SPEW Recruits Head of Prison Guards' Union

[Random Precision]

What About the Workers (in uniform)?
By Liam MacCuaid

In the former West Germany members of the Communist Party were banned from a variety of state jobs. The idea was that if you thought the DDR was great then you could clear off there. Now let’s turn the proposition on its head. Should doing some jobs make you ineligible to be a member of a revolutionary Marxist organisation which wants to overthrow the bourgeois state?

It’s not a hypothetical question. Prison Officers Association (POA) general secretary Brian Caton has joined the Socialist Party. Understandably enough the interview with him shines a bright light on his opposition to privatisation of the penal system, the expulsion of BNP members from the union, his socialism, the impossibility of any real rehabilitation in the current system and his disdain for new Labour and Cameron. Anyone who has heard him speak cannot doubt the sincerity of these convictions.

Now I can perfectly agree with comrade Caton that the job you do does not necessarily colour your politics. Not all prison officers are right wing. We can reasonably speculate that the SAS and Special Branch are probably full of people who subscribe to New Internationalist and are planning career changes into social work or charities supporting asylum seekers. It’s even easier to understand how in a strongly unionised trade the pull of social democracy will have led many POA members to join the Labour Party. Labour’s critique of the British state’s repressive machinery always struck me as a bit underdeveloped and joining the party would not have been much of an ideological rupture for many prison officers. In his interview comrade Caton says that he was awarded not one, not two but three gold brooches to acknowledge his success as a Labour recruiter. I would bend the stick to the extent of saying that if a senior union official wanted to join Respect, the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party or whatever emerges from the swamp in the next few months that the job should not be an obstacle.

Things become a bit murkier when a prison officer wants to join one of the many organisations that sees itself as the only real successor of Lenin’s Bolsheviks. Some jobs are just politically unacceptable for members of a Marxist organisation. Bailiffs, cops in armed response units, the sort of News of the World journalist who runs scams to get migrant workers arrested and deported – in the right circumstance the people earning their living in this way might be pretty good union militants but the job that they they do is so directly oppressive and anti-working class that it should preclude them from being in a Marxist organisation. The contradiction between the politics and the personal is as insurmountable for them as it is for jailers, even ones in unions.

http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/what-about-the-workers-in-uniform/

EDIT: And here is an interview of Mr Caton from The Socialist: http://leftwingcriminologist.blogspot.com/2009/09/interview-with-poa-leader-brian-caton.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

Prison officers, police officers, judges, lawyers, and armed security are not proletarians.

[Saorsa]

Dear oh dear...

[Q]

Prison officers, police officers, judges, lawyers, and armed security are not proletarians.
What? No wall of text? Disappointing JR :p

But I do think this is the core of the issue: what makes a proletarian? Mike Macnair takes the definition that everyone is part of the working class who is dependent on the wage fund in order to survive: workers, students, the unemployed, the pensioned. I favor this definition because of its simplicity, but it does beg the question: What about those who technically earn a wage but are able to hire and fire (managers)? What about employees that carry out the oppressive task of state rule (bureaucracy, police, army... prison officers)?

History has shown time and again that even these layers can be radicalised through the events of hightened class struggle. During revolution, it is a common sight that the state apparatus gets immobilised because of the many layers of workers that refuse to carry on. As such I think that as revolutionaries we should strive for the maximum of splits in the state apparatus.

But is this the case in SPEW here? I think not. Instead of questioning bourgeois rule, the SPEW only raises economic points (in the interview respectively: privatisation of prisons, "modernisation" schemes, union demographic, the break with Labour, prison officers' wages - all points related to neoliberal policies), never does it raise political points (for example: "why are prisons necessary in our society? what class role do they play? could we do away with (most) of them under socialism?") and Caton's "we can be left too, you know!" is less than convincing.

I think SPEW is on a wrong track here to effectively cheer for the capitalist state and call on strengthening it. I already open a discussion about it (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2561) in the CWI group, but since that discussion didn't result in much, I'm happy this got opened.

[ls]

It's hard ground to say the least, but I don't really see why they should allow him into the organisation just like anyone else.. suffice to say it's entirely possible that this Brian guy is ignorant about what he's in charge of and thinks because he's good, it somehow detracts from the extremely reactionary things that prison officers do (quite simply by virtue of their job - and they are considered worse than low-level police constables with good reason).

