I don’t want to reform the police.
I want them gone.
In light of the Baltimore killing, protests, and subsequent violence, there has been yet another proliferation of threads on this site discussing the police: their role in our society, their tendency towards excessive use of force, and possible reforms that may be put into place to quell said violence. One common theme in these threads is the reformation of police forces. I don’t think this is the way we should be approaching the problem of police violence, for two reasons: first, it is arguable that it is not possible to reform the police, and second, concentration on police reform ignores the numerous and varied causes of police violence. This is not a police problem so much as it is a societal one.
In this essay, I will explore the reasons behind my belief that the police cannot be reformed (at least not to any acceptable degree) by examining the historical forces that motivating the creation of police departments. I will then suggest possible alternatives to modern police departments based on an analysis of what is currently driving police violence, as well as presenting ideas about what can be done at the moment to further our path away from the police.
To begin, I think it is important to understand the history of the modern police department. Without that knowledge, it is impossible to grasp why we are in the place we are today and more importantly, the implications of our situation. What follows is a (very) brief explanation of the development of the police institution in England and the United States. The information in the following paragraphs is mostly a summary of David Whitehouse’s work in a talk given in 2014. The link to that talk is here, and the link to the text I used to prepare this essay is here. I highly recommend listening to the talk; I do not delve very deeply into this history, and he has a number of insights that I am forced to skip over for brevity.
The police were a rapidly constructed response to periods of intense social unrest in the early- to mid-1800s. They were primarily designed to deal effectively with large and unruly crowds as a direct, armed buffer between the elite and the poor. However, before we can discuss the development of modern police, we need to look back at what sorts of systems existed previously.
When capitalism was emerging in the early 11th and 12th centuries, there was no real “need” for a police force. (To be clear, when I say “need” now and later in this essay, it refers to the need of an economic elite. I do not believe there is a need for police for the labor class.) Justice was served and enacted by the people of the towns and feudal states: someone yelling, “Stop thief!” and having the rest of the townspeople chase after the thief is a relatively good example. There was a responsibility shared between people. Though there were private armies raised by feudalists, they for the most part had nothing to do with crime. There were courts, but charges were brought about and pressed by the aggrieved party. This was possible because despite the existence of a nobility and a burgeoning merchant class, the vast majority of people were of relatively equal social standing. As capitalism grew, however, this would change, and conflict would begin in earnest.
In the period just before the Industrial Revolution really took off (the mid-1700s), the separation between the employing and the working classes was becoming more and more distinct. Wealth was beginning to be stockpiled by capitalists. (Not simply whomever lives under capitalism, a very important distinction. The capitalist class refers to the employing class—in this essay at least). Slaves began to be exported around the world, another important change. The key point here is that inequality was growing rapidly, setting the stage for big changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. At this point in time, there were still no police forces. However, the capitalists prevented dissension and suppressed the populace through increasingly violent methods. The beginnings of major class conflict were appearing.
In the very late 1700s to the early 1800s, there were large strikes in England for a variety of reasons. When these strikes happened, the elite had only one real option for dealing with the demonstrations: sending in the army. The problem with the army is that it can suppress a population, but only at the cost of creating martyrs for the labor class. For context, these strikes were on the order of tens of thousands of people: crowds in response to the Peterloo Massacre held around 50,000 people, and the massacre itself occurred in a crowd of around 80,000. These were clearly large, very unhappy crowds, unsettling for the elite. In 1829 the London Police were created. David Whitehouse sums it up as follows:
Here is where we see the first modern police force (in my opinion), and indeed, the origin of some of the problems we face now. Modern police serve two important purposes in our society: first, they prevent insurrection in the forms of riots, strikes, protests, etc., and second, they intimidate and oppress the population under the guise of addressing and preventing crime. (Again, I recommend listening to the talk. Whitehouse discusses the very important idea that the streets are the “proving ground for much of working-class politics”, which is why the beat cop is so important, and intimidation so effective.) The regular function of the police (crime reduction) allows for the police to establish a presence in the streets, where “good cops” are used to provide a cover for the brutality of other cops. This daily harassment and acts of oppression and brutality are also used to train police for the inevitable mass demonstration.
