Police officer dies in Italian soccer riot (4 Viewers)

[Malarky]

"I'd like an anarchist utopia" doesn't cut it as either an answer or a solution out here in the real world.

"The current state of affairs isn't working, but any attempt to see it for what it is and discuss how we can change it is crazy utopian talk, so its status quo for me thanks very much."

 

[jane]

First off, stop taking it like its a personal affront to you. I'm not dancing around laughing because your paternal grandfather is dead. Lets get some perspective on this. The thread started about some random policeman in Italy. I can't help the way I feel; I'm not rightly fussed that he's dead.

No one is saying that anyone has to be upset because someone was killed, any more so than if anyone else was killed. The point is that having a bit of humanity is important, and recognising that when human lives are lost because of violence, that's a tragedy, full stop. The point that Squiggle was trying to make is that the dude probably had a family, and that to a family, a loss is a loss. And my grandfather had, um, at least two families (if not more), and your post DID state that you had 'no sympathy' for a cop who was killed. Not 'no more sympathy than anyone else', but 'no sympathy'. If I said, "I have no sympathy for punks who get beat up for harrassing the cops", it would certainly not be read as a non-biased statement. In fact, it would be read as if I felt that they deserved what was coming to them (which, incidentally, I do not).

If you really believe in a peaceful world, then you might at least see my point ,even if you prefer to just make an enemy out of me. And if you truly believe in little anarchist collectives, then you're going to have to be better at discussing issues with people who don't agree with you on everything.

You can't be blind to the systematic abuse of power that has gone on since their formation. Not just the obvious things like planting evidence, making up statements, taking bribes, hassling innocent people but beating people to make a false confession, brutality on protests, killing them in custody, institutional racism, disproportionately targeting minorities. These aren't just one or two bent cops, its endemic to the organisation. And those that don't join in mostly cover up for the rest.

Just because someone can point out that someone is a human being doesn't mean they are blind to the systematic abuses of power that take place in all structures that involve unequal power. In fact, the only way to really acknowledge the terrible things that people do is to understand in a very active and real way that these are acts carried out by human beings, not by 'systems' or abstract structures, by people who, however constrained by the abstract structures they inhabit, still have a degree of choice. Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt -- as you have already pointed out -- but the point is that a human being is a human being. When you start placing different values on people's lives, you are no better than those whom you claim to oppose.

But I also look at it from an anarchist perspective - they fit in with the hierarchy of the state in a triumverate of legislators and prisons to keep capitalist society ticking over; the bias is always to protect the haves from the have-nots irrespective of whether they also give directions or direct traffic. What's not to hate?

But on an active day-to-day basis, most people don't think about hte theories of capitalist societies, we have other ways of deluding ourselves. You won't really win people over to your viewpoints without some actual concrete arguments. If indeed you're trying to convince people of such a thing.

You can't just pick one narrow aspect of society that isn't working and ask how you'd fix it. You have to take society as a whole, as the whole thing isn't working, and ask what you'd rather have instead. I'd quite like to see society evolve into a network of autonomously run self-managed communities or neighbourhoods, where community pressure and responsibility is brought to bear, and where doing away with private property (not to be confused with possessions) and currency will eradicate most crimes of avarice. The Anarchy FAQ goes into it in more detail - http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci58

I never suggested that policing could be isolated, but what, then, do we do about policing to pass the time until we're all skipping through fields of flowers with dreadlocks coming out our assholes?

I agree that capitalism as we know it is really bad for everyone, but you'll never actually be bothered to acknowledge that I agree with you because you'd rather spout rhetoric than find common ground.

You seem to think the world is divided into two groups: anarchists and people who just don't know any better. It would serve you well to realise that this is not the case, that just because someone isn't an anarchist doesn't mean he or she is a capitalist dupe or moron.

Let's try some troubleshooting for your egalitarian collectives: I don't like sharing eyeliner. It spreads eye diseases and stuff. Can I own some? Because I've gone through that whole makeup-just-plays-to-the-patriarchy thing and came out the other end deciding I like the way it defines my eyes. And I'd like to keep it. So where does this belong? Or will I automatically fall into your system, like a cog in a machine? Where does human agency fit into your anarchist collective? By which I mean, how do you expect you will deal with people who don't want to be anarchists, but aren't necessarily the Bad People In Power? We just want eyeliner, and we're not stupid dupes.

