Very true. I think this realization is critical to the point that Chibber was making at the end. People understand what "defund the ____" means: austerity, funding cuts, weakening the public sector. The movement of "defund the police" should intentionally avoid the "austerity" association by offering an explicit exchange in the phrasing to indicate that this is not just more public sector cuts, this is *shifting* funds from the criminal justice system to schools, healthcare, labor, etc.
I hope Jacobin producers read these comments. I’m not sure what I think about a lot of these comments, but it seems to me that there’s been a decent amount of pushback against much of what was discussed in this first episode, especially concerning much of what Vivek had said (I could be misunderstanding some of them though). The reason I bring this up is because I think it’s Jacobin’s responsibility (bc it’s the left’s responsibility, and they represent a certain segment of the left) to make clear whatever isn’t clear to folks upset in the comments. Somethings are being lost in translation, that seems clear. I think clarifications are important, and certainly debate is in order (or preferably, passionate discussion between opposing views on these things). Just throwing that out there... This is important, after all. I mean, I want the Marxists to be putting their best foot forward ffs.. I know I’m not alone in that. Side note: Do people think Vivek is white? Nobody on this entire panel was white, no? Are people just confused, or is there some kind of weird reverse colorism going on? ✌️❤️🏴♾
@@ReggieMeisler Hey thanks for the reply. See, this is exactly why I want there to be discussion about these things, and I hope Jacobin’s producers, or whomever, try to reach out and at least clarify some points, if not have comrades with opposing views come on to debate/discuss these points. I don’t know these people well enough to know their relationships to these movements, maybe you do, but I’m not assuming their knowledge based on their perspective. See, it could be that the 3 main persons on this panel (aside from Vivek) are actively involved in BLM movements to defund the police, via solidarity and participation with orgs that are doing work to further these goals (DSA, or whomever else), *but they still have critiques of movements or the language of some movements, despite that action.* I don’t know them, so I don’t know, but I have personally involved myself with groups/activities that I don’t completely agree with, or I have issues with in some way, but still get involved bc I have solidarity with enough of what they’re trying to accomplish, that I put aside my differences... in fact, I know and know of MANY people who do this, and frankly think it’s preposterous and borderline delusional when people think that if you’re not 💯 on board with every last detail, you shouldn’t stand in solidarity with X, or volunteer your time to Y, or Z... the left will never accomplish another thing again if a majority or plurality of people start thinking this way (not that I think there’s a majority who do, quite the contrary, but I’m still often disturbed at how often I encounter this sort of “with me 💯, or against me” sort of mentality). Again, that’s why I’d like more discussion and clarification, because I’d like parse out what parts of “defund the police”, etc, they are for/against. I’ve most definitely come across a TON of disagreements over the last few months over the language, while those in disagreement ultimately still share the same goals, *BUT if/when people are not very clear about this, I see misunderstandings, and upset people who mistake an issue with language and tactics for an issue with goals, and this leads to divisions that are absolutely unnecessary, and ultimately it becomes an unwelcome distraction, even if it’s only to a small degree, from the important work at hand.* I’m quite sure you’ve probably noticed such things as well, it seems that one needn’t be actively engaged in leftist groups/movements very long before they’re acquainted wiry such issues... As far as the, “it’s not about not being white”, and the point I was making towards the end of my OP (which is certainly less important than the other points I was trying to make), I hear you, and understand your perspective (I think), but I’m referring to comments where race/color is being brought into it, so you may not share that perspective, but it seems that others aren’t looking at it exactly through the same lens, and are either being a little essentialist in their thinking, or off base in some other way, OR are simply failing to say what they mean, and say it clearly (and/or all the above). Which gets back to exactly why I left this OG comment in the first place: I want people with differing perspectives to say what they mean, and say it clearly, and not get bogged down in language that confuses points, or is needlessly provocative. Emotions run high in these kind of discussions, that’s understandable, but it’s important when we’re actually having these discussions to put that aside as much as possible (unless someone has actually said something bigoted, or attacked someone, etc), and focus on clarity. Without clarity, people will misunderstand, and I know from experience the tragedy (imo it’s tragic) of people not coming to understand or agree with some important political point or discussion, merely bc of a failure of the speakers/groups/activists/etc to be clear (and accessible enough) with their language. That’s to say, had the