Instead of simply just recruiting him, I'd urge the SP to attempt to talk with him and ask of good positions from him, in which he asks prison officers to: A) unremittingly strike B) quit their jobs/mutiny and the highly unlikely.. C) let every undeserving prisoner out of their cells and do both of the above. Completely impossible, of course. :cool:

[Spawn of Stalin]

I'm surprised SWP didn't snap him up first. Still, British Trot parties collaborating with representatives of the capitalist state is hardly unheard of. As much as I respect trade unionists, the only workers this man organises are criminals.

[chegitz guevara]

So, let me get this straight. We're not going to attempt to win over sections of the state: the police, the military, etc. We're just going to hurl ourselves at their bullets when the revolution comes?

[Die Neue Zeit]

What? No wall of text? Disappointing JR :p

But I do think this is the core of the issue: what makes a proletarian? Mike Macnair takes the definition that everyone is part of the working class who is dependent on the wage fund in order to survive: workers, students, the unemployed, the pensioned. I favor this definition because of its simplicity, but it does beg the question: What about those who technically earn a wage but are able to hire and fire (managers)? What about employees that carry out the oppressive task of state rule (bureaucracy, police, army... prison officers)?

Need I point out once more Chapter 2 of The Class Struggle Revisited? :p

Mid-level managers form the bulk of the "coordinator class" (from the pareconists Albert and Hahnel): existing within the wage labour system, contributing to the development of society’s labour power and its capabilities, having factual control but no significant-influence ownership over the means of production.

The job occupations I mentioned above are part of "Class #2": existing within the wage labour system but having no functional role in advancing society's labour power or capabilities. In my definition, soldiers can advance such (albeit) due to imperialist activity, and don't have as overtly an internally repressive role as the police (the paramilitary might be a different case). When too much of the ordinary populace is against the regime, the soldiers are the first ones to crack (not the paramilitary, police, or state security services). In other words, I actually classify soldiers as proletarians!

The civil bureaucracy (excluding public teachers, firefighters, and such) is the $64,000 question, but my first solid hunch would be the coordinator class.


As such I think that as revolutionaries we should strive for the maximum of splits in the state apparatus.

Notwithstanding my own class analysis (which is more relevant to working-class audiences in a non-revolutionary period), I agree with you.




So, let me get this straight. We're not going to attempt to win over sections of the state: the police, the military, etc. We're just going to hurl ourselves at their bullets when the revolution comes?

Comrade, please remember Kautsky's "circles of awareness." The task is to win over the proletariat proper (manual workers and also clerical and professional workers) first before becoming a "people's party" (while retaining the proletarians-only membership rule). Re. the military, you already have my stuff on "class-strugglist assembly and association."

[Rusty Shackleford]

Are you not going to have police when you right off the counter revolutionary fascists?

im not apologizing for police in general. but there are people "in the system" who are socialists and communists. its a tough thing to understand, but it happens. not everyone is able to change their job willy nilly according to their views. maybe they changed after years of experience. who knows. not all of them are bad.

i always wonder of the one lone riot gear clad cop who is actually sympathetic to the anarchists/anti-capitalists but is afraid to act on their beliefs in fear of punishment.


Some workers can actually be fascists, some cops can be communists.

[UlyssesTheRed]

Yeah, it's been like... ten... fifteen years since the ISO supported security guard and prison guard strikes. Ancient history, amirite, comrade? :thumbup1:

Where is Fred Bergen when you need him?

[Fight!]

Yeah, it's been like... ten... fifteen years since the ISO supported security guard and prison guard strikes. Ancient history, amirite, comrade? :thumbup1:

Where is Fred Bergen when you need him?

Is there anything wrong with trying to drive a wedge between the different parts of the state? If it was done in a principled manner (ie. pointing out their role in the bourgeois state), I don't see any problem with it.

[Random Precision]

Yeah, it's been like... ten... fifteen years since the ISO supported security guard and prison guard strikes. Ancient history, amirite, comrade? :thumbup1:

Ancient history or not, that would be way before my time. Can you provide a source? In the meantime I'll try to find out about it from some of the older comrades.

[KC]

Incredibly stupid. Prison guards are not proletarian. For once I agree with Jacob Richter.

[Fight!]

Incredibly stupid. Prison guards are not proletarian. For once I agree with Jacob Richter.

Does everyone in a revolutionary Party have to be proletarian? Half the people in revolutionary politics are petit-bourgeois intellectuals or students...
Anyways, I think that if the man is willing to accept the Marxist analysis on the role of prison guards in the capitalist society and help drive a wedge between sections of the capitalist state, then why not have him in the Party?

