5 ms·

Not ironic at all. Police are the agents of capital and their union is thus in service of capital, not labor. They are conspicuously the only union which isn't

Not ironic at all. Police are the agents of capital and their union is thus in service of capital, not labor. They are conspicuously the only union which isn't protested very much by the powers that be. The union protects police from retribution by the people against whom they mete out punishment, who are essentially never capitalists. To put it another way, there is zero solidarity between police unions and unions of other types. IWW does not allow police (or prison guards) into its organization.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Police are agents of the state and the state serves nothing but itself.
- _nalply 6y ago
  The state serves entities in power, not itself. To give an example: In Switzerland being a direct democracy many people would say that the state serves the people who vote, but I know someone who says that Switzerland is in reality a plutocracy, so in this case the state would serve the one percent.
  - bobthechef 6y ago
    Well, there’s whom the state is supposed to serve and there’s whom they actually do serve. Any state that serves anything but the common good is a tyranny by definition. The US and most countries are globalist oligarchies and so you might say that the state is serving capital in our day and age. However, there is variation in the degree of oligarchic capture of the state and while it is good to reduce this capture, I am not sure I can name a single state in history that wasn’t a tyranny to one degree of another in practice (again, matters of degree). A good way of limiting the totalizing control of oligarchs is through a subsidiarian dispersal of political power. But direct democracy and mob rule are perhaps the worst options. It’s also an illusion because the mob is always just an instrument of power (communists for example mobilized the mobs by whipping jealousy). I think the best attitude is one which presumes that corruption is an inevitable and endemic feature of all human societies and that while we can deal with some or much of it in small ways as these things occur, there is no solution. The belief in a solution ultimately leads to far worse things. Don’t immanentize the eschaton.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Evidently not.
- riffic 6y ago
  This is such an unenlightened comment, in an era where money buys political power (Lessig's "economy of influence" might be worth looking into).
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    The state will about face and serve the people the nanosecond they start looking like they're gonna become a serious problem for the stability of the state. The reason money buys power is because the people are divided or don't care. Money only wins when all else is equal.
kortilla 6y ago
Police are not agents of capital. They are agents of the government and nothing more. Police make a modest government salary and do not (at least in the US) have a history of reacting well to bribes. Police meet out punishment all of the time to capitalists (a.k.a people with retirement accounts and savings accounts). I’m not sure why you think otherwise.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  And since government has always sided with capital against labor, it usually amounts to police serving capital, at least in matters of capital VS labor. Remember that the US has a history of using police and even armed forces to crush unions and strikes.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    The government does not side with capital. If it did, we wouldn’t have unions at all, minimum wage, etc. Standard Oil would still be dominating and AT&T would never have been broken up. To say the government serves capital, even in the US, is laughably wrong. Look at the mandate of the Federal Reserve, it’s literally designed for maximum employment. The government serves those in power, many of whom are rich. Being rich is not enough to have the government serve you though.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      The fact that it's not 100% dedicated to capital's desires does not mean that it doesn't essentially serve it. Sure, if it were a purely capitalist state, we'd all be slaves, bought and sold by corporations, and we're not there of course. But in monetary policy, employee benefits, tax breaks, environmental protection, social securityand virtually any other domain you care to name, government cares about the interests of capital first, and everyone else only a distant second.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        So you admit it’s not dedicated to capital’s desires. Therefore the police are not there to serve capital, it’s that simple. They are agents of the government and whatever its interests are, which is serving those in power. More refutations of how these are not in the interests of capital. Monetary policy does not serve capital (see employment mandate). Environmental protection does not serve capital (see the very establishment of the EPA). Social security does not serve capital (it’s an unfunded liability that will need funding through further taxation or inflation). The covid bailouts and current policies are destructive to capital. (Real negative interest rates are destroying capital)

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Police are agents of the state and the state serves nothing but itself.

_nalply 6y ago
The state serves entities in power, not itself. To give an example: In Switzerland being a direct democracy many people would say that the state serves the people who vote, but I know someone who says that Switzerland is in reality a plutocracy, so in this case the state would serve the one percent.
- bobthechef 6y ago
  Well, there’s whom the state is supposed to serve and there’s whom they actually do serve. Any state that serves anything but the common good is a tyranny by definition. The US and most countries are globalist oligarchies and so you might say that the state is serving capital in our day and age. However, there is variation in the degree of oligarchic capture of the state and while it is good to reduce this capture, I am not sure I can name a single state in history that wasn’t a tyranny to one degree of another in practice (again, matters of degree). A good way of limiting the totalizing control of oligarchs is through a subsidiarian dispersal of political power. But direct democracy and mob rule are perhaps the worst options. It’s also an illusion because the mob is always just an instrument of power (communists for example mobilized the mobs by whipping jealousy). I think the best attitude is one which presumes that corruption is an inevitable and endemic feature of all human societies and that while we can deal with some or much of it in small ways as these things occur, there is no solution. The belief in a solution ultimately leads to far worse things. Don’t immanentize the eschaton.
monadic2 6y ago
Evidently not.
riffic 6y ago
This is such an unenlightened comment, in an era where money buys political power (Lessig's "economy of influence" might be worth looking into).
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  The state will about face and serve the people the nanosecond they start looking like they're gonna become a serious problem for the stability of the state. The reason money buys power is because the people are divided or don't care. Money only wins when all else is equal.

kortilla 6y ago

Police are not agents of capital. They are agents of the government and nothing more. Police make a modest government salary and do not (at least in the US) have a history of reacting well to bribes. Police meet out punishment all of the time to capitalists (a.k.a people with retirement accounts and savings accounts). I’m not sure why you think otherwise.

tsimionescu 6y ago
And since government has always sided with capital against labor, it usually amounts to police serving capital, at least in matters of capital VS labor. Remember that the US has a history of using police and even armed forces to crush unions and strikes.
- kortilla 6y ago
  The government does not side with capital. If it did, we wouldn’t have unions at all, minimum wage, etc. Standard Oil would still be dominating and AT&T would never have been broken up. To say the government serves capital, even in the US, is laughably wrong. Look at the mandate of the Federal Reserve, it’s literally designed for maximum employment. The government serves those in power, many of whom are rich. Being rich is not enough to have the government serve you though.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    The fact that it's not 100% dedicated to capital's desires does not mean that it doesn't essentially serve it. Sure, if it were a purely capitalist state, we'd all be slaves, bought and sold by corporations, and we're not there of course. But in monetary policy, employee benefits, tax breaks, environmental protection, social securityand virtually any other domain you care to name, government cares about the interests of capital first, and everyone else only a distant second.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      So you admit it’s not dedicated to capital’s desires. Therefore the police are not there to serve capital, it’s that simple. They are agents of the government and whatever its interests are, which is serving those in power. More refutations of how these are not in the interests of capital. Monetary policy does not serve capital (see employment mandate). Environmental protection does not serve capital (see the very establishment of the EPA). Social security does not serve capital (it’s an unfunded liability that will need funding through further taxation or inflation). The covid bailouts and current policies are destructive to capital. (Real negative interest rates are destroying capital)