language been clear, people would have agreed and joined some struggle in some way, but because of what’s lost in translation (and of course that’s a perennial problem, and falls on all parties involved), that doesn’t happen, or at least doesn’t happen till a later date when someone (else) has clarified what they mean, or what X movement is about, or at least what they think it is about (bc let’s face it, another thing to bare in mind is that multiple parties involved in the same movements often do not agree on what their goals are, or at least on what is top priority in a list of goals.. but again, these are perennial problems that aren’t solved easily, and that’s why it’s so important to tailor a message in ways appropriate for any/every given audience, and be clear). Also, it’s not just about clarity: what about charity? Seriously, often in these comments it’s wild to me how quick people are to just assume enmity, or assume that if someone breaks from their perspective on X, then they must be reactionary in some way, instead of asking what they mean, or even wondering why they think it... I’m not saying we can’t have ANY confrontation or shouldn’t take people to task, I just wish that wasn’t the first thing people jump to. They mentioned Michael Brooks at the end of this, and goddamnit do I miss his kindness and patience and level headed understanding, and goddamn I hope that catches on more as these movements blossom, or the left is going to repeat a lot of the mistakes of the past (imo). Anyway, I’ve blabbed on long enough... hopefully that makes some of my OP a little more clear. I know I didn’t stick to everything you had to say, Reggie, but I was trying to base a good bit of this diatribe off your reply..✌️❤️🏴♾
@@ReggieMeisler "Defund Police has actually succeeded in many cities already, including Minneapolis" the city already pulled back on everything that was promised, am I wrong?
@@ReggieMeisler According to a March 2021 poll, only 28% of Black Americans support 'defund the police'. Doesn't seem like very good 'populist energy' to me.
The comments show how many misguided 'woke' people identifying as socialists there currently are in the US 'online left'. Kudos to Jacobin for not going along with them, I'm actually surprised by that. It's no accident that this 'majority' of the US left still gets the support of small 'minorities' of the actual voters.
Is defund the police just a slogan, or is it a policy? I get that it can be co-opted as a slogan for austerity, but I think many people don’t actually need it explained as they are now aware that it involves reallocation. It’s not a difficult concept and people who play dumb are suspect. I think it’s a good point that ideas meant to help many who have less can and do repeatedly get co-opted to serve the privileged few. Do police reduce crime? More importantly, would reallocating the huge sums of money many cities spend on police to social programs, other jobs, mental health centers and science-based drug rehabilitation actually increase crime (as Chibber seems to suggest) or reduce it? I agree that when it comes to slogans, some that Chibber suggests would be better, as they are explicitly anti-austerity
" I think many people don’t actually need it explained as they are now aware that it involves reallocation." This awareness exists exclusively in massively online, siloed left wing circles and EVEN THEN it is NOT universally agreed upon (some really DO want to straight 'defund' the police). The fact is that if a slogan needs 'explaining' it isn't a good slogan. Period.
@@krausewitz6786 Not true at all. I’ve had plenty of discussions with people who are not remotely left wing who know what it means. It’s not a complicated idea. The fact that people like Obama and others mock it as a “bad slogan” instead of just saying what it means is a deliberate choice, because they don’t want to do anything about police violence and corruption that isn’t purely symbolic
@@abe8435 I would love to know some of the conservatives you've spoken to who understand 'defund the police'. I have never in my life met a single one, with the exception of a handful of young, very online people (i.e. a tiny minority).
@@krausewitz6786 I’m near NYC and around LA, but I’ve also spoken to people in Atlanta about it. So plenty of Democrats, a few right-wingers, but definitely not “far left always online” people. Maybe people are more politically literate on the coasts IDK. But like I said, it really isn’t a hard concept to understand, yet conservatives who actually DO already know what it means will willfully misread it and then, even after it’s explained to them (in all of 10 seconds) go “oh well it’s a bad slogan” because they have no argument against “reallocate money from bloated police budgets towards programs that actually reduce crime”
This is the best rebuttal to "defund the police" that I've seen so far, and I think Vivek Chibber has convinced me that there are better alternatives. However, I still have a couple issues with what is said here. Municipal budgets are very constrained, and many cities like my own require balanced budgets. They don't have the capacity to just start spending more money like the federal and state governments. So the idea of reallocating police funding makes sense, and major cities are already doing it to some degree. I don't understand why Vivek says it's not gaining traction. It doesn't even matter whether or not congress people outside of deep blue urban districts support it, because it is really a municipal issue.
