Read on Twitter
I think part of the reason this slogan gets used is a) a general fetishization of radical framing & b) the phrase pulls together at least 3 fundamentally quite different ideas about how to change policing, and allows them to sort of alide into one another. https://twitter.com/_kerriprince/status/1277604103946932225">https://twitter.com/_kerripri...
Correct me if i& #39;ve mischaracterised anything, but I would group these as:
1) those who do actually want to scrap police with nothing to replace them (i think proponents of this come at this from a & #39;we wont need police *at all* if we change X in society& #39; angle & a libertarian pov
1) those who do actually want to scrap police with nothing to replace them (i think proponents of this come at this from a & #39;we wont need police *at all* if we change X in society& #39; angle & a libertarian pov
2) those who essentially want to replace the police with something that performs a similar function, but maybe answers to a different authority. Like one up on reform.
3) those who want to divert funds from policing to other services to stop police being used as a patch over underfunded front line services, or used where other groups would be more appropriate. But they still want a police force to exist, but scaled back.
I also don& #39;t think everyone who uses the phrase defund the police fully knows where they stand on the scale of 1-3 in terms of what they think it should mean. From a social movement pov I think that can be really helpful. The point is they agree what& #39;s not working.
But it makes it so easy to attack, not only by hostiles, but also by genuinely curious members of the public/by interviewers on TV. I don& #39;t think a lot of people are sold on 1, the most literal meaning, so is it persuasive to use this slogan?
I don& #39;t know. I actually think sometimes saying something more radical than what you might actually mean can be useful if you& #39;re trying to completely reframe how people think of something.
On the other hand I think it& #39;s off-putting to lots of would be supporters and prevents them getting on board because they can& #39;t get on board with your literal slogan.
I think there& #39;s also something very alienating activist speak about it. people don& #39;t want to feel like fools if they& #39;re like & #39;well we kinda need police sometimes& #39; and then someone expertly explains & #39;well of course but this is about diverting funds& #39; as if it& #39;s super obvious.
I guess another benefit? of amalgamating contradictory demands into one slogan is that it makes it hard for people to critique your demands because depending on the spokesperson you talk to you can just shift and say & #39;thats not what we mean& #39;.
There& #39;s some advantage to that in a very limited context, but I have a feeling it& #39;s not good long term, in that it makes it hard for your demand to actually find its way into policy, and that it arms far right/conservative right recruitment lines
Fwiw, whilst I mostly agree with 3) I have a problem with & #39;defund& #39; or & #39;divert& #39; in this context. I want services properly funded, I don& #39;t want police because other services weren& #39;t there. But I also think at least aspects of police are really underfunded.
Like, yeah there are loads of things police do which I think are a waste of time and bad for society, but I also know I waited for 10 minutes to get through to police on a 999 call to report a violent assault on a woman happening outside my flat last yr.
So as socialists I think we should be careful about saying we fund X by taking away from y.
I also think if you fund a lot of stuff, from welfare, to mental health, to good jobs, to youth centres etc you will eventually see decreased need for police.
I also think if you fund a lot of stuff, from welfare, to mental health, to good jobs, to youth centres etc you will eventually see decreased need for police.
