[Marxism] After the Gay-Marriage Debacle, Activists Rethink Tactics

[Aaron Aarons]

At 03:46 -0800 2008/11/20, Rohan Gaiswinkler wrote:
>I'm AGAINST the police as agents of the bourgeois state but FOR the police if some stranger is threatening to enter my house with a gun.  Without hesitation I am FOR the right of gays and lesbians to join the police.  Gays and lesbians are subject to violence and assault and in such times require police action.  It is better if *some* gays and lesbians wish to become foot soldiers of the bourgeoise because then gays and lesbians can expect a better chance of redress and protection.  The police force as an institution is a lot more reactionary than marriage.

I'll take that a bit at a time:

RG: I'm AGAINST the police as agents of the bourgeois state but FOR the police if some stranger is threatening to enter my house with a gun.

AA: What about individual and community self-defense? Fortunately, we still have the Second Amendment.

RG: Without hesitation I am FOR the right of gays and lesbians to join the police.

AA: I'm for gays and lesbians having the same right to join the police as heterosexuals have. And I'm for deaf and blind quadruplegics having even more rights to join the police than anybody else has.

RG: Gays and lesbians are subject to violence and assault and in such times require police action.

AA: Again, why police action rather than individual and collective self-defense?

RG: It is better if *some* gays and lesbians wish to become foot soldiers of the bourgeoise because then gays and lesbians can expect a better chance of redress and protection.  The police force as an institution is a lot more reactionary than marriage.

AA: I'm not sure if it was after the "White Night riots" or a more recent gay rebellion that a Lesbian S.F. cop used her familiarity with the gay community to finger some demonstrators for prosecution. What's worse is that many mainstream (i.e., reactionary, bourgeois) gays defended her!


At 19:26 -0500 2008/11/20, Ruthless Critic also responded to the above words of Rohan G. as follows:

Ruthless: What about unionizing the police? Most Marxists that I know are skeptical about, or hostile to, police unions, but the same sort of logic would seem to apply to police unionization also: "if the police become part of the labor union movement, then union members as a whole can expect less police violence against them."

AA hereby responds to Ruthless: If "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", then this particular pudding should have been vomited out by now, given all the experience of "unionized" cops as strike-breakers. For a great analysis of the history of policing in the U.S., including the role of police unions as essentially fascist organizations, see "Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America" by Kristian Williams, South End Press, 2007. ISBN-10: 0896087719, ISBN-13: 978-0896087712.

 - Aaron