Take that mask off Joe. It’s not about praxis, or a cause, or anything material for you. You’re a champagne progressive with a chip on your shoulder who knows some progressive buzzwords. You’re impressive.
I’m normally a fan of Vivek Chibber’s tough takes, but I am increasingly annoyed by these constant attempts by learned people to teach black activists the exact right slogan to solve the systemic, ongoing brutalizations and murder of black and brown people by the police. I’m sure centuries and decades of abuse would have simply stopped, and cooperation would have immediately started if everyone had just talked to Mr. Chibber first. This reminds me that socialists sometimes don’t understand the difference between pmc identity politics and black people who are dealing with life and death issues. Rather than listen to themselves talk, Jacobin should talk more to actual working class black and brown people and activists. People interested in a different - but still progressive- perspective should listen to this episode of The Ben Dixon Show (Clickbaity Political Thirst Trap) where they take down Obama and his critique of Defund the Police ua-cam.com/video/HpcACOFQwKI/v-deo.html
Invoking the magnitude of white supremacy and systemic racism shouldn't downplay the importance of political messaging, if anything it should emphasize it. How many times are we going to use language that accommodates the largely aesthetic preferences of a media / academia / activist subculture at the expense of building widespread public support? Also how many times do we need to be reminded that most of the public is incredibly dense, and _does_ need clear and basic messaging to be brought on board? I agree that we should defund the police, but like Vivek said, we won't make any progress on that until we learn how to bring more people in.
@@ReggieMeisler I largely agree. Though for every person you get to engage 1-on-1, there's another you won't get a hold of who's already got one foot out the door ideologically. But yea, the best remedy for that is more organizing.
In fairness to Vivek, others, like Adolph Reed Jr, have made the same point: the reason we got into the current carceral police state in the first place has a lot to do with disproportionately minority middle and working class people in urban areas demanding something be done about the crime wave that coincided with the post-war baby boom. Blatantly ignoring their concerns is not going to work (catalyst-journal.com/vol3/no3/the-economic-origins-of-mass-incarceration )
I personally think that Defund the Police is a _horrible_ slogan, because people hear abolition. Smarter Police Spending is something that I think works better.
So before you find the other programs (most of which don’t exist), before you improve society, before you treat violent mental disease, before you get people off drugs, before you get guns out of criminals hands and before you have a way to prevent private police from replacing public ones, you’re gonna skip to “get rid of police”. Remove head from butt.
Not once did he support cops. There was no cop apologia in this. What he said was if you are going to defund the police, that must be substantiated with an increased spending in education, healthcare, public spending. You can't have a conversation about defunding or abolishing the police without also having a conversation about what should replace them. However, while I do believe there is no cop apologia to this talk, I do think there is an utter lack of actual experience with police brutality among the panelists. There should have been more black scholars discussing this. And there is an unwarranted level of condescension from Chibber towards the black and latinx working class organizers
😂 😂 "so that the 1% of Latinos who use this term can be happy"
Defund schools and defund healthcare - people seem to have no problem understanding what those mean.
Very true. I think this realization is critical to the point that Chibber was making at the end. People understand what "defund the ____" means: austerity, funding cuts, weakening the public sector. The movement of "defund the police" should intentionally avoid the "austerity" association by offering an explicit exchange in the phrasing to indicate that this is not just more public sector cuts, this is *shifting* funds from the criminal justice system to schools, healthcare, labor, etc.
Need to get more people on the abolitionist left on the show
Listen if i wanted to quibble over branding I would have stayed a liberal.
Read Lukas. Communists have long been conscious of the need to have good slogans.
@@ianadelstein42 ah, good recommendation
How are you not still a liberal?
Smacks of liberal condescension to me.
I hope Jacobin producers read these comments. I’m not sure what I think about a lot of these comments, but it seems to me that there’s been a decent amount of pushback against much of what was discussed in this first episode, especially concerning much of what Vivek had said (I could be misunderstanding some of them though).
