To scholars of labor and working-class history, police pose a problem—though, one less grave than the problem they pose to contemporary life in the United States, where roughly 10 percent of all homicide victims, and fully one-third of all people killed by strangers, die at police hands. How should police be categorized, and are they worthy subjects for the field? They are workers, of course, but they are also front-line agents of state repression and shock troops for capital. They remain robustly unionized, at least by US standards, but their unions are regressive and politically conservative, more concerned with shielding cops from accountability than with building solidarity. As individuals, many hail from working-class communities of color, but as a social and political category, their effect is to rationalize, reproduce, and fortify axes of racial and class difference. Their labor power is undoubtedly appropriated to produce surplus value, but is the exploitation they suffer superseded—or, to use a newly vexed word, “trumped”—by the work they do as exploiters?

中文翻译：

---

警察工作，无限

对于劳动和工人阶级历史的学者来说，警察提出了一个问题，尽管这个问题比他们对美国当代生活提出的问题要严重得多，在美国，大约有10％的凶杀案受害人，而全部人口中有三分​​之一被陌生人杀害，死于警察之手。应该如何对警察进行分类，他们是否值得该领域的对象？当然，他们是工人，但他们还是国家镇压的前线特工，并动shock了资本。他们至少按照美国的标准仍然保持强大的工会组织，但是他们的工会组织具有退步性和政治保守性，他们更关心的是使警察免受问责，而不是建立团结。作为个人，许多人来自工人阶级的有色人种，但作为社会和政治类别，其作用是合理化，复制，并加强种族和阶级差异的轴心。他们的劳动力无疑适合用来产生剩余价值，但是他们作为剥削者所做的工作是否取代了他们遭受的剥削，或者使用了一个新的烦恼的词“被压制”？