What brought you to not being ACAB? I’m curious what you think about not just him but the other police next to him that chose to not restrain him after he assulted her.
I’ve been involved with enough investigations of Bad Cops ( and there are a a LOT of them) to recognize the many other cops (and there are sadly fewer of them) who are honorable and decent enough to help bring the uniformed criminals to justice – at huge risk to their own safety and wellbeing.
Speaking for myself here, but if the goal of saying “ACAB” is to point out how the police is complicit as an institution, then why the focus on cops as individuals? That ironically is a very liberal tendency when we are supposed to engage in class analysis.
It’s also way too edgy for a slogan that doesn’t even communicate what we mean. You’d almost think the slogan exists solely to alienate normies from our cause.
I think you’re missing a very critical element: All Cops
Each cop, as an individual, is part of the police force as an institution. The reason the institution remains is people keep joining it and becoming the very thing that perpetuates the existence of the institution.
People who joined the police force after everything thats been happening after George Floyd are decidedly class traitors.
Doesn’t matter how noble your intentions are. If you join the SS in hopes that you’ll change it from the within, it doesn’t mean you were one of the good ones. It just means you didnt really want to oppose the Nazis, just turn them to your will
This precisely proves my point. Why the focus on cops as individuals when the point is that the police is rotten as an institution?
The reason the institution remains is not because individuals keep joining it, but because the capitalist class needs a stable social order in which dissent is suppressed.
So again, the problem is capitalism as a system of oppression, not a set of individuals that happen to do stuff for the sake of it.
So you accept that the institutions remain, and that their existence keeps capitalism safe from a revolution.
If there was an actual revolution, the cops would do everything in their power to stop it, as they’ve shown time after time.
An institution that serves capitalist interests is terrible, but you can still hold the people who perpetuate that system accountable.
If you are a cop, and decide to protect capitalism against a revolution of the masses, you are a class traitor. That part is undebatable.
Cops, by the very nature of their role under capitalism, are class traitors. Even if they dont consciously make the choice, they are the enemies of the working class. Anything that creates a hurdle in the liberation of the working class is an enemy of the working class.
I think any slogan can and will be twisted no matter how edgy or verbose it is. Black Lives Matter got twisted. From the river to the sea got twisted. Turning ACAB into a 2 paragraph ordeal to try to prevent this also alienates the normies and also fails at being a slogan at that point. For what it actually seems to be trying to do: agitation- it does pretty well. We have more than enough evidence if a normie wants to argue with us about the phrase ACAB.
If police as a unit are defenders of this system, they individually are class traitors.
I’m not sure what you mean in the first part, are you saying that the “all cops” are referring to all the individuals and not the institution? I think in this context, I thought addressing ACAB being mentioned here was relevent because no cops shown broke the rule of being complicit.
I agree that ACAB is too edgy and doesn’t communicate what we mean, of the ones I’ve seen I’m partial to “fund communities not cops.”
It’s not that I disagree that “all cops” are complicit, but the focus on them being complicit does a poor job explaining what precisely makes the police rotten as an institution when institutions are more than the people that happen to be in them.
We must engage in class analysis when it comes to these matters. “ACAB” does the opposite.
Apparently insisting on class analysis gets you downvoted around here. Very disappointed and you can forget about me commenting any further. I hope some of you still recognize the reactionary nature of the “ACAB” phrase. It’s not class analysis and I stand by that.
What brought you to not being ACAB? I’m curious what you think about not just him but the other police next to him that chose to not restrain him after he assulted her.
I’ve been involved with enough investigations of Bad Cops ( and there are a a LOT of them) to recognize the many other cops (and there are sadly fewer of them) who are honorable and decent enough to help bring the uniformed criminals to justice – at huge risk to their own safety and wellbeing.
Speaking for myself here, but if the goal of saying “ACAB” is to point out how the police is complicit as an institution, then why the focus on cops as individuals? That ironically is a very liberal tendency when we are supposed to engage in class analysis.
It’s also way too edgy for a slogan that doesn’t even communicate what we mean. You’d almost think the slogan exists solely to alienate normies from our cause.
I think you’re missing a very critical element: All Cops
Each cop, as an individual, is part of the police force as an institution. The reason the institution remains is people keep joining it and becoming the very thing that perpetuates the existence of the institution.
People who joined the police force after everything thats been happening after George Floyd are decidedly class traitors.
Doesn’t matter how noble your intentions are. If you join the SS in hopes that you’ll change it from the within, it doesn’t mean you were one of the good ones. It just means you didnt really want to oppose the Nazis, just turn them to your will
This precisely proves my point. Why the focus on cops as individuals when the point is that the police is rotten as an institution?
The reason the institution remains is not because individuals keep joining it, but because the capitalist class needs a stable social order in which dissent is suppressed.
So again, the problem is capitalism as a system of oppression, not a set of individuals that happen to do stuff for the sake of it.
So you accept that the institutions remain, and that their existence keeps capitalism safe from a revolution.
If there was an actual revolution, the cops would do everything in their power to stop it, as they’ve shown time after time.
An institution that serves capitalist interests is terrible, but you can still hold the people who perpetuate that system accountable.
If you are a cop, and decide to protect capitalism against a revolution of the masses, you are a class traitor. That part is undebatable.
Cops, by the very nature of their role under capitalism, are class traitors. Even if they dont consciously make the choice, they are the enemies of the working class. Anything that creates a hurdle in the liberation of the working class is an enemy of the working class.
I think any slogan can and will be twisted no matter how edgy or verbose it is. Black Lives Matter got twisted. From the river to the sea got twisted. Turning ACAB into a 2 paragraph ordeal to try to prevent this also alienates the normies and also fails at being a slogan at that point. For what it actually seems to be trying to do: agitation- it does pretty well. We have more than enough evidence if a normie wants to argue with us about the phrase ACAB.
If police as a unit are defenders of this system, they individually are class traitors.
I’m not sure what you mean in the first part, are you saying that the “all cops” are referring to all the individuals and not the institution? I think in this context, I thought addressing ACAB being mentioned here was relevent because no cops shown broke the rule of being complicit.
I agree that ACAB is too edgy and doesn’t communicate what we mean, of the ones I’ve seen I’m partial to “fund communities not cops.”
It’s not that I disagree that “all cops” are complicit, but the focus on them being complicit does a poor job explaining what precisely makes the police rotten as an institution when institutions are more than the people that happen to be in them.
We must engage in class analysis when it comes to these matters. “ACAB” does the opposite.
Apparently insisting on class analysis gets you downvoted around here. Very disappointed and you can forget about me commenting any further. I hope some of you still recognize the reactionary nature of the “ACAB” phrase. It’s not class analysis and I stand by that.
See you around.