The reason I bring this up is because I think it’s Jacobin’s responsibility (bc it’s the left’s responsibility, and they represent a certain segment of the left) to make clear whatever isn’t clear to folks upset in the comments. Somethings are being lost in translation, that seems clear. I think clarifications are important, and certainly debate is in order (or preferably, passionate discussion between opposing views on these things). Just throwing that out there...
This is important, after all. I mean, I want the Marxists to be putting their best foot forward ffs.. I know I’m not alone in that.
Side note: Do people think Vivek is white? Nobody on this entire panel was white, no? Are people just confused, or is there some kind of weird reverse colorism going on? ✌️❤️🏴♾
@@ReggieMeisler Hey thanks for the reply. See, this is exactly why I want there to be discussion about these things, and I hope Jacobin’s producers, or whomever, try to reach out and at least clarify some points, if not have comrades with opposing views come on to debate/discuss these points. I don’t know these people well enough to know their relationships to these movements, maybe you do, but I’m not assuming their knowledge based on their perspective.
See, it could be that the 3 main persons on this panel (aside from Vivek) are actively involved in BLM movements to defund the police, via solidarity and participation with orgs that are doing work to further these goals (DSA, or whomever else), *but they still have critiques of movements or the language of some movements, despite that action.* I don’t know them, so I don’t know, but I have personally involved myself with groups/activities that I don’t completely agree with, or I have issues with in some way, but still get involved bc I have solidarity with enough of what they’re trying to accomplish, that I put aside my differences... in fact, I know and know of MANY people who do this, and frankly think it’s preposterous and borderline delusional when people think that if you’re not 💯 on board with every last detail, you shouldn’t stand in solidarity with X, or volunteer your time to Y, or Z... the left will never accomplish another thing again if a majority or plurality of people start thinking this way (not that I think there’s a majority who do, quite the contrary, but I’m still often disturbed at how often I encounter this sort of “with me 💯, or against me” sort of mentality).
Again, that’s why I’d like more discussion and clarification, because I’d like parse out what parts of “defund the police”, etc, they are for/against. I’ve most definitely come across a TON of disagreements over the last few months over the language, while those in disagreement ultimately still share the same goals, *BUT if/when people are not very clear about this, I see misunderstandings, and upset people who mistake an issue with language and tactics for an issue with goals, and this leads to divisions that are absolutely unnecessary, and ultimately it becomes an unwelcome distraction, even if it’s only to a small degree, from the important work at hand.* I’m quite sure you’ve probably noticed such things as well, it seems that one needn’t be actively engaged in leftist groups/movements very long before they’re acquainted wiry such issues...
As far as the, “it’s not about not being white”, and the point I was making towards the end of my OP (which is certainly less important than the other points I was trying to make), I hear you, and understand your perspective (I think), but I’m referring to comments where race/color is being brought into it, so you may not share that perspective, but it seems that others aren’t looking at it exactly through the same lens, and are either being a little essentialist in their thinking, or off base in some other way, OR are simply failing to say what they mean, and say it clearly (and/or all the above). Which gets back to exactly why I left this OG comment in the first place: I want people with differing perspectives to say what they mean, and say it clearly, and not get bogged down in language that confuses points, or is needlessly provocative. Emotions run high in these kind of discussions, that’s understandable, but it’s important when we’re actually having these discussions to put that aside as much as possible (unless someone has actually said something bigoted, or attacked someone, etc), and focus on clarity. Without clarity, people will misunderstand, and I know from experience the tragedy (imo it’s tragic) of people not coming to understand or agree with some important political point or discussion, merely bc of a failure of the speakers/groups/activists/etc to be clear (and accessible enough) with their language. That’s to say, had the language been clear, people would have agreed and joined some struggle in some way, but because of what’s lost in translation (and of course that’s a perennial problem, and falls on all parties involved), that doesn’t happen, or at least doesn’t happen till a later date when someone (else) has clarified what they mean, or what X movement is about, or at least what they think it is about (bc let’s face it, another thing to bare in mind is that multiple parties involved in the same movements often do not agree on what their goals are, or at least on what is top priority in a list of goals.. but again, these are perennial problems that aren’t solved easily, and that’s why it’s so important to tailor a message in ways appropriate for any/every given audience, and be clear).