 

[Shorty]

but being actively unsympathetic, or seeing that someone's death was part of 'what they were getting into' (which has been said numerous times) is actually kinda nasty.

Are we still talking about the police or the army or both? It's this plea of ignorance and shirking of all individual responsibilities on the one hand and then your denial of the existance of the maintenance of willful ignorance and the manufacture of consent that I find hard to understand due to the contradictory elements within this argument, not that that there isn't a grey area, it's just you don't seem to touch upon it. Also, what's actively unsympathetic mean? I'm sure there's a Simpsons quote in here somewhere about it being easy not to care, meh! Is actively sympathetic sending flowers or donations?

"Just the facts, ma'am."

Ah, I get it!

Everyone agrees that police corruption is a huge problem. Everyone agrees on this. Why can't you acknowledge that so that there can be some actual discussion?

It's not that people aren't acknowledging it, far from it, it's that some people see it as this alien force within the police that needs to be erradicated, a "bad apple" theory whereas the majority of people here see it as a problem in that it is a systemic part of the police and an inherent tendency in positions of power and authority.

Now, if you don't mind, would you please suggest an alternative to policing? Because if you don't have any solutions at all, you can't have thought this through very much.

I think this has already been answered in the anarchist espousal and understanding of the way future communites would be constituted. It's answered, albeit imperfectly, in the anarchist FAQ link. No person who would hold anarchist/libertarian socialist views of any sane variety would believe that we should simply get rid of the police overnight and everything will be fine without a corresponding change in social relations along side it.

 

[pete]

"The current state of affairs isn't working, but any attempt to see it for what it is and discuss how we can change it is crazy utopian talk, so its status quo for me thanks very much."

Just because i think your "solution" to policing problems is about as realistic as calling for flying cars to solve dublin's traffic congestion doesn't mean i approve of the status quo.

 

[rape the drummer]

Just because i think your "solution" to policing problems is about as realistic as calling for flying cars to solve dublin's traffic congestion doesn't mean i approve of the status quo.

who would approve of them, they're bloody awful

 

[jane]

"The current state of affairs isn't working, but any attempt to see it for what it is and discuss how we can change it is crazy utopian talk, so its staus quo for me thanks very much."

But when did someone say this? For people who supposedly believe in fluid societies, you sure do love your dichotomies.

Just because someone says that an anarchist utopia isn't practical in today's world it does not follow that they condone the status quo. Where did someone say this? This is the single-most enraging thing about most anarchists, the failure to see that just because someone doesn't buy the whole utopian ideal, it doesn't mean they dont' both want -- and actively work for -- changed.No one is even saying that you're arguing that an anarchist utopia would happen tomorrow, but no one is really sure what you want, but I do know that being accused of just wanting to maintain the status quo makes me want to rush right out and buy up the whole Nars counter at Brown Thomas.



I've never seen so many rules as there are for anarchy, and I'm scared because I always seem to say the wrong opinion. In fact, I'd also like to request that I be allowed to own a copybook because I'll never be able to remember all these rules for anarchy and I'll get in loads of trouble.

 

[sexypornolady]

 

[Malarky]

Before I go on to try and answer some of the points, can I just ask that you stop attributing words and thoughts to me that I didn't say and don't think. I'm going to list them here, then ignore them as they are not my assertions and have no place in this debate.

even if you prefer to just make an enemy out of me.

You seem to think the world is divided into two groups: anarchists and people who just don't know any better. It would serve you well to realise that this is not the case, that just because someone isn't an anarchist doesn't mean he or she is a capitalist dupe or moron.

 

[Shorty]

Let's try some troubleshooting for your egalitarian collectives: I don't like sharing eyeliner. It spreads eye diseases and stuff. Can I own some? Because I've gone through that whole makeup-just-plays-to-the-patriarchy thing and came out the other end deciding I like the way it defines my eyes. And I'd like to keep it. So where does this belong? Or will I automatically fall into your system, like a cog in a machine? Where does human agency fit into your anarchist collective? By which I mean, how do you expect you will deal with people who don't want to be anarchists, but aren't necessarily the Bad People In Power? We just want eyeliner, and we're not stupid dupes.

