this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
158 points (99.4% liked)

Memes of Production

334 readers
988 users here now

Seize the Memes of Production

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

founded 6 days ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] potatopotato@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Okay I'll offer up the alternative.

Show any social worker or mental health professional a violent police interaction and in 90% of cases they will just shake their heads. They deal with the same shit every day and successfully manage many of the same situations without shooting anyone. The police universally try to respond as aggressively and counter productively as they can and it turns mental health crises into violence. Like yeah, there are situations where armed response is needed but so many of the common situations don't require someone pointing guns at people. Go watch a random badge cam video and ask yourself, could a competent mental health worker resolve this? Food for thought, people frequently react in extreme ways to the police because they know how violent and unjust the situation will become with them involved.

For prison at a minimum just stop with the drug war shit. Stop sending people to jail for parking fines and weed and getting them wrapped up in the system so they lose their jobs. An ideal standard could, again, involve mental health treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation. If someone's arrested for stealing shit, maybe they need to be put in a safe environment where they can learn skills, get a job and contribute to society. If they're too dangerous, they need to be in a facility where they're getting actual help and treatment until they aren't dangerous if that day ever comes.

You may be thinking that this stuff is just vaguely cops and jails by some other name and at a hyper superficial level that may be in part, but the meat grinder we've built is definitely not the above in any stretch of the imagination.

There are even more extreme versions like the restorative (not just rehabilitative) justice systems built by the Zapatistas, I encourage people to seek out alternative proposals, there's a whole world of ideas out there.

[–] essell@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

I'll give UK police some credit here.

They very capable and willing to take a minimum force approach to defuse a situation, to talk and calm things, rather than escalate violence.

I know they don't always get it right, there's always that 10% that's out of control.

Generally speaking, they're policing by consent, not force

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 32 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Before abolishing the police you need to have an idea of what is going to replace it.

This post offers no ideas.

I also wonder if they mean, abolish the current police force, or the concept of a police force.

I can understand the former, but the latter makes no sense to me.

[–] Silliari@quokk.au 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

How about…idk instead of shooting and killing the symptoms, you could handle the root cause, police forces don’t stop crime, they respond to it, majority of the crime in the world would have been solved with good mental health services and quality of life

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 45 minutes ago

Sure, but that takes time and isn't fool proof. Full implementation of a program like that could take a decade. You need someone ready to respond to violent individuals.

Police forces also currently handle other things that are necessary like traffic enforcement or serving court documents. Both need to happen, neither need to be done by the police. So you have to replace that function.

Ideally you'd see many of these functions that require limited abilities to detain an individual shifted out of the police to new bodies. From there gut departments and form small bodies designed to apprehend violent criminals. Coupled with several programs aimed at actually reducing the root causes of crime.

It would take decades and a tremendous investment. Unfortunately too many people view nations as buisnesses now, so if things aren't better immediately then they give up and reverse course.

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu 7 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Before abolishing slavery you need to have an idea of what is going to replace it.

This post offers no ideas.

I also wonder if they mean, abolish the current slavers, or the concept of slavery.

I can understand the former, but the latter makes no sense to me.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)

Explain to me how ending slavery would have lead to a shooter being allowed to run rampant or a domestic abuser the ability to continue hitting their spouse?

Of course it wouldn't, because these are different issues.

Obviously the police system needs to be gutted, but they do serve a function that must be replaced. Unfortunately until people stop hurting others we need someone available to stop that violence.

And before you say it I'm not saying the police are doing a great job at that. In its current state they typically escalate the violence, or provide ineffective responses. But they do serve a role hat needs to be replaced.

When slavery was ended truthfully the roles of slaves did not need to be replaced. Slavery was a tool of the wealthiest in the South to make more money. Nothing more. Taking the wealth from the wealthy is generally better for the average person. This is also ignoring the huge moral arguments here. Slavery only has the function of making the rich richer.

Police departments and sheriff's departments do serve a purpose in society. They take on jobs that do need to be done. They are not the best way to do it, but many of their functions still need to occur, or at least until there are more systems in place. You're not going to end policing and fix society's issues in years. This would take decades

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu 1 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 5 minutes ago)

Explain to me how ending slavery would have lead to a shooter being allowed to run rampant or a domestic abuser the ability to continue hitting their spouse? Of course it wouldn’t, because these are different issues.

