Bill Lear wrote: > > On Saturday, April 5, 2003 at 08:49:41 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: > >... > >The government goes out of its way to support the positive image of > >police officers -- law enforcement is another job that working-class > >individuals may take. Many -- perhaps the majority of -- Americans > >also uphold the positive image of cops: e.g., they are reluctant to > >condemn and convict cops. And yet, US leftists do not take the same > >deferential attitudes to cops as they do to soldiers and veterans. > >Why is that? > >... > > Cops beat leftists regularly, soldiers don't? > > I don't know about "leftists", but this assumes that the attitude > toward soldiers is "deference". That's not what I feel, and what I > feel toward them is what I feel toward police officers. The stance > toward them should be the same: they are both pawns, usually > non-wealthy, fed intensive propaganda, left largely ignorant of the > big picture, and placed in often dangerous situations where it is > nearly impossible to do the morally correct thing. They should be > held responsible for their actions, but those who direct them, set the > scope of their activities, etc., deserve far, far more condemnation. >
I think it worthwhile to make a distinction. I forget the name of the military unit involved, but it was the main army unit held in reserve in the United States during the Vietnam War -- stationed, I believe, in Oklahoma. In the summer of 1968 before the DP convention apparently there was some consideration of using a battalion from that unit for riot control in Chicago. But it had a high proportion of black soldiers. The decision not to use them was based on fear that they could not be depended on to obey orders! Similarly, State Police forces were first created in the late 19th century because in many states it was felt that the National Guard, who individually lived when not on duty in working-class neighborhoods, could not be trusted for strike breaking. Also, in a late essay Engels, speaking of street fighting in case of insurrection, argues that the insurrectionary forces need not be able to win; they must only be able to hold out long enough for the troops to change sides. (That happened in both the Russian and Iranian revolutions.) So your first suggestion -- "Cops beat leftists regularly, soldiers don't?" -- could be modified to say (less succinctly):Cops can be trusted to beat leftists regularly, soldiers can't always be? I don't know how the switch to an all-volunteer (mercenary) army has changed this??? Carrol > Bill