Eh? Still further confused as to this, a world in which we have hopefully reached the full extent of human autonomy and freedom to fulfill capacities and desires won't have eyeliner? Is there a shortage of ingredients or something? That might explain why you can't have eyeliner? I think this is the problem with people equating anarchism as an idea with "anarchists". God damn!

Also, what do you understand as moral agency? A lot of this thread has swerved between the denial of moral agency and complete social constructivist viewpoints, then the exact opposite and back again...gah!

 

[rape the drummer]

But when did someone say this? For people who supposedly believe in fluid societies, you sure do love your dichotomies.

Just because someone says that an anarchist utopia isn't practical in today's world it does not follow that they condone the status quo. Where did someone say this? This is the single-most enraging thing about most anarchists, the failure to see that just because someone doesn't buy the whole utopian ideal, it doesn't mean they dont' both want -- and actively work for -- changed.No one is even saying that you're arguing that an anarchist utopia would happen tomorrow, but no one is really sure what you want, but I do know that being accused of just wanting to maintain the status quo makes me want to rush right out and buy up the whole Nars counter at Brown Thomas.



I've never seen so many rules as there are for anarchy, and I'm scared because I always seem to say the wrong opinion. In fact, I'd also like to request that I be allowed to own a copybook because I'll never be able to remember all these rules for anarchy and I'll get in loads of trouble.

you should read up on parecon- the anrchist economic model. theres nothing utopian or unrealistic about the possibility of an anarchist society when you hear it from the people who write the theory. however when ya hear it from a bunch of angry, reactionary punks it starts to sound silly.

www.zmag.org
www.parecon.org
just a couple of helpful website on the more rational side of anarchist ideals

 

[jane]

Are we still talking about the police or the army or both? It's this plea of ignorance and shirking of all individual responsibilities on the one hand and then your denial of the existance of the maintenance of willful ignorance and the manufacture of consent that I find hard to understand due to the contradictory elements within this argument, not that that there isn't a grey area, it's just you don't seem to touch upon it. Also, what's actively unsympathetic mean? I'm sure there's a Simpsons quote in here somewhere about it being easy not to care, meh! Is actively sympathetic sending flowers or donations?

All I'm saying is that saying 'I have no sympathy' is tantamount to saying 'he/she got what was coming'. Nobody wants you to send bloody flowers. But don't pretend that a statement of a 'lack of sympathy' was one of neutrality because people aren't that dumb.

Now, I'm not condoning lack of accountability. The point is that hiding behind someone else's theories is no more going to encourage accountability than is just sitting and going, "Oh, it was just a bad apple." The point is, you're saying that I 'don't touch on' what you want me to have said, rather than looking at what I did say. As I already pointed out, if you actually want to be politically productive, you might consider looking for common ground. I'm not being wilfully ignorant, I'm acknowledging the reality that whether you like it or not, there is a police force, and what do you do with a corrupt police force on Wednesday and Thursday of this week, seeing as the anarchist utopia will be a while?

It's not that people aren't acknowledging it, far from it, it's that some people see it as this alien force within the police that needs to be erradicated, a "bad apple" theory whereas the majority of people here see it as a problem in that it is a systemic part of the police and an inherent tendency in positions of power and authority.

There you go with being all black and white again. Yes, relationships of unequal power are never going to lead to happy utopias, but the fact is, change can't happen over night. You seem to have a good idea of how the structure as it stands operates, and you know what it is that you want at the end, but what the rest of us want to know is what the practical steps are along the way. Seriously.

I think this has already been answered in the anarchist espousal and understanding of the way future communites would be constituted. It's answered, albeit imperfectly, in the anarchist FAQ link. No person who would hold anarchist/libertarian socialist views of any sane variety would believe that we should simply get rid of the police overnight and everything will be fine without a corresponding change in social relations along side it.

No, but this is the third time you've said this without explaining what we do in the short to medium term.

 

[rape the drummer]

and of course there'd be eyeliner in an anarchist society-what about anarchist emo's? not trying to bring the world back to the stone age or anything..

 

[nooleen]

But when did someone say this? For people who supposedly believe in fluid societies, you sure do love your dichotomies.

