For anyone who thinks Canadian cops are nicer, I still remember the G20 in Toronto. The police designated a park as a free speech zone, surrounded it, took off their name tags and put on masks, and began to beat the protesters. They tore a disabled man’s prosthetic leg off and dragged him around, they took people away from cameras and beat them. Not a single cop, including the chief in charge, suffered a single consequence. And they wonder why we no longer feel sad when one dies.
I saw a documentary of G20 here in Germany and one take home message was “it’s a miracle no one got killed”. They were heavily insured, imprisoned without a trial and stuff. Just for those talking about “European Socialism”. There is no such thing.
Go read up on Genova’s G8… Seems like a pattern.
Just for those talking about “European Socialism”. There is no such thing.
First, ACAB.
Second, systems of government =/= economic systems. Ie you can have socialism with or without democracy.
First, ACAB.
Full heartedly yes
you can have socialism with or without democracy.
Yesn’t. Depends on your definition of both socialism and democracy. Can you vote socialism into power in a liberal democracy while keeping the state apparatus in tact including the monopoly on power and cops and stuff? No, I don’t think so. What about a more direct democracy, a council republic with communities of communities based on the principles of mutual aid? Sounds great! Is this found anywhere in modern day Europe? No, there is no European socialism in this sense.
And if you define socialism as path to communism than there never was and never will be a socialist state since states are inherently conterrevolutionary. If you define socialism as having the official goal to move into communism, than there is still no European socialism since hell, we are moving to the right. Nationalism is rising everywhere and former social democrats are neoliberals which is the best option on the ballot right now sadly.
I was talking about European socialism and when Muricans use this phrase, they refere to safety nets and universal healthcare and stuff. This is under no definition socialism. When you mean Catalonia 1935, I would agree but noone would call that European Socialism.
Depends on your definition of both socialism and democracy
Everything depends on definitions, but there’s nothing subjective or controversial really in what I’m saying. One is a system of government, or the “form” of government in other words, and one is an economic system or the “form” of the economical model.
Can you vote socialism into power in a liberal democracy
What does that even mean? Again, socialism is not a system of government.
if you define socialism as path to communism If you define socialism as having the official goal to move into communism
What is even this red scare rhetoric?
there is still no European socialism
American, I take it? (No offense.)
I’m Finnish. We’re by definition a socialist country. Social democracy is defined as philosophy withing socialism. Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government. Yes, you can equicovate several days on how “the Nordic model isn’t socialist, it’s a mixed economy”, but aside from the US, no-one really does. The Nordic model absolutely is socialist in nature. (Also, if one considered — just for metaphorical purposes — capitalism as murder. Then what would “mixed” mean in that context? You can’t slightly murder someone. Either you do or you don’t. Ofc, with political and economical philosophies this is much less clear. Thus the metaphor, as otherwise my explanation of my thoughts on that would be complete gibberish.)
I think you’re one of the people who think “free markets” are synonymous with “capitalism”, when nothing could be further from the truth. Free markets are defined as markets in which only the quality and quantity and price of the good you provide matter, as then there is honest competition. That can only exist in well regulated (ie market-socialist) markets. In capitalism, profit goes above everything, so it always tends to move towards monopolies which produce worse and more expensive products. Due to that being the very core nature of capitalism, even the US employs some socialist policies. (This is not to say that the US is socialist in ant significant way, just that the policies are.) They’re called “antitrust laws”.
“This law prohibits conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.”
Because even the US has to face facts that naturally that is where capitalism goes and it has to be blocked so that monipolies don’t screw the economy faster than Stalin’s five-year plans.
The point being that when you dissociate communism from socialism, you can see that the type of socialism being called for is much closer to the American Dream than to communism. Essentially it’s just what we already have, minus shitty practices, minus greedy billionaires always trying to squeeze more money out of something while making it worse. So add actually well designed, affordable products, universal basic income, proper labour laws (The average American takes less vacation time than a medieval peasant), affordable housing, all that good jazz.
To scare people with “socialism” is to misunderstand it so badly that you’re playing for the side that’s benefitting from your life being shit.
Oh I get on rants when I take my sleep meds (I have a 60min window to go to bed more or less, chatting during it is fun), sorry for the long-windedness.
What I meant was that (while keeping in mind that all discussion about political philosophies are fraught with the danger of generalising too much because someone always has some niche clashing definition) you can basically mix and match systems of government and eoxnomies. Like authoritarian communism, obviously, but technically, you could have democratic communism. I mean, you won’t, because until we get to Star Trek levels of fully automated gay space communism (and “gay” in that references more the use the word use to have, not anyone’s sexuality per se) it just isn’t viable. But if a democratic majority voted on it and wanted to use communism, they could.
You can also have democratic capitalism, or authoritarian capitalism (what China does de-facto). Or even monarchic socialism, which is more or less of what some of Nordics who still have royals have, albeit it’s more monarchic democratic market-socialism, but here we go with the labels again. They’re meant to help us, not confine us.