As we look to the United States, we shift back a few years, to colonial times. Again, there were no police forces yet created. There were night watches that were primarily designed to control the black population, but little else. The watches were also not professional; people rotated in and out (and of course, the rich bought off their service). Through the 1700s and into the mid-1800s, there no police forces. The system was financed through fines from offenders, and in order to find the criminals, it depended on informants who were provided with portions of those fines.
In the 1800s, however, things changed substantially. First, there was massive population growth. New York went from 60,000 in 1800 to 312,000 in 1840. The population increase helped intensify conflict between various classes. Already there were different sections of the population: white, black, Irish, Catholic, etc., all set in a very stratified social and labor order. A quick reminder: this is a very, very basic overview of the history. There were many social actions undertaken by each of these classes, and each is important in its own right, but I don’t have the space to go over them all (and I probably shouldn’t—this summary is somewhat distinct from Whitehouse’s work, and I’d like to keep it that way).
The most common (and basic) action that classes took to address their situation (and one which we are seeing in action today) was the riot. There were many black riots in the early 1800s, as well as anti-black riots combined with harassment. However, it wasn’t always white vs. black: in a number of cases, such as militant dockworker strikes in 1825, workers were united despite racial and other differences. As workers began to realize their own power, riots increased in frequency. As Whitehouse states, they “began to engage in more and more “run-of-the-mill” riots wherever crowds gathered, in taverns or in theaters or in the street. Such riots may have had no clear economic or political objective, but they were still instances of collective self-assertion by the working class—or by ethnic and racial fractions of the class.” These riots began to terrify the elite, who reacted by creating the NYPD in 1845. (On a side note, I love how historian Eric Hobsbawm describes those early strikes: “collective bargaining by riot”.)
In the South, the development of the police was different because of the very different demographics. Though the population was not as large, the split between white and black was stark. As well, unlike the North, there was already a force in place to deal with major uprising: slave patrols. These were professional patrols that “scoured the countryside day and night, intimidating, terrorizing, and brutalizing slaves into submission and meekness.”
In order to industrialize their cities, slave owners were forced to allow their slaves to work wage jobs in urban areas. The slave would then simply pay a fee to their owner on a routine basis, as it was more convenient than attempting to appropriate all of the wages earned by the slave. With the change from the direct employment on plantations and farms, slaves found themselves to have “freedom” for the first time. Black suburbs even formed, filled with slaves. However, given the population dynamics, whites were (rightly) scared of revolt. Because slavemasters could no longer directly control the slaves, the state took over the roll (as of course, the state is controlled by the elite).The Charleston Guard and Watch was a relatively modern police force by 1820, formed through years of consolidation out of those slave patrols. It is also important to note that the Southern police forces were much more militarized than the North.
One thing that I’d like to note as well before moving on, from Whitehouse again:
The point here is that the oppressive forces are not only directly from the police. We “police ourselves” to a large extent, and there are many cultural, economic, and other reasons that we see ourselves in our current situation. This is my main focus of this essay: police violence is not a police problem, but a societal one. Police violence is simply the most direct mode of oppression that capitalism has manifested in order to protect the inequalities that must exist for our current system to work.
The reason I began with the history of the police departments is that it is critical to realize that the police have not only been around for less than 200 years (society has not always found them necessary), but they were created directly in response to social unrest and to defend an elite. That is their purpose; that is they way they were, and still are today. If you disagree with that, I ask you to look at the methods used by modern forces as well as the hideous actions undertaken today and tell me that that isn’t exactly what slave patrols were doing in the 1700-1800s: systematic harassment, brutal assault and murder, and (now) mass incarceration using a justice system designed to protect the rich.
Given that the police system is designed to protect the elite at the expense of the working class, how can it be reformed? Its entire reason for existing is antithetical to the aims of reformers. No matter how many reforms are put into place, no matter how many cops are arrested, no matter how many body cameras are installed, no matter how much we attempt to do so, we cannot change that. Even if our police forces were entirely made up of genuinely good, humanistic people, we cannot avoid it. The purpose of the police is to intimidate and prevent uprising, and forces will always find a way to return to that original purpose. The very structure of an armed body of men controlled by and serving the interests of an elite guarantee that.