Just because someone says that an anarchist utopia isn't practical in today's world it does not follow that they condone the status quo. Where did someone say this? This is the single-most enraging thing about most anarchists, the failure to see that just because someone doesn't buy the whole utopian ideal, it doesn't mean they dont' both want -- and actively work for -- changed.

and just because someone doesn't cry when a cop dies doesn't mean they want to - how did you put it - skip through fields of flowers with dreadlocks coming out their arse.
and i don't understand where the discussion of the right to own eyeliner or 'requesting permission to own a copybook' is supposed to be going, it seems to be based on a cartoon misconception of anarchism rather than what has actually been said:

doing away with private property (not to be confused with possessions)

 

[Malarky]

But when did someone say this? For people who supposedly believe in fluid societies, you sure do love your dichotomies. Just because someone says that an anarchist utopia isn't practical in today's world it does not follow that they condone the status quo. but I do know that being accused of just wanting to maintain the status quo makes me want to rush right out and buy up the whole Nars counter at Brown Thomas.

Jeez Louis, give me a chance to answer then. I was paraphrasing Pete not you, partly to annoy him, and partly because every time this sort of topic comes up, he dismisses any notion of anarchist theory (theory mind, not rules) as unrealistic, unworkable or utopian. He's also never put forward his thoughts, but is content to criticise others. I was asked for a solution to the police force - something that problematic won't be solved overnight especially without factoring in other aspects of society; so I gave my longterm view and obviously worded it badly somehow as you're berating me for laying down rules?!

 

[jane]

and of course there'd be eyeliner in an anarchist society-what about anarchist emo's? not trying to bring the world back to the stone age or anything..

Yes, but my point is, if there is no personal property, then what about the fact that it's unhygenic to share eye makeup? It's a flippant example, I know, but I'm trying to make a real point: how are you defining personal property? Does it mean that people would have personal objects, but not land or territory that would give them power over another? If so, it sounds nice, but what is defined as an object, what is defined as 'power over another'? Is a house an object? Basically, you're basing your ideal image of a society on the expectation that people will read and understand their material and social worlds in identical ways to each other, and in ways identical to the political ideals they are meant to embody. But people don't work that way. I'm not trying to be flippant, but I'm also not condoning the status quo.

Now, I'm already aware that there are more forms of ownership between 'personal' and 'collective', or at least that we have to be open to the possibility of alternative forms of it that either existed in the past, or could in the future, but the point is: how do you really change people's minds, when you jsut attack people who are questioning you?

Malarky, you are assuming that anyone who doesn't want to destroy the police is just in favour of the status quo, which conveys the attitude that people are either with you 100% or against you. Which is kinda like...how the corrupt cops are.

 

[nooleen]

well i certainly hope donal is happy with himself for starting this mess.

 

[Malarky]

Yeh, I won't be sorry when he dies.

 

[Malarky]

Malarky, you are assuming that anyone who doesn't want to destroy the police is just in favour of the status quo, which conveys the attitude that people are either with you 100% or against you. Which is kinda like...how the corrupt cops are.

I was taking the piss out of Pete. It's a two way thing.
I'm actually lost as to what to reply to now, gimme a second.

 

[nooleen]

Yeh, I won't be sorry when he dies.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! this will need a whole new thread.

 

[jane]

Jeez Louis, give me a chance to answer then. I was paraphrasing Pete not you, partly to annoy him, and partly because every time this sort of topic comes up, he dismisses any notion of anarchist theory (theory mind, not rules) as unrealistic, unworkable or utopian. He's also never put forward his thoughts, but is content to criticise others. I was asked for a solution to the police force - something that problematic won't be solved overnight especially without factoring in other aspects of society; so I gave my longterm view and obviously worded it badly somehow as you're berating me for laying down rules?!

But just as you don't want to follow someone else's rules, neither do most people.

Why are you paraphrasing PEte just to annoy him when you've got an opportunity to put forth some useful solutions?

The problem is that theories are theories. I spent a lot of years really clinging to them, too, but as I've got older, I've realised that they're just that: theories. They are there, adn they are real, and they can be very useful references, shorthand for collective or systemic behaviour, but they cannot support an argument, and they cannot bring about change. All theories are unrealistic on their own because, real as they may be sometimes, they do not reflect people's daily conscious behaviour. When a cop arrests someone, they are not consciously thinking about the system, and most of the time, if you want to make people conscious of what they can do, the best thing to do is give solutions, not just focus on abstractions of the system that constrains them.