[KC]

Does everyone in a revolutionary Party have to be proletarian? Half the people in revolutionary politics are petit-bourgeois intellectuals or students...
Anyways, I think that if the man is willing to accept the Marxist analysis on the role of prison guards in the capitalist society and help drive a wedge between sections of the capitalist state, then why not have him in the Party?

Because you are supporting them as they beat and abuse prisoners. Perhaps next you would like to have soldiers stationed in Iraq shooting civilians join you?

[chegitz guevara]

I want everyone to join me, especially those with guns and who are trained in their use.

[KC]

I want everyone to join me, especially those with guns and who are trained in their use.

http://www.commondreams.org/files/images/riotingcops.jpg

[chegitz guevara]

You act like I've never had cops beating up on me.

[Fight!]

Because you are supporting them as they beat and abuse prisoners. Perhaps next you would like to have soldiers stationed in Iraq shooting civilians join you?

Again I talked about joining the SPEW in a principled manner. If there are individuals in the prison guard system that are actualy willing to join the revolutionary forces we should accept them within our ranks with the aim of driving a wedge between the different sections of the opressive apparatus of the state.

Furthermore us Marxists use generalizations. But you take this method and turn it over its head. Not all prison guards beat and abuse prisoners. Those who disagree with the capitalist establishment should have the ability to fight against it through joining a revolutionary party. Many bolsheviks were soldiers during world war one, some were in the police and others in the Cossaks. It was really helpful to have 2-3 agitators within those units of repression in order to divide the repressive state aparatus and win sections of the police, the cossaks and the army on the side of the revolution.

[fredbergen]

"Chegitz" of the Socialist Party USA joins the chorus of the cops' racist campaign to lynch Mumia Abu-Jamal, an innocent man. No wonder he thinks the bosses' professional thugs can be "socialists."

[UlyssesTheRed]

I want everyone to join me, especially those with guns and who are trained in their use.

So in other words, you don't have a Marxist understanding of the state. You think the organs of state terror are class neutral. :thumbup:

Also calling "citation needed" on your claim that the SP-USA was the only American party of which Trotsky was a member.

[UlyssesTheRed]

Ancient history or not, that would be way before my time. Can you provide a source? In the meantime I'll try to find out about it from some of the older comrades.

Intertubes came up short. Going to get some data on this Friday. I know that three days is FOREVER in Internet time, but bear with me. I promise to deliver the goods.

I'm actually surprised that Bergen didn't chime in with some of this.

HEY FRED! HELP ME OUT!

[fredbergen]

Dude, Ulysses, I am not your personal research assistant. Now, the ISO has done many opportunist things but I'm not sure if supporting cop unions was one of them. Along with most of the opportunist left, they supported the "union" campaign for campus security guards at Harvard University a couple years ago, something I would oppose.

BUT, it takes a lot of chutzpah for a supporter of David North's sinister operation to criticize leftists for crossing the class line and supporting the capitalist state! As we wrote, "David North Loves the Law (http://anti-sep-tic.blogspot.com/2009/08/david-north-and-law-1987.html)" (Workers Vanguard No. 430 [12 June 1987]). North's agents sued the reformist Socialist Workers Party in the capitalist courts and tried to get a U.S. federal judge to rule on who could and could not be a member of a working class, ostensibly socialist organization!

Folks here know I have no love for Her Majesty's Right and Proper Socialists of the CWI but I consider the sinister gangsters of Healy/North to be qualitatively worse! Certainly your organization is at least as solicitous of the favor of the capitalist state's racist assassins as any section of the CWI ever was.

[KC]

You act like I've never had cops beating up on me.

Then why would you want them to join you?


Again I talked about joining the SPEW in a principled manner. If there are individuals in the prison guard system that are actualy willing to join the revolutionary forces we should accept them within our ranks with the aim of driving a wedge between the different sections of the opressive apparatus of the state.

Yes but a precursor to that should be opposing the system in which they operate, either by quitting or by refusing to cooperate by "controlling" (i.e. beating and humiliating) the prisoners. Like I said, this is similar to the issue of soldiers in the military; we support them when they stand up against imperialism and not when they are a part of it.


Furthermore us Marxists use generalizations. But you take this method and turn it over its head. Not all prison guards beat and abuse prisoners.