Once we have accepted that the police cannot be reformed, we need to begin to discuss attempting to replace it. In order to do so, we have to try and understand the many forces driving modern police violence and oppression. For lack of a better idea on how to do so comprehensively, and also because I don’t want to spend more than 8 hours on this essay, I will attempt to address these causes individually, and then comment in general near the end. I note that this will be done from a socialist perspective, as I do not think that these problems can be addressed individually, as is typically attempted by reformists. The economics of the matter and the social/cultural aspects are heavily intertwined, and cannot be separated.
Perhaps the most obvious factor in today’s police violence is racism, and so it seems like it would be a good place to start. Racism is endemic in this country, and has been since its inception. It is ingrained in all of us to some extent, and our culture is steeped in it. We see here on DU how even those of us who would claim to be liberals often espouse positions that are markedly racist. There are so many facets to US racism that I certainly can’t discuss them all here; instead, I will focus on a few. The particular facets I will be talking about are the myth of black criminality (among other stereotypes) and the historical division of the working class through racial oppression for economic gain. The first stems from the second. Dehumanization is of course a common thread stringing together all bigotry, and is implied. All of the following is to the best of my knowledge correct, though I think there may be different valid interpretations (such as the date of the beginnings of modern racism in the following paragraph).
If we reach back in time to the mid- to late-1700s, we can see the origins of modern racism in this country. There was a slave trade earlier than that, yes, but for the most part it was limited. The slave trade did not originate from prejudice, but from economic gains to be had. The slavers were simply willing to overlook the inhumanity of their actions. There was also significantly less division between the poor whites and poor blacks; laws preventing interracial discourse had not yet been passed, for instance. In fact, all the way through the early 1800s there were a number of popular revolts that involved both white and blacks, united by a common thread of poverty. The difference between the two was that poor whites were indentured servants, and poor blacks slaves. As Southern capitalists began to become more heavily economically dependent on the institution of slavery, they also began to fear more and more a large-scale rebellion stemming from a united laboring class.
Here I am going to quote an excellent passage by DUer struggle4progress, who said it better than I could have:
Jim Crow era laws were part of a system that relied on both state and private violence to ensure that blacks remained a lumpen-proletariat. The impoverished will work for very little pay, because their need is immediate. Since poverty is one of the clearest symptoms of political powerlessness, denying the right to vote was a critical link in the economic exploitation of the black underclass. The explosive violence, of US segregationists during the civil rights era, did not spring from their prejudice: that violence was integral to a system of economic exploitation that had evolved from slavery through chain gang labor and thence to enforced political disenfranchisement, always enforced by a combination of official and spontaneous individual terror; the prejudice was simply the psychological theory that soothed the conscience of those who were willing to engage in violence to maintain the underclass through terror. When MLK was assassinated in Memphis, he was not there to preach a simple anti-prejudice message; he was there to support the black sanitation workers strike, originating from their very low pay and unsafe working conditions that produced injuries and deaths.”
That history of psychological self-justification in response to economic exploitation of blacks and its resulting political necessities is what now pervades modern police forces. It is what perpetuates this myth of black criminality, of black aggression. It is the justification used by George Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon Martin: “He could have been dangerous.” It is an assumption about a race that has its roots stretching all the way back to the first coordinations between poor whites and enslaved blacks.
Because of this history, attacking racism seems impossible to many. In reality, I would argue that it is one of the few things where we can make a significant difference as individuals, though it must be solved as a whole. Racism (in my opinion) is best addressed through comprehensive education and awareness. If we each commit to learning and understanding black history, then we will all gain a historical perspective that is invaluable for those of us who do not live the black experience from day to day.
Education, though, is not just history—it is awareness of the things we do, the things we say. Most importantly, it is about listening to those who do live in a world of racism. We need to communicate with them, understand what they are trying to tell us to the best of their ability, before we have a chance at educating others. Though it is not my place to say so, I would agree with black leaders I have heard speak that maintain that this history is just as, if not more important for blacks to understand as well. I know that I am educating myself as much as possible about socialism in order to better advocate for it; I would think that the same thing applies to racial issues.
