the police.
This is the problem with dealing with anarchists, especially those from the west. They view all authority as bad because they cannot comprehend the idea that other countries governments may be different than their own.
The mere idea that Chinese law enforcement works for the people, and actually exists to serve and protect said people, is incomprehensible to them.
It’s as simple as that. “My only experience with law enforcement and government is bad thus all law enforcement and governments are bad.” Something something bedtimes.
I’m not trying to be snarky or pedantic when I ask, what is a cop to you? Would you consider a cop to be any enforcer of a formalized state structure that has a monopoly on violence? Anyone who takes on an armed role for organized community defense?
It’s very easy and sensible to go with ACAB for the US, but when we’re talking about for example a communist vanguard in defense of a working class state socialist project, if we just say it is identical fundamentally, then what are we left with to defend against the violence of the colonizer, imperialist, etc.? Or if we were to say it’s bad when it’s a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but good if it’s community defense, what constitutes the difference and how is the 2nd one strong enough on a practical level to achieve liberation?
In other words, ignoring the context and interactions of a category is the same as removing the dialectics from materialist analysis. Then we limit ourselves to analysing the reality with metaphysics.
I’m not sure how you expect to secure proletarian class interests without police. What, inframaterialism?