I never said they did, but many of them do, and those who are an explicit part of the prison guard staff take place in one way or another on the direct enforcement of state power.


Those who disagree with the capitalist establishment should have the ability to fight against it through joining a revolutionary party.

Of course they should, but if they are keeping their job and directly supporting the state and implicitly the capitalist system then they don't actually "disagree with the capitalist establishment".


Many bolsheviks were soldiers during world war one

I can't believe you even brought this up. It's sort of pitiful that you're resorting to this dishonesty. Did you forget that the Russian army was conscripted?

[cyu]

So, let me get this straight. We're not going to attempt to win over sections of the state: the police, the military, etc. We're just going to hurl ourselves at their bullets when the revolution comes?


As General Smedley Butler (winner of 2 Congressional Medals of Honor) said, "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

No doubt there are members of various intelligence agencies looking at (and even pretending to be leftists on) this web site. If I ran a capitalist-owned government, the least I would do is assign some low level intelligence interns to sites like this. So I see one of our jobs here is to put doubts in their heads - get them to question the values of their higher-ups and their command structure - cognitive dissonance. Do I expect them to all suddenly revolt against their handlers? No, not immediately anyway. But this is the stuff leaks are made of. Some agent begins to see the conflict between what he believes and his orders, and starts to leak stuff to the media or the internet. Then there are internal investigations within the intelligence agency - purges, suspicion, paranoia - maybe we can't bring them down ourselves, but we can certainly make it harder for them to function.

The key thing is that capitalist-owned media never lets our ideas be honestly discussed in public. However, in places like this, these agents may see our ideas for the first time. Exposure like this is like pulling someone out of a well, where for the first decades of his life, he could only see the little patch of sky framed by the top of the well - once outside, he can finally see the full horizon.

[UlyssesTheRed]

Dude, Ulysses, I am not your personal research assistant. Now, the ISO has done many opportunist things but I'm not sure if supporting cop unions was one of them. Along with most of the opportunist left, they supported the "union" campaign for campus security guards at Harvard University a couple years ago, something I would oppose.

BUT, it takes a lot of chutzpah for a supporter of David North's sinister operation to criticize leftists for crossing the class line and supporting the capitalist state! As we wrote, "David North Loves the Law" (Workers Vanguard No. 430 [12 June 1987]). North's agents sued the reformist Socialist Workers Party in the capitalist courts and tried to get a U.S. federal judge to rule on who could and could not be a member of a working class, ostensibly socialist organization!

Folks here know I have no love for Her Majesty's Right and Proper Socialists of the CWI but I consider the sinister gangsters of Healy/North to be qualitatively worse! Certainly your organization is at least as solicitous of the favor of the capitalist state's racist assassins as any section of the CWI ever was.

I just figured you kept shit like this in your bookmark folder. :p

I'm not a member of the ICFI, for the record. And the Gelfand Case was NOT brought by the Workers' League, it was brought by a member of the Socialist Workers' Party who was expelled for demanding answers about who was and was not a cop in the SWP. I certainly don't see the case as you do. I see it as a member of an ostensibly socialist organization seeking to expose police agents within the workers' movement, and using things like FOIA to make that happen. I find it interesting that those who oppose the Gelfand Case always side step the issue of whether or not the SWP is a cop organization or not.

Still waiting for your response on the Carleton College phenomenon. Link removed because I can't post them for another three posts.

/threadrot

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm surprised SWP didn't snap him up first.

Actually, the SWP constitution prohibits any member from becoming a full-time trade union official. We also argue that the armed bodies of men which comprise the coercive apparatus of the capitalist state are not workers because they do not share the same interests as the working class and have as their key role the defence of private property, so I don't think Caton would ever want to join our organization, and even if he did, I don't think he would be allowed to join.


Still, British Trot parties collaborating with representatives of the capitalist state is hardly unheard of

The SWP has never done this - I don't think the same can be said of the CWI of course because the whole of their history has involved them rejecting the Marxist analysis of the state, the most obvious case of this being Militant's strategy to use an enabling act within parliament to nationalize the major monopolies and introduce socialism. Also, I don't think inviting representatives of the Chinese and North Korean states along to your meetings and receiving money from those governments (i.e. what your own party does on a regular basis) is perfectly fine or any better than flirting with the British state.

