Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xddd | Hacker News Reader

What examples do you have in mind when you say this? The main case studies that I see get brought up are Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War and the Paris Commune, but the wartime pressures that led to their collapse strike me as much different from the present situation. I think the CHAZ will be an interesting experiment given the context.

View on HN

Specifically the music festivals I've been to. It's fun and a wonderful feeling for a while, but eventually the idiots/assholes will become a problem that needs to be dealt with. Or nature throws a disaster at you and there is chaos.

It's a little hard to come up with historical examples because the utopia portion is often quite short and overshadowed by the negatives that follow. Generally, I would point to almost any historical 'revolution' as a warning that tearing down a system and rebuilding it from scratch does not mean improvement, even if it appears to be at the beginning. You could probably point to the August 1789 period of the French Revolution as an example of the 'utopic' phase, but I'm not certain. The fall of Saddam's government in Iraq would be another example. Kurdish Syria is probably another decent example.

  eventually the idiots/assholes will become a problem that needs to be dealt with

Like the police force?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. While many of the police actions are inexcusable, trying to have a society without an active group of people enforcing law and order doesn't work well. Just look at Baltimore for the downsides of police inaction.

Baltimore police are not exactly inactive, they are more like an organized gang (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/b...).

Here's data on the drop in police-initiated policing following Freddie Grey's death - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/07/12/baltim...

When people start policing the police force, don't they become....the police (by definition, not legality)? And therefore susceptible to becoming just like the "idiots/assholes" they were empowered to deal with.

Certainly an interesting recursion problem.

The solution to that is not having an "empowered" caste, and leaving it to a community to police themselves.

Everyone tends to get nervous about that though.

Something about witch hunts and lynching perhaps?

Both of these represent the same phenomenon as the modern police force, which is class oppression (in the first case anti-intellectual misogyny, in the second the same base racism underlying the current struggle). Communities can and will self-regulate, when let out from under the thumb of state-sanctioned violence.

What is “the community” supposed to do if there’s a murder or rape?

no, because they don't have authority to police civilians. there is no recursion here.

police force -> used to arrest dangerous criminals only

police wardens -> used to review, charge, change police policy, and arrest police officers who violate the law.

social officer -> used for all non-violent community enforcement. fines, ticketing, homelessness, mental health issues, etc. have no power to arrest anyone.

They're trying out the many proposed and proven methods of community management other than armed, poorly-trained cops. Music festivals aren't trying to prove the viability of alternative societal structures. They're different things.

And I hope it works. But history says it's going to go poorly and they're going to need to end up with something resembling a police force, even if they don't call it that.

I don't know how your interactions with police have gone, but I've never had them show up when I called, and most accounts I hear are that they don't do anything at best when they do. At worst, they kill someone. Most of what they do is not stuff they should be doing.

There's some niche a well-trained police force can fill, but it's a lot smaller than what the poorly-trained forces do now. Almost no one is actually calling for a complete and permanent abolition of police. Just a redefinition of their role.

The first line of the CHAZ demands:

> The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police

Also, I would look at the Baltimore police/crime post-Freddie Grey to see how diminished police action leads to much increased crime. What the BPD did was horrifying but so was the rise in crime once they became less active.

With regular assholes you have the right to self-defense. With the police you don't.

Without police or “criminal justice apparatus” your rights are merely theoretical.

If you feel this insecure, you should purchase firearms and practice using them. Many of your neighbors are doing this.

Or we could keep the police and purchase firearms.

Why not have the government hire people to do that for me? Call it "socialized defense" or something.

Your experiences with this may have gone better for you than those of many of your neighbors went for them?

American police departments have no duty to protect you. They are law enforcement officers who choose at their own discretion to arrive at your home seven minutes after you dial 911.

Make it their duty to protect you.

What do you do with all of the people, and the entire system, that's been built and trained for a century to not do that?

I doubt many people are against the idea of a specialized government role that provides protection services.

What they are against is:

* Thinking we can get that role by reforming existing police systems, given how opposed police systems are to such reform

* That these systems need the absurd budgets of police departments

* That the role requires absurd levels of protection for violent actions

* That the role requires armaments in the majority of cases

Going form police to a role that fits those criteria is going to start with not having police.

You fire them all and rehire the ones that are capable of being proper police officers.

It's federal case law that the profession of policing doesn't require what you're asking.

Then you make it law that it becomes required.

I guess I'm just on the side of: if the only thing we think police should be doing is something they already legally don't have to do, achieving the goal of getting that covered is better handled by tearing the entire system down and building a new system with a new name and new members than trying to force reform on orgs that have fought it tooth and nail. The actors that have gotten rulings like Warren v. District of Columbia obviously don't want reform in this area, and I don't see much success in forcing it on them. They have the time, resources, and inclination to fight it at every step, and piecemeal subvert the spirit of the reforms as they occur.

Maybe we haven't voted hard enough?

I'd say Minneapolis voted pretty hard the past couple weeks and are getting tangible results from it.

Absolutely. Now we realize the decades of voting more softly were just a waste of time.

That's what I pointed out upthread, tear it down and rebuild it.

I guess the point I'm dancing around is that words have power, and rebuilding a force called police is still a half measure. Don't just rebuild, but instead create a new force with a new name as part of gaining new semantics. People bring baggage with them when you use the same words.

I don't think that is true, plenty of police forces around the world call themselves police without feeling the innate urge to shoot at innocent protesters with lethal force.

