Why We Say All Cops Are Bastards: A Historical and Political Analysis

The very first reaction to the ACAB slogan tends to be visceral;

“Not all cops, my brother/sister/father/mother/friend is a cop, and they’re nice!”

This reaction is understandable, but it misses the point of the slogan itself. The slogan is not a moral indictment of any individual member of the police force, nor is it a personal attack on their merits or shortcomings; it is a systemic analysis of their role as the gatekeepers of an unjust, oppressive and fundamentally coercive system. A system designed to protect existing relations of power, property, and class domination.

To dive deeper, let us analyze the history of the police force not merely as a collection of individuals, but as an institution with a specfic historical and political function.

The common image of the police officer is that of a humble civil servant tasked with sustaining public order, impartial in their service, blind to race, creed, class or ideology, and unwavering protectors of the public. In the common rhetoric and in popular media (The Rookie, Chicago P.D., Law and Order, Brooklyn Nine-Nine), they are portrayed as the force preventing civilized society from “falling into chaos.” Protecting innocent civilians from criminals intent on causing death and destruction.

However, this understanding of policing obscures the uncomfortable reality that law and order are never neutral concepts. Every legal system reflects the priorities of the society that produces it, and it is the ruling class of each society which ultimately decides which forms of harm are intolerable, which forms of violence are acceptable, and which interests deserve protection.

Historically, the development of modern policing was closely tied to industrialization and the consolidation of modern property relations. In rapidly growing industrial cities, governments oversaw large concentrations of workers living in increasingly unequal conditions. Those working for pennies on the hour lived in the same cities as those with more wealth than a lifetime of work could produce. Unsurprisingly, this stark disparity in wealth created class conflict, demonstrations, strikes, and other forms of social disruptions which threatened the interests of industrialists, property owners, and the broader economic hierarchy upon which the wealthy depended.

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, then, quasi-police organizations, private security firms, strikebreakers for-hire, and eventually formal police forces were repeatedly deployed against organized labor movements. Workers demanding safer conditions, fair pay, or basic rights were often met with intimidation, arrests, violent crackdowns, and in some cases outright killings carried out in defense of industrial wealth and private property.

This is a recurring pattern throughout history. During the Homestead Strike (1892), armed Pinkerton agents were deployed against striking steelworkers, resulting in a violent battle that left multiple workers dead. During the Haymarket Affair (1886), police cracked down and killed workers protesting for the eight-hour workday. In the Ludlow Massacre (1914), the Colorado National Guard and company forces attacked a camp of striking coal miners and their families with relentless machinegun fire, killing women and children.

You may then say,

“Well, that was yesteryear’s problem! Today’s police forces are much better trained, much more civilized!”

And to an extent, that is true. Modern policing no longer sees the openly brutal strikebreaking forces of the early industrial era. Officers today are trained in de-escalation, community outreach, crisis response, and are expected (at least publicly!) to uphold professional and ethical standards.

But when workers organize disruptive strikes, police are sent to disperse them. When tenants resist eviction, police enforce their removal. When homeless populations occupy commercial spaces, police clear them out. During periods of mass protest or civil unrest, police are mobilized less to address the underlying causes of public anger than to restore order as quickly as possible by any means possible.

Despite the changes in image and method, the fundamental role of policing within society has remained remarkably consistent. Police forces are still deployed mainly when existing structures of power, property, and authority are perceived to be under threat. (For Indonesians, see: Use of police forces during forced evictions, police brutality and militarized repression in Papua, and selective law enforcement in cases involving politically connected elites and oligarchic interests.) Time and time again, policing appears less concerned with upholding justice than with managing, containing, and suppressing those who disrupt existing power.

The takeaway here is not that every individual police officer wakes up with a relentless bloodthirst to oppress the poor and minorities, nor that all forms of policing are inherently illegitimate. Rather, it is that policing as an institution has historically functioned less as a neutral protector of society and more as an instrument for preserving existing relations of power. From the suppression of labor movements in the industrial era to the modern-day enforcement of property rights, evictions, anti-homeless ordinances, and crackdowns on disruptive protest movements, the pattern remains remarkably consistent!

This, ultimately, is what people mean when they say “All Cops Are Bastards.” The slogan is less about the individual morality of police officers and more about the systemic role policing plays within an unequal social order.

Whether or not one agrees with this slogan is a personal decision for each and every person to make. But the reality stays clear and true: Today, many no longer see the police force as a neutral force for justice, but as an untrustworthy institution whose actions align more closely with the interests of property, wealth, and political power than with the needs of ordinary people.