[ls]

Actually, the SWP constitution prohibits any member from becoming a full-time trade union official. We also argue that the armed bodies of men which comprise the coercive apparatus of the capitalist state are not workers because they do not share the same interests as the working class and have as their key role the defence of private property, so I don't think Caton would ever want to join our organization, and even if he did, I don't think he would be allowed to join.

Now, I'm not saying that this is a really wrong approach. But if this man openly encouraged mutiny on active duty as a prison officer, would you still not want him in your ranks? Also do you really think the SWP would not hold even prospective meetings with him to attain his views on the matter?


The SWP has never done this - I don't think the same can be said of the CWI of course

Sorry but this is a gross distortion of the truth. The SWP has done this, also so have a great many other organisations in most other currents/ideologies at times, the key isn't to blatantly deny it but to learn from past mistakes.

I don't think you'll get anywhere by blatantly denying that police/army/prison officers have the potential to work against the Capitalist structure at special times of high class-struggle, with this very puritanical approach.

[Random Precision]

Intertubes came up short. Going to get some data on this Friday. I know that three days is FOREVER in Internet time, but bear with me. I promise to deliver the goods.

I'm actually surprised that Bergen didn't chime in with some of this.

HEY FRED! HELP ME OUT!

Well you'll have to deal without me for a bit if you're still bringing this on Friday. In the mean time the only thing that sounds sort of like what you're saying is that we supported a strike of security guards at the New School in New York, I'm not sure when.

[Trystan]

It's an unfortunate acronym, I'll say that.

As for prison guards and police, I'm sure there are some who are sick with capitalism.

[Crux]

What? No wall of text? Disappointing JR :p

But I do think this is the core of the issue: what makes a proletarian? Mike Macnair takes the definition that everyone is part of the working class who is dependent on the wage fund in order to survive: workers, students, the unemployed, the pensioned. I favor this definition because of its simplicity, but it does beg the question: What about those who technically earn a wage but are able to hire and fire (managers)? What about employees that carry out the oppressive task of state rule (bureaucracy, police, army... prison officers)?

History has shown time and again that even these layers can be radicalised through the events of hightened class struggle. During revolution, it is a common sight that the state apparatus gets immobilised because of the many layers of workers that refuse to carry on. As such I think that as revolutionaries we should strive for the maximum of splits in the state apparatus.

But is this the case in SPEW here? I think not. Instead of questioning bourgeois rule, the SPEW only raises economic points (in the interview respectively: privatisation of prisons, "modernisation" schemes, union demographic, the break with Labour, prison officers' wages - all points related to neoliberal policies), never does it raise political points (for example: "why are prisons necessary in our society? what class role do they play? could we do away with (most) of them under socialism?") and Caton's "we can be left too, you know!" is less than convincing.

I think SPEW is on a wrong track here to effectively cheer for the capitalist state and call on strengthening it. I already open a discussion about it (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2561) in the CWI group, but since that discussion didn't result in much, I'm happy this got opened.
I am sorry, comrade, but I think you are wrong. There is no need to reinforce the secterian mess that is this thread. I think the initial link did raise understandable critcism, and did so in a rather coherent manner. Sadly the same cannot be said for the rest of this thread.

For those of you that read the interview this should already be familiar:
If prison officers can't rehabilitate, all they can do is confine. That looks like what they really want us to do.

When we send those prisoners back into society under those circumstances, they will rape, rob and murder again. If we can't attempt to rehabilitate them or tackle their mental health problems, drug or alcohol problems then we're wasting our time sending them to prison.

We've said let's have an integrated system where prison officers and probation officers work together. Where non-custodial sentences deliver the same programmes as in the prisons but out in the community. But we can't do that with overcrowded prisons, filling them up with people who are mentally ill.

I think that the head of the POA has chosen to join our ranks is great news. Not only because of the labour issue involved, i e, the right to strike but because it does provide us with a man on the inside so to speak. Oh an there were jailers in the Bolsheviks aswell. The conflict between personal and political is not one most of us can afford to solve in this system. We work for companies that we dislike. Sometimes we are even state employees. Being a revolutionary is not about having the ultimate proletarian job, it is not about lifestyle. We wish to overthrow the system, you know.

Most of those that has attacked us (and really not just us, this has been a sectarian fucking flamefest. utterly boring) here don't do so because they don't think a prison officer can be a socialist but because they do not trust our socialist credentials, i e these are just secterian attacks.

[Q]

I am sorry, comrade, but I think you are wrong. There is no need to reinforce the secterian mess that is this thread