And now I think I’ve written quite enough.
lol, I live in Germany and have never heard anybody outside the US referring to the Nordic model as socialism. Sanders and his followers do but some Europeans do that too? I mean we do have parties that are called social democrats or even socialists, but only for historical reasons, nobody would say they are anything else than capitalist nowadays.
socialism is not a system of government.
Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government.
Curious, which is it? Socialism is not a system of government but a system where the government does stuff? So an absolutist monarchy where the monarch (and therefore the government) owns everything is socialism? Maybe rethink that definition.
(The average American takes less vacation time than a medieval peasant)
I don’t think you were aware of that but there is a paywall. From what I’ve gathered, it’s 150 days a year off, which is still much more than here in Germany and I guess in the North as well. So we too live in capitalism.
I think you’re one of the people who think “free markets” are synonymous with “capitalism”,
Short answer: No. But I’m not a fan of free market either. Free markets can display demand but not needs. We need a needs centered economy. But there is a thing like market socialism.
even the US employs some socialist policies.
So the US is the mixed system now? From your definitions, there at least can exist a mixed system, right? It’s a gradual difference between the US and the Nordic system and Germany is somewhere in between. And some Germans are very proud of our “soziale Marktwirtschaft” (social market economy) and maybe even call it a mixed system. Where do you draw the line?
So let’s get our definitions straight. There are different schools of thought within socialism but by enlarge, it’s a counter movement to capitalism. In a nutshell, a capitalist (as in they own capital) owns the means of production (eg a factory) and employs workers who have nothing else to sell than their work force. That’s the capitalist mode of production. This changed alot since the 19th century and this binary class system morphed into hierarchies of some kind or another.
So much for capitalism. Socialism, as I said, is counter movement. In socialism, the workers own the means of production themselves and do not need a capitalist. This can be in direct form (workers owning the factory they work in, i.e. syndicalism, this can be free market) or in the form of a workers’ state (as the Soviet Union proclaimed to be and social democrats do in a way) or, as I would prefer, in a system of councils on different levels. I’m a big fan of social ecology.
All that said, I do not think you can mix all kinds of economic systems and systems of governments. Capitalism goes well with electoral, representative democracy because both are systems of competition. Capitalism also goes well with dictatorships since both are systems of domination. All attempts to implement a socialist state, either by socialist parties within a bourgeois democracy or a revolution that leaves the state apparatus in tact, have failed and morphed into capitalism sooner or later. Socialism is by its definition a workers’ democracy and therefore only compatible with direct forms of democracy like a council republic. I’m aware that this is a very libertarian socialist (not to say anarcho-socialist) perspective and you don’t have to share it, but I hope, you can acknowledge it.
Working rn so indepth answer later but just lolled so hard that couldn’t help not answering
socialism is not a system of government.
Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government.
Curious, which is it?
Kapparoflmaoooxdddd
You don’t understand that a government must use an economic system… for the economy.
Like do you not understand the difference between a form of government and a form of economy? Two distinct things.
Like talking about the shape and size of something. You don’t think circles are all big or small, right? You understand that shapes and sizes are different things right?
Fucking laughing my ass off here I’ll reply in depth in like 4 hours
Maybe don’t insist on the difference and then use the word “government” in your definition of socialism twice. If you don’t see any problem there, I’m not sure your answer will be worth reading
Why don’t we regularly kill them?
Recently a Toronto resident was acquitted of murdering a cop, the city celebrated and the cops got pissed and expressed that they wished the man deemed innocent had gone to jail.
Long story short, this man was getting his family back into their mini van to go home. Armed, plain clothes cops are looking for an unrelated suspect so of course they draw guns and run towards the innocent man with his family. The man panics, steps on the gas and escapes, running over the cop and killing him. He was then arrested for “intentionally killing an officer”, ignoring the fact that all the man saw was two armed men in plain clothes running towards him and his family
Jesus fucking Christ! They’ve done everything short of spelling or a war declaration! Where I’m standing, the guy is extra innocent if he did actually do it.
I’ve been saying for years that simply turning it off should be grounds for immediate suspension if not full termination.
The only time those cameras should be off is when they go to the bathroom and even then I’m fuckin iffy.
I feel like the solution is a “taking a shit” button which flags that chunk of the video. That way unless there is some suspicion that a crime happened in that chunk of time it goes unwatched.
Yes your honour, I suddenly needed to take a shit in public just when the suspect was assaulted by someone else
Yup definitely goes unwatched. It would be immoral to watch that so that’s not going to happen.
This works.
Just have it time limited so that every sixty seconds they get a quick audible countdown to point away from their exposed body part at the roll of toilet paper or wall of the urinal. They can’t beat someone and keep breaking to arrange a fake shot from atop a toilet.
Cop walks into the toilet, closes the door, turns off the camera. Immediately exits, jumps into police car to find and beat some people they don’t like, then turns around, goes back to the toilet and turns it back on before opening the door to leave.
If he can do all of that in 60 seconds, he should go to the Olympics
I’d love to see Cop Olympics.
Another thing of note. If you see car hoods up, take out your camera and film. The pigs will pop their hood to block their dashcams.
ACAB
Why is covering the badge number even allowed?