As for working as a group to address racism, I think we are all aware of how to do that: the Black Lives Matter movement is making a big statement right now. We need to get onto the streets and support it with everything we have. I will note that though the history I have gone through is specific to racism, the conclusions drawn from it can also be applied to homophobia, anti-poor bigotry fear of the mentally ill, etc.
Of course, racism in the police forces cannot be fixed through education. Though I am not advocating for reforms but instead for abolishment, I do believe there are a few “reforms” that can have an immediate effect and are things that I would support. Any and all police that are found to have engaged in racist practices or used excessive force need to be fired immediately. Any that are suspected to (are under investigation) need to be put on suspension without pay. These are two relatively simple things that can be accomplished through pressure on the police force through protest, and do not depend on traditional channels (e.g. changing laws, body cameras, demilitarization, etc.)
The remaining issues are things that must be addressed on a systemic level. They are not things that can be fixed by reforming the police—they are far more complex issues. These issues are part of the reason the police cannot be reformed—no matter how much you fix the department, these issues will still exist. The reason I do not include racism in this list is that racism is something I believe we can address on a non-systemic level as well. I will not go into these in as much detail as I think that most people here understand why these issues are important to the problem of police violence:
-The Military-Industrial Complex
Its role in the dehumanization of life through “otherization” helps make it acceptable for us to kill minorities here at home. We also see the influx of equipment and tactics to the rest of society, and the subsequent militarization of the police forces. Militarization intensifies racism and encourages further otherization. And, of course, the war on drugs, which should be obvious.
-The support of the courts and the legal system for police violence
When our courts don’t work for police, they don’t work for anyone. Our system is fundamentally broken. It was designed to work for those with power, money, and influence, and it does a magnificent job. To address police violence, our entire justice system needs to be overhauled.
-The Prison-Industrial Complex
Placing people in prison, encouraging them to fight and join gangs, stripping them of their humanity, depriving them of any method of reintegrating into society…I could go on. Everything about our prison system encourages violence, particularly with police.
-The education system
We are taught to be obedient to authority, and to police ourselves. We ignore our labor history, our racial history, gender history—pretty much anything that actually matters. Minorities and women are taught that they don’t matter. Our education system prepares children to go to jail. There’s a reason they call it the school-to-prison pipeline.
There are many, many more factors: poverty, gentrification and white flight, surveillance, the prevalence of guns in our society, the way our society views violence and torture, media manipulation, etc., etc., etc. I shouldn’t need to go into them all to make my point. This is why reform of the police simply won’t cut it.
Even if reform were able to work, I would not advocate for the traditional methods of pursuing change: the courts, the legislative process, etc. I simply cannot see how there is any way significant change is going to happen through those methods—we have tried that, and it does not work. Michelle Alexandria’s book “The New Jim Crow” discusses exactly that, and I recommend it if you do not agree with me. There is simply too much that cannot be fixed in our society, and the establishment is doing everything it can to prevent change. Take New York, for example: after many problems, huge protests, and finally a push in the legislative area, what are Democrats doing? They’re hiring more cops. Yep. More. Effin. Cops.
In the end, there has to be activism in the streets. There has to be mass uprisings against this brutality. There has to be a citizenry willing to stand up and say, “Enough”. It is the way real change has been wrought historically; we cannot depend on reform. We need to address the systemic issues outside of the system, because the system will not allow us to otherwise. Above all, though, the main point I want to get across in this post is that reform is not possible, and will not work. We need to find another way.
I wanted to write up a thing on alternatives to the modern police force, but this is already far too long, so I will let this sit for now. Maybe in a future post.
= new reply since forum marked as read
back at ya
problems and their history, into a short essay. I'm prone to dissertation length myself. 
Well done.
Thank you!
Is an idea that would have required intelligence and forethought.
This... ^^^ ... is an idea that required naught but 3 hours of sleep last night and too much time on my hands this morning 