It makes sense that the police exist to enforce existing power structures, yes. The people in power (wealthy individuals and organizations who can buy political capital, and the politicians that represent them) use the police as a threat of and actual tool of violence to subdue anyone that would challenge their power.

> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?

The first step to fixing a system is to understand it. Taking a valid description and twisting it in to an accusation of a "fascist plot" is a great way to ensure you will never understand the system in the way which is required to actually improve it.

We're all trying to frame things in a way that will logically lead our preferred solutions.

But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well, which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.

But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.

I've seen plenty of anarchists who do recommend tearing everything down. Antifa has clothed themselves in the name of supposedly being against fascism, but they define fascism as any current system of government. They're anarchists, though the media covers them as "activists."

You're right about number 2, though.

The "defund the police" movement originated with BLM, not Antifa. And the Wikipedia page[0] for it mentions the plan, in general terms

   supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services. Activists who support the defunding of police departments often argue that investing in community programs could provide a better crime deterrent for communities; funds would go toward addressing social issues, like poverty, homelessness, and mental disorders.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police

"Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" are two pieces of evidence that show that the left is terrible at creating names for their movements.

They'd get a lot more support if they had gone with "Black Lives Matter Too!" and "Reform the Police" or some other phrase that actually suggested their actual desires.

I think this is a red herring. These movements were unpopular because of what they asked for, not the way they phrased their request.

Only racists and trolls with an agenda refused to comprehend that Black Lives Matter didn't mean "Only Black Lives Matter." And continued to refuse to comprehend no matter how many times it was explained to them.

There's nothing the left can do about intentional bad faith representation of their messaging, that's just par for the course.

Sure bud. As a semi anarchist, here is a very widely accepted definition of fascism.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...

Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.

Here is a 20 year old very famous book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...

> But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well

I think this is fairly evident, yes.

> which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.

Well it certainly suggests something should be done. Tearing it all down seems like a straw man though. Certain aspects of it should certainly be torn down.

> But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.

I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.

>I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.

Your own argument comes from "I think this is fairly evident" (at the top of your post). How is that different from ignorance?

That statement is a follow up to my earlier argument (in the GP comment) which includes substance. But saying "I have never seen evidence so there must not be evidence" is a clear logical fallacy.

American police are the way they are (including their ability to arbitrarily and indefinitely seize your property without charging you with a crime, as discussed here) because nobody with the power to put meaningful checks on them has chosen to do so, and in the absence of checks police organizations tend to evolve into state-sanctioned criminal gangs.

That's the picture as it exists today. If you don't see existing power structures anywhere in that picture, you may need [new] glasses.

They didn't say it was a fascist plot. And, well, it's factual that the origin of policing in the U.S. is in enforcing slavery and post-slavery racism. All it takes is a large number of fascist-leaning people with government blessing to self-perpetuate. CAF is one way that happens. Cops rob people and then buy fancy coffee makers and other things to make their jobs more enjoyable. Very simple incentives enforce the power structure.

> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?

This is a good point. Fascism is made up and has never existed, and it certainly has never been created or perpetuated by police. It is a mystery why anyone would make a statement otherwise when the better option of discussing theoretical incremental change is on the table.

Yes. We must only ever effect change within the system, in ways that don't upset the status quo or in any way inconvenience those in power. Like that nice, polite fellow Martin Luther King Jr. Whatever happened to him?

I don't really buy this line of thinking. I guess you're adopting the 'Malcolm X' approach versus the 'MLK' approach, but actually, meaningful change in an organization devoid of calling people nasty names and criticizing them personally ('cops are pigs') IS MORE UPSETTING to the status quo than your approach.

Going to police stations and identifying issues with them, and describing them in apolitical terms, and asking the police chief to consider and act on them, and voting him or her out if they don't act on them, is more 'revolutionary' than standing outside their office with 'ACAB' posters.

I like this reasoning. Not enough people are spending their energy admonishing others for being rude about cops online. If we all just organized to stop anybody from being mean to them on the internet we could end civil asset forfeiture.

Because of the Police's past and ongoing actions and behaviors. But let's make it out that those people that have become jaded regarding the Police are the ones acting in bad faith, versus, you know, the people with authority whose own actions are the cause of 'needing to make improvements' which in the current discussion is a reduction a euphemism for 'the Police stealing people's property'.

>I'm a lawyer

I'm reminded of the line about how hard it is to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on their NOT understanding it.

This is the equivalent of someone saying "I'm a software dev, implementing X feature is difficult to impossible" and then getting the reply "that's because you're too entrenched in the current system."

Not really.

(I'm the lawyer from the original post)

I like that saying, too. But not sure it applies here -- there are huge numbers of lawyers who like talking about 'power structures.' It may have been invented by us. We lawyers invented, for example, critical race theory.

You could be right, though, maybe I am biased. I'd be interested to learn how.

> They are the way they are because of the various incentives, organizational politics

Congrats, you just provided a description of "power structures". Now you know.

> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot

Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...

>Congrats, you just provided a description of "power structures". Now you know.

The problem with a phrase like 'power structures' is people who use it get to define it to be whatever they want it to be. You're telling me here that it means 'incentives and organizational politics' (factors that affect any group of humans, regardless of the political 'power' of the group's constituents). But other places I see definitions like 'banks' or 'rich people.'

>Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...

That's my reaction when someone tells me I'm a part of a power structure -- they're effectively calling me a fascist. I think it's a fair reaction given the way political conversations go these ways. I appreciate your attention to close reading, though, and am genuinely sorry to hear you don't trust my commentary.