Because cops are the violent arm of the ruling class, and it’s convenient for them to be immune to legal consequence.
When will the rich pay?
Who’s going to stop them?
Laws?
Hi. Former prison guard here. It turns out that as a cop you can dictate the reality going forward. Just say what you wanted to happen and everyone with authority will say that’s what happened.
Enforcement and accountability barely exist these days and you think those are going to work on police? The same police working every day with the very same officers, judges and prosecutors that would investigate them?
Tell me another fairy tale…
…okay…and if the police are breaking the laws, who upholds the laws they’re breaking?
Independent police complaint authority, authorized by the government, but run entirely by people from the community. There is a legal department there who handles cases, paid for through taxes. If you have any relationship to anyone on the force, you’re ineligible to serve, and no one can handle a case that concerns anyone they know.
It works in my country, but I am aware that doesn’t mean we can translate the solution 1:1 to the US, so I’d be interested to know why you guys think this would or wouldn’t work.
It is not a perfect system that will solve all problems immediately. There are thousands of daily cases of harassment and abuse of power on a small scale that might end in the big pile and take forever to process. But it will effectively solve a lot of cases - fx cases about covering badge numbers and turning off body cams. These will be open and shut cases, and the punishments will be decided by the Independent Police Complaint Authority, meaning no bullshit paid vacation. Also cases in general that have an obvious outcome to the public, such as unnecessary police brutality and excessive force would probably be handled better by an independent authority.
Every time one of these oversight committees gets set up in the US, the local police Union infiltrates it and prevents it from doing anything.
OR the police union just litigates any punitive damages against one of their own and off they go, scot free.
Look, we just need more police, obviously. /s
The only thing that works against a bad cop is a good cop. Except there ain’t no good cops. Police is inherently not reformable.
#defundthepoliceI mean, if we massively increased the number of officers we might actually be able to police the police.
who watches the watchmen?
Last I checked, a piece of paper with words on it can’t carry a gun or force someone into handcuffs.
Laws have had little luck stopping police from doing whatever the fuck they want
What enforcement mechanisms will we use? Cops already break laws regularly
I’m calling the cops!!
Why do you think body cam was introduced? Pigs do shady shit when no ones watching and they don’t want to be identified when they do.
Body cams should also work as a time clock. If the camera isn’t on, they are off the clock and not getting paid.
And don’t have qualified immunity
Well they shouldn’t have that to begin with anyway.
That’s actually an interesting idea. Always capturing, perhaps at half-fidelity to save wear and tear on the storage card and full quality when they activate for a call. I don’t know why I’ve never seen anyone suggest this.
I can see legitimate grounds to switch them off. E.g. talking to a witness, or informant, who doesn’t want anything on record.
It should be properly noted in their records however, and viewed with suspicion if overused.
FYI, good police actually love the cameras. They vastly cut down on false accusations, or at least nip them in the bud. It’s also, apparently extremely satisfying and effective to show someone exactly how they came across. It really runs in a drunk tank hangover.
Also they should never be believed for anything they say happened without the camera on, not just the thing itself, but also the context.
Like, you had the option to record this behavior and chose not to, why should I trust you
Then they can submit a formal request with detailed documentation to request payment for those times their camera is off. Still seems like a perfect idea.
This is actually a great idea, ngl.
This should void their qualified immunity or whatever you American kids call it these days.
I don’t think the legal principle is even that important these days. It’s more so that some people are immune to laws because no one will prosecute. It’s just power.
Rights seem to be taken not granted.
I cant recall it specifically, but I am sure Ive heard of a term which describes this in a legal sense - if whatever accountability that exists is intentionally blocked, its presumed to be worst case scenario
Not sure if it’s what you’re remembering, but adverse inference can be drawn when a party fails to present evidence known to exist by the court.
That sounds familiar. “Show us x and if you can’t we will assume its incriminating towards you”?
In this case - show us the body cam footage, and if youve hidden it or otherwise impaired its capture, the adverse inference is taken
“Sorry we can’t find it”
deleted by creator
Suppose someone who isn’t a cop does this and uses a fake uniform? How could anyone be able to tell if the officer is legitimate? That alone should make police departments not want to endorse such practices.
The way they’re looking at it:
What’s more likely? That we do sketchy or blatantly illegal shit, abuse our power, and having our badges and cams (measures created in an attempt to increase police accountability) helps us avoid any and all consequences…
…or people decide to buy fake uniforms and badges in any significant numbers and use these same tactics to confuse the general public…in any way that we, as a police force, actually CARE about?
Keep in mind that police impersonators would have to be impacting the police forces so much and so negatively that it would get to the point that it’s not worth preserving their own impunity. That’s incredibly unlikely.
That’s an incredibly valid argument.
ACAB
I have never been able to make it all the way through that. It’s like Scott’s Tots but for fascists.
Same. I can only get through 5 seconds of Trump before cringing the hell out. Don’t understand how anyone can be enamored with him.
It is… But it should ALSO be considered a premeditated crime.
Should, but it won’t be.
I’m glad this is happening under blue man, because otherwise this would be a sign of a fascist regime!
Close to the bone there
