"But, excluding the drug laws that for the most part rebound to the benefit of no one (including the bourgeoisie)..."
Imprisoning, disenfranchising, disorganizing, and generally wreaking havoc upon the elements of society most discontent with the status quo (poor blacks) doesn't rebound to the benefit of the bourgeousie? The drug war *is* class war, and extremely effective class war at that. Moreover, the cops are entirely complicit in it; I've yet to see an undercover agent disguised as a white guy with short, cropped hair and a polo shirt neatly tucked into a pair of khakies.
--Jared
-----Original Message----- From: lweiger at umich.edu [mailto:lweiger at umich.edu] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:26 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: uh oh dept.
Thanks for the first sensible words on the subject, Liza. I can understand Cox's anti-cop animus; after all, the poor guy had his picture posted on the local department's dart board. But why anyone would concur with his analysis is beyond me. Yes, cops do (almost by definition) enforce the laws of the "ruling class." But, excluding the drug laws that for the most part rebound to the benefit of no one (including the bourgeoisie), most laws on the books are well-worth enforcing. Yes, many cops are either incompetent or authoritarian or corrupt (or some combination of the three). But such a state of affairs would obtain even in the closest relizable approximation of utopia.
-- Luke
Quoting Liza Featherstone <lfeather at panix.com>:
> I must weigh in here and say that suffering no such political qualms
> it was I who pressured Doug into calling the fuzz. I was the one
> working at home and wasn't eager to find this lunatic at my door, nor
> to end up as a quirky homicide story in the Metro section ("Nothing
> like that has ever happened in this building before!" etc.) I used to
> feel bad about/be somewhat opposed to calling the cops on my fellow
> humans, but honestly, they should think of that before acting in a
> threatening manner. I've called the cops in several other situations
> and I'd do it again, no question.
>
> Liza
>
> > From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> > Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:24:04 -0400
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: uh oh dept.
> >
> > frank scott wrote:
> >
> >> when someone is attacked, robbed, burglarized or suffers any of the
> >> even more numerous and perhaps less dramatic tribulations of life,
> >> like arguments with neighbors that get close to violence, etc.,
> >> they do not call 911 to get a teacher, or a professor, or even a
> >> social worker...although, at times, the police action involves all
> >> those qualities and more, at higher personal risk, and much lower
> >> salary...
> >
> > A couple of years ago, I was harassed by a loony woman, who sent
> > over 200 emails and left over two hours worth of voicemails, some
> > delivered at 3 AM, over the course of several weeks. No fan of the
> > cops, I dragged my feet about calling in the NYPD, but once I did,
> > the detective asked me, "Do you want her arrested?" (which sounded
> > like the most beautiful words I'd heard in a long time, I have to
> > admit). I said no, not yet, I just want her to stop. He called her
> > and she did. For a couple of days afterwards, I loved the NYPD.
> >
> > So, Cde Cox, was I wrong to call the cops in this case?
> >
> > Doug
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>