Not sure I get what your point is especially since I agree, so what's that about? Do note that slavery was defended both on economic grounds and through "public safety" arguments: fears of chaos, crime, and violence if it were abolished. "Slavery only has the function of making the rich richer." is blatantly false and honestly insulting to descendants of slaves, as it downplays the systemic permanent violent domination by a group of people onto another. [1] [2]

My comment addresses the rhetoric of “This function exists, therefore this institution is inevitable unless you provide a fully specified replacement” which is a historically common way of defending entrenched systems [3]. Abolitionists distinguish functions from institutions. Conflict resolution, harm prevention, crisis response are necessary in society, but that does not make any particular institution such as the police natural or inevitable. [4] [5]

“this would take decades” is part of the abolitionist position, it's a long-term transition project, just like phasing our nuclear power, nobody is claiming it needs to happen overnight [6]. So yeah violence exists and ways to address this must exist but none of that should be used to sidestep the question of abolishing the police. If anything, it just shows a lack of imagination for alternatives.

Edit: there's tons of other analogies to address your point, honestly, "Abolish Capitalism" doesn't mean get rid of the economic system and figure it out tomorrow morning, you're probably just hung up onto the specific set of words without trying to understand the position and strategy of abolitionists. [7]

[–] FreeAZ@sopuli.xyz 17 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

This is a really dumb response. The replacement for slavery is the same work just paid and without ownership of the workers.

The police are already paid, and they do things that are genuinely neccesary like crisis intervention and investigating legitimate crimes (not busting pot dealers and ticket quotas), they just do a bunch of evil and corrupt shit on top of it (and usually do a shitty job of the neccesary things as well). There does need to be something to replace those roles.

To be fair, OP's post is also a really shitty analogy because of those reasons as well.

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu 4 points 5 hours ago

Slavery isn't just unpaid labor, it also involves social control, and violent enforcement. “I can’t imagine society without X unless you give me a detailed replacement” is a lame way of defending the status quo. Slavery, feudalism, child labor, debtors prisons all had the same argument made for them and they skip over the question of whether the current form is legitimate or inevitable.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

This was exactly what I wanted to say! Thank you!

[–] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Hey man, agreed the current police force is bad, sure, but how about an alternative being the leading narrative? A good platform offers solutions as the primary policies rather than soapboxing to the choir.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

An alternative is local communities be in charge of this themselves. The money spent on policing could be better used to build up services to avoid crime originating, for mental health services, for armed community defense, etc. Local communities don't need to buy sonic weapons, apcs, and fit out riot squds.

As it stands police do very little to prevent crime, and rarely bother to solve a crime after it has been reported. What they do, do is a ridiculous amount of abuse towards innocent people.

We cannot get to that stage without first removing the barrier that is public perception that police prevent crime and keep us safe. Getting rid of them will allow organic means of defending a community to grow. The Black Panther are an excellent historic contemporary example of this in the media today, but they have to operate in constant opposition to the police which hinders them greatly.

Likewise we can see community defense in action in Rovaja and Zapatista's - but that's much harder to put into a meme compared to 'police bad' which most people understand.

[–] forkDestroyer 1 points 1 hour ago

local communities be in charge of this themselves

You think that's gonna be a reliably good model? To me that sounds like another hellscape waiting to happen.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

We used to have the police also run the ambulances, poorly. Folks stepped up and did it better, which is why we have EMT's today.

https://healthforce.ucsf.edu/news/americas-first-paramedics-were-black-their-achievements-were-overlooked-decades

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Abolish the police and replace them with this other thing that’s totally not just a better version of the police

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

A better version of the police would still be better.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Right. But the OOP is quite clear that replacing them with something better is not enough.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 1 points 7 hours ago

They're letting perfect be the enemy of good. Which is a shame, because then nothing changes :-(

[–] TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So you're the person the meme is referring to. Brave of you to admit it

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It’s very easy to imagine a perfect society without police. Unfortunately we don’t live in imagination land

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 51 minutes ago

Exactly, as long as people keep hurting others you need someone to deal with that.

A lot of things we use police or sheriffs for can be transferred to entities that aren't allowed to arrest or brutalize people. Evictions shouldn't be served by a man with a gun. A speeding ticket shouldn't either.

But when someone is committing an armed robbery or attacking another person we need someone to respond with force, but they need to be actually trained in de-escalation.

This would likely need to be paired with massive programs designed to improve society and reduce crimes.

[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago

No, it's not.