Also, it’s not just about clarity: what about charity? Seriously, often in these comments it’s wild to me how quick people are to just assume enmity, or assume that if someone breaks from their perspective on X, then they must be reactionary in some way, instead of asking what they mean, or even wondering why they think it... I’m not saying we can’t have ANY confrontation or shouldn’t take people to task, I just wish that wasn’t the first thing people jump to. They mentioned Michael Brooks at the end of this, and goddamnit do I miss his kindness and patience and level headed understanding, and goddamn I hope that catches on more as these movements blossom, or the left is going to repeat a lot of the mistakes of the past (imo).
Anyway, I’ve blabbed on long enough... hopefully that makes some of my OP a little more clear. I know I didn’t stick to everything you had to say, Reggie, but I was trying to base a good bit of this diatribe off your reply..✌️❤️🏴♾
@@ReggieMeisler "Defund Police has actually succeeded in many cities already, including Minneapolis" the city already pulled back on everything that was promised, am I wrong?
@@ReggieMeisler According to a March 2021 poll, only 28% of Black Americans support 'defund the police'. Doesn't seem like very good 'populist energy' to me.
The comments show how many misguided 'woke' people identifying as socialists there currently are in the US 'online left'. Kudos to Jacobin for not going along with them, I'm actually surprised by that. It's no accident that this 'majority' of the US left still gets the support of small 'minorities' of the actual voters.
Best campaign I have seen that encapsulates "Defund the police" is C.A.R.E. (Community, Accountability, Restoration, Equity).
Is defund the police just a slogan, or is it a policy? I get that it can be co-opted as a slogan for austerity, but I think many people don’t actually need it explained as they are now aware that it involves reallocation. It’s not a difficult concept and people who play dumb are suspect. I think it’s a good point that ideas meant to help many who have less can and do repeatedly get co-opted to serve the privileged few.
Do police reduce crime? More importantly, would reallocating the huge sums of money many cities spend on police to social programs, other jobs, mental health centers and science-based drug rehabilitation actually increase crime (as Chibber seems to suggest) or reduce it?
I agree that when it comes to slogans, some that Chibber suggests would be better, as they are explicitly anti-austerity
Yes, I think what we need to say instead is
*"Defund the Police, Fund Public Servants"*
" I think many people don’t actually need it explained as they are now aware that it involves reallocation."
This awareness exists exclusively in massively online, siloed left wing circles and EVEN THEN it is NOT universally agreed upon (some really DO want to straight 'defund' the police).
The fact is that if a slogan needs 'explaining' it isn't a good slogan. Period.
@@krausewitz6786 Not true at all. I’ve had plenty of discussions with people who are not remotely left wing who know what it means. It’s not a complicated idea. The fact that people like Obama and others mock it as a “bad slogan” instead of just saying what it means is a deliberate choice, because they don’t want to do anything about police violence and corruption that isn’t purely symbolic
@@abe8435 I would love to know some of the conservatives you've spoken to who understand 'defund the police'. I have never in my life met a single one, with the exception of a handful of young, very online people (i.e. a tiny minority).
@@krausewitz6786 I’m near NYC and around LA, but I’ve also spoken to people in Atlanta about it. So plenty of Democrats, a few right-wingers, but definitely not “far left always online” people. Maybe people are more politically literate on the coasts IDK.
But like I said, it really isn’t a hard concept to understand, yet conservatives who actually DO already know what it means will willfully misread it and then, even after it’s explained to them (in all of 10 seconds) go “oh well it’s a bad slogan” because they have no argument against “reallocate money from bloated police budgets towards programs that actually reduce crime”
This is the best rebuttal to "defund the police" that I've seen so far, and I think Vivek Chibber has convinced me that there are better alternatives. However, I still have a couple issues with what is said here. Municipal budgets are very constrained, and many cities like my own require balanced budgets. They don't have the capacity to just start spending more money like the federal and state governments. So the idea of reallocating police funding makes sense, and major cities are already doing it to some degree. I don't understand why Vivek says it's not gaining traction. It doesn't even matter whether or not congress people outside of deep blue urban districts support it, because it is really a municipal issue.
