Submitted by celebratedrecluse in Politics (edited )

I have heard in some areas, these are elected positions, with low turnout. Theoretically, could someone run for this position, and then refuse to do evictions, or police various crimes?

Instead of seizing broad spectrums of state power to effect a positivist, totalitarian vision...seize it, in only tactical and partial ways, to let it lay idle for a time?

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

masque wrote

I think most public officers have to swear under oath that they will perform their prescribed duties. So if you get elected and then proceed to blatantly ignore what you're legally "supposed" to be doing, you could conceivably be in danger of perjury charges, maybe?

7

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

i think in certain places this would be regarded as an electoral rather than a criminal issue. But the state can always ignore its own rules, if it serves the interests of organized/informal power.

4

existential1 wrote

It's possible to be a "good" tactic, but it also continues the existence of the state. It's kind of a waste of energy to argue. If u do it, do it in a way that tends toward ending the state. If you don't, build things that remove the "necessity" of the state. Simple.

6

GlangSnorrisson wrote

I would be extremely careful. I don’t know where you are but I would look into the history of whatever office you are going for. If there’s an entrenched fascistic culture already and you come in and try and change stuff you might be in serious danger.

I happen to know that in the US there’s a history of people investigating cops “committing suicide” by repeatedly shooting themselves in the back of the head.

Anarchists have politics that are completely hostile to the establishment and I think that anyone trying to “infiltrate” that establishment needs to know what exactly they’re up against.

Sorry for being vague but I don’t know your specific situation. Just be careful with that kind of endeavour.

4

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

i argued against this with a friend in the last week, however i'm curious now what others might think. Perhaps someone can argue against the usual raddle grain on this?

3

videl wrote (edited )

what could go wrong?

I feel like it would be very easy to make some regrettable choices that could haunt this hypothetical person for a very long time even if they manage to do more good than harm. + power is one hell of a drug. Not something that I would want to do nor would I encourage it but perhaps within the right context it could be an acceptable idea.

3

rot wrote

you'd get kicked out before you got any power to do anything ):

maybe you could get into a police or security position and then cause some havoc but that sounds harder than a typical riot

1

Ganggang wrote (edited )

If you became police chief somehow they would just kick you out if you didn’t do the job. Immediately. Also this is in practice a road to liberalization and paralysis of people, doing nothing but campaigning which actually accomplishes nothing but saps the energy. Also forces you to make concessions.

What would happen in reality if you do this is they would play with you if it ever got anywhere like they did with sanders, but always ready to pull the football from you whenever. They would allow the “movement” to be absorbed into the system, liberalized, and ultimately die.

I think you’re kind of overthinking this. If you don’t like what the cops do the only thing you can truly do is physically stop or impede them.

1