Are the police on our side?

Scan page 7

At a recent Occupy Los Angeles demon­ stration, activist Ron Gochez, speaking about police brutality, made the state­ ment that “police are not part of the 99%.” His remarks were met with jeers from some of the crowd, who tried to shout him down. Later he said, “Although they (cops) might make the money of the 99%, they represent and defend the 1%.” Opposition to his statements reveals dangerous illusions about which side the police are on.

In a leaflet that is being circulated at occupations, “Revolution: a how-to,” by Anonymous, the author advises activists “If you suspect another activist of illegal activity, ask them to stop, if they do not, film them and show the police to have that activist escorted from the protest, then share this footage with others to let them know to be aware of the person in question. TRY TO GET THE COPS ON OUR SIDE” (my emphasis).

Are we, as activists, in the business of turning people in to the police? Our pro­ tests should manage themselves through security monitors who answer to the democratic processes of the movement. The movement can set rules of behavior for the occupation zone, including rules against drug or alcohol abuse, which could also bring the cops down on us.

That said, the mass arrests and ha­ rassment of occupations in Oakland, New York, Atlanta, Boston, and other cities should serve as a caution to us all about the true nature of the police.

We are often told that cops are here to (continued from page 1: “Occupations point the way for mass labor fightback”)

the applause (and hand “twinkles”) given to every an­ nouncement of labor support, and by the huge cheers for Egyptian revolutionary Mohammed Ezzeldin when he denounced capitalism and its markets, and got an especially big cheer for his call for revolution.

It is also seen in the numerous points in the New York City General Assembly “Declaration” relating to labor’s needs and to examples of anti-labor policies that the GA denounced.

OWS and other Occupy sites have reacted in gen­ eral in a positive way to demands of people of color for more inclusion and outreach to their communi­ ties and issues. This must be strengthened. The Oc­ cupy movement has also forged ties with other move­ ments—antiwar, immigrant rights, antiracism, etc.— welcoming them to hold workshops on site, to raise their special concerns, mobilizing for their activities, and showing solidarity in the face of repression by cops and surveillance by the FBI.

OWS has been criticized from the start for an al­ leged lack of demands. Some of this criticism comes from those who wish it ill. But some of it comes from genuine concern for the movement. Historically, movements have grown when they place demands on the powers that be that will mobilize large mass­ es, masses who see in the winning of those demands the potential for gains, and see in the defeat of those demands tragic setbacks, all of which inspires them to do all they can for the movement’s success. By the same token, ruling-class resistance to such demands inspires workers to understand the need for getting rid of the system entirely.

OWS, by insisting on an open process, is creating a unique space for discussion of demands and pro­ gram. Other Occupy sites formulated demands at the start. OWS is also making an important contribu­ tion to stimulating a critical discussion in the broad labor movement. This can serve to once again raise the question of which class shall rule society. The popular OWS-initiated statement, “We are the 99%,”

raises this question. When the 99%, beginning with a revitalized, democratic and fighting labor movement, takes to the streets to exercise its power, the hopes and aspirations of the OWS movement will have an ally and champion that can shake the world.

To adapt a phrase from the May-June 1968 move­ ment in France, we believe workers will settle for nothing less than the impossible—i.e. what is impos­ sible under this system. They will not rest until there are jobs for all; health care, child care, education for all; renunciation of all consumer, housing, and stu­ protect and serve—but to protect what and to serve whom? Cops are usually from working-class backgrounds, but it’s a mistake to think that they bring a working-class identity into the job. By becoming police, they become enforcers of the capitalist social order and protec­ tors of capitalist property.

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with over 7 million either in prison, on parole or probation. The so-called criminal justice system is disproportionately aimed at communi­ ties of oppressed nationalities, who face systematic harassment (profiling, stop and frisk), brutality, and even murder at the hands of police, often with no conse­ quences for the cops involved.

For example, consider the killing of Oscar Grant, in Oakland, Calif., on New Year’s Day 2009. Grant was shot in the back by BART Officer Johannes Meh­ serle, sparking protests in the communi­ ty. Mehserle was later convicted of invol­ untary manslaughter and sentenced to two years in prison. The case of Askia Sa­ bur, in Philadelphia, who was beaten by cops while waiting for take-out food is still in the courts. Philly cops have tar­ geted Askia’s family and neighborhood for harassment in retaliation for their decision to organize in support of Askia.

The more dramatic case of the Philadel­ phia police bombing of the MOVE house on May 13, 1985, should be enough to remind us of which side the cops are on. Philly cops fired more than 10,000 rounds of ammo in 90 minutes into 6221 Osage Avenue. Then they dropped a bomb on the house, killing 11 men, Cops are not just ‘workers in uniform.’ prison guards, etc.).

Cops are not just “workers in uniform” and they are not on our side. In the words of Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky,