Since Karl Marx made his first critiques of capitalism, the tradition of radical leftism has continuously laid siege to the structures and assumptions that form the foundation of modern societies. “Radical” in this sense refers to the left’s practice of questioning and analyzing the roots of our society. This practice began with thinkers such as Jacques Rousseau but took off at the time of Marx. Radical thought has continued to influence thought about the roots of patriarchy and structural racism inherent in our societies. These ideas assume that society’s problems are not able to be merely regulated away. Instead, they poison our institutions down to their roots and require those institutions to be pulled up from their roots in order to solve them. Radical thought is useful and necessary to diagnose the real problems that poison our institutions. This is true of the earliest radicals as well as modern radicals seeking to rid society of corrupt institutions. Often, however, the solution of total deconstruction overlooks good but imperfect reforms and fails to justify how a world with different or no structures would be any better.

One example of radicalism from U.S. history comes from the women’s suffrage movement. In anarchist Emma Goldman’s 1911 essay “Woman Suffrage,” she argued that giving women the vote would do nothing to solve the actual problems at the root of American society such as labor exploitation. “To assume,” Goldman declared, “that [women] would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit [them] with supernatural powers.” She asked whether “the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena?” Goldman was right that allowing women to participate in democracy would not solve every economic and political problem. But it was not intended to solve every problem. Instead, it was an important step towards equity in representation. The success of less than revolutionary change can be seen in the last two Congresses, which have seated more women members than ever before. Thinkers like Goldman are necessary to highlight where society is failing and to push us to do better. But perfect should not be the enemy of good.

A modern example of radicalism is the recently rejuvenated campaign to “Abolish the Police.” Proponents of this idea contend that the racism inherent in U.S. law enforcement necessitates abolishing the institution of police. Such racism has been present since the founding of police in this country and has often motivated which laws are enforced and on which communities. The only solution, according to radicals, is to entirely do away with law enforcement and replace it with multiple coordinated programs. In her New York Times op-ed, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police,” organizer Mariame Kaba imagines a world in which police are obsolete. Such a world would “redirect the billions that now go to police departments toward providing health care, housing, education and good jobs” and employ “community care workers” to “do mental-health checks if someone needs help. Towns could use restorative-justice models instead of throwing people in prison.” Kaba’s diagnosis of the problems of policing and her proposed policies are spot on. She is correct that police are overused and undertrained for many of the situations they are thrown into and that current reforms are ineffective at rooting out law enforcement’s systemic racism. However, enacting Kaba’s proposed policies does not necessitate abolishing the police altogether. 

Norway is a useful example of a country which has effectively implemented many of these reforms. Instead of jailing drug addicts, Norway sends them to treatment facilities. Instead of only sending police to respond to mental health crises, they send Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment teams. Norwegian police are better trained than American police, they police by consent instead of force, and they are subject to accountability from the law. As a result, Norwegian police almost never kill anyone. Countries such as Norway show us that, despite the structural problems at the foundation of American policing, policing as a concept is not foundationally flawed. The racism at the core of America’s law enforcement poses unique challenges for reform, but these challenges are not uniquely insurmountable. Such a future system might be unrecognizable, but it is possible to reduce racism without abolishing policing altogether.

Police abolitionists like Kabe have “a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation.” Such a society would undoubtedly have less crime. But there is no precedent for a society completely devoid of crime. Even the wealthiest places in America have some crime. The potential for redeeming policing is especially important in a country which has twice as many guns per capita as any other country. More than anywhere else, there are some problems in America that unarmed crisis resolution teams are incapable of solving. Further, despite the flaws at the roots of policing, there is evidence that investing more resources into policing can successfully reduce violent crime. Given this reality, and the possibility for policing not to be structurally flawed, there is no need to completely abolish policing and such a policy would be misguided.

Radicals from Marx to Kabe have necessary insights into the flaws at the foundation of our societies. Often, they are the only ones willing to shine a light on the uncomfortable sources of our most important problems. However, their revolutionary solutions neglect that we can improve our systems without destroying them. Radical solutions also ignore the legitimate utility that these institutions provide us. Competent law enforcement, like many other institutions, can prevent significant suffering within society. By overlooking the benefits of institutions and creating idyllic pictures of their abolition, radicalism provides an important but incomplete analysis.