Producer wasn’t quick enough to catch Paul Prescod nodding off and pull him off the screen.
Mlk did warn us about white moderate. I'm used to white people being a disappointment nothing new here
Yes, I think what we need to say instead is
*"Defund the Police, Fund Public Servants"*
@@cristinasalazar9293 thats nice
Take that mask off Joe. It’s not about praxis, or a cause, or anything material for you. You’re a champagne progressive with a chip on your shoulder who knows some progressive buzzwords. You’re impressive.
@@cristinasalazar9293 You still don’t know what a Public Servant is. They’re cops too Christina. Put down the theory and read some law.
@@Hunter_Brandon Yes, but they would be Non-Unionized and Unarmed.
I’m normally a fan of Vivek Chibber’s tough takes, but I am increasingly annoyed by these constant attempts by learned people to teach black activists the exact right slogan to solve the systemic, ongoing brutalizations and murder of black and brown people by the police. I’m sure centuries and decades of abuse would have simply stopped, and cooperation would have immediately started if everyone had just talked to Mr. Chibber first. This reminds me that socialists sometimes don’t understand the difference between pmc identity politics and black people who are dealing with life and death issues. Rather than listen to themselves talk, Jacobin should talk more to actual working class black and brown people and activists. People interested in a different - but still progressive- perspective should listen to this episode of The Ben Dixon Show (Clickbaity Political Thirst Trap) where they take down Obama and his critique of Defund the Police ua-cam.com/video/HpcACOFQwKI/v-deo.html
Thank you!
Invoking the magnitude of white supremacy and systemic racism shouldn't downplay the importance of political messaging, if anything it should emphasize it. How many times are we going to use language that accommodates the largely aesthetic preferences of a media / academia / activist subculture at the expense of building widespread public support? Also how many times do we need to be reminded that most of the public is incredibly dense, and _does_ need clear and basic messaging to be brought on board? I agree that we should defund the police, but like Vivek said, we won't make any progress on that until we learn how to bring more people in.
@@ReggieMeisler I largely agree. Though for every person you get to engage 1-on-1, there's another you won't get a hold of who's already got one foot out the door ideologically. But yea, the best remedy for that is more organizing.
@@ReggieMeisler organizing is key, but introductions are paramount. That's where slogans and style come in.
In fairness to Vivek, others, like Adolph Reed Jr, have made the same point: the reason we got into the current carceral police state in the first place has a lot to do with disproportionately minority middle and working class people in urban areas demanding something be done about the crime wave that coincided with the post-war baby boom. Blatantly ignoring their concerns is not going to work (catalyst-journal.com/vol3/no3/the-economic-origins-of-mass-incarceration )
Is Paul Prescod asleep at the start of the podcast? I'm not trying to be a troll; his eyes seem closed.
I personally think that Defund the Police is a _horrible_ slogan, because people hear abolition. Smarter Police Spending is something that I think works better.
But that’s not what folks want. So that doesn’t work. Defund means defund.
@@TheOriginalRasheedat People don't want abolition, and like it or not, that is what most people hear.
We tried those other slogans and they didn't work
So you’re cool with an objectively shitty slogan backed by nothing. Neat.
Finally
This guy man... So bad. Any way, we know crime is real and want to find the solution for prevention which is what funds policing aka the reaction
So before you find the other programs (most of which don’t exist), before you improve society, before you treat violent mental disease, before you get people off drugs, before you get guns out of criminals hands and before you have a way to prevent private police from replacing public ones, you’re gonna skip to “get rid of police”.
Remove head from butt.
Cop apologia from “socialists”. Nice.
Champagne socialist with a safe life, no problems, and a disagreement. What, you got a speeding ticket and now you’re ACAB? Grow up.
Not once did he support cops. There was no cop apologia in this. What he said was if you are going to defund the police, that must be substantiated with an increased spending in education, healthcare, public spending. You can't have a conversation about defunding or abolishing the police without also having a conversation about what should replace them.
However, while I do believe there is no cop apologia to this talk, I do think there is an utter lack of actual experience with police brutality among the panelists. There should have been more black scholars discussing this. And there is an unwarranted level of condescension from Chibber towards the black and latinx working class organizers