I don't think they'd be qualified for the job.

Then they don't get hired.

It's really strange how people in this thread refuse to believe that the "reform the police" option even exists. As though we must either have a subpar police system or no police system at all. It's also strange how many people think that getting rid of the police will just work itself out.

1. Abolish police.

2. << A miracle happens. >>

3. Prosper.

Many other countries have a police system that works much better than the US but obviously the only possible solutions in the search space are "Americanism" or "Nothing".

"Reform" is a well known word in the US that translates to "do the very minimum necessary to shut most people up for a while". The fact that proponents of radical changes to policing have not come up with terms you like more should not be an indictment of their perspectives.

If reform worked it would have already worked.

Right, because police rarely break the law?

Hence you ought to rebuild it from the ground up and if the police breaks the law they'll be punished for it.

Why is it so hard for americans to imagine that it's possible to have atleast a semifunctional police apparatus?

I have a gun and my right to defend myself is a practical, factual statement. American police have no duty to protect you and are free from legal punishment if they choose to idly wait while you are assaulted and raped.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia...

You missed the point. You can assert your rights all the livelong day, but without a criminal justice apparatus all you have are a gun and some fine words. Given the relatively high mortality among armed gang members in America's underpoliced inner cities, your gun isn't the reason you and yours enjoy relatively low mortality--the difference is either one of policing or fine words, and I'm pretty sure it's not the latter.

No, you are missing the point. Without a gun there is nothing keeping you safe aside from a cop's whims. If someone wanted to walk into your house/office and kill you, a cop would (1) stop them, (2) choose not to stop them and not get punished for it, or (3) not get to you in time to be of any help. Defending yourself is the fourth option you exercise with your right to self-defense. If you really think that cops are bad, arrange your life so that your life doesn't depend on their whims. I live in a state where at least two thirds of people own guns (usually multiple guns) and the crime rate is very low.

I really don't think I'm missing the point. I might be missing your point, since you seem to have misinterpreted the thread and gone off onto your own digression. I'm all for 2A and I don't think cops are bad, but guns aren't keeping the peace, the police are keeping the peace, even if they aren't a perfect institution. There are lots of places with lots of guns and few police, and they are not known for being nice places to live. This conversation has reached the absurd--those of us without guns aren't dying multiple times per day as your "without a gun..." comment suggests. I'm not interested in debating absurdities, so I'll leave you with the last word.

police are not the reason we have safety.

a police force doesn't prevent you from being attacked, they only dispense justice after the fact and only sometimes.

welfare, courts and legal systems have a far larger impact than police as a means to prevent violence by having a peaceful way to resolve issues between individuals and ensuring basic needs are met. they also happen to be cheaper.

most violence happens at the edge of society where people cannot avail themselves of the court system. (drugs/prostitution)

Yes, I was using police as a shorthand for the criminal justice system. The fear of being caught and sentenced has a deterring effect on crime. The criminal justice system, however, depends on police, and police officers visible in the community also deters crime.

If anything I would think them even more practical, but require one to be more active in their enforcement.

But that is the thing I don't see being recognize. While the current institute that is the police could pass away, society will still have rules and will still want enforcers of those rules (though not all rules are equally enforced). And you see this in any supposedly anarchic community, they still have social standards they enforce, they just do not rely the nearby government for enforcement of smaller issues (though there is still a reliance for larger issues, such as stopping annexation by an entity with a larger force). In turn this makes me think all such communities are actually minarchist instead of anarchist, which is a drastic difference in base assumptions.

On the other hand, rather "diminished police action", the NYPD went on strike for a couple months in 2014-2015 and crime actually went down. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0211-5

The book Animal Farm is a great representation of this concept as a fable.

Animal Farm is not intended to be a fable. It is an allegorical retelling of Stalin's co-option of the Russian revolution - and that co-option is presented as only being possible because the populace is illiterate and ill-informed, which allows for revisionism from the Stalin-figure.

Orwell almost certainly did support anarchist revolution and utopia, given his role in the Spanish Civil War - and his concern about the suppression of anarchism through a totalitarian control of information is exactly what 1984 is about. He never would have felt that "Anarchic utopias do not stay utopic for all that long."

Is it? I thought Animal Farm was specifically about communism (it's been a while since I read it). Wouldn't Lord of the Flies be a better fable?

The continued existence of Christiania in Denmark should prove to you sufficiently that these types of attempts are not automatically doomed.

I mean would Seattle residents really consider CHAZ turning into Christiania a win? For a community of less than 1000 people, it seems to have a ridiculous amount of violence and crime.

What violence? How many serious injuries or deaths have occurred?

Revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune are interesting examples of libertarian socialism. You could also look at the Korean People's Association [1], Rojava more recently [2], or the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Chiapas (EZLN), which seem to be exceptional in having lasted 30 years or so.[3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Association_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Mun...

Look into what happened with the various hippie communes that sprung up across the US in the late 60s/early 70s, and how they fared.

Most came together with utopian ideals but fell apart as tension arose between those that just wanted to drop out and take acid and those who actually worked hard and tried to build something. Only one remains AFAICT and that one is atypical, enforcing sharing of everything, down to having a communal wardrobe, and having work schedules etc.

There were quite a few utopian socialist (not necessarily anarchist) projects started in the United States in the 19th century, especially following the proto-socialist Charles Fourier. Wikipedia has a list based on a wide variety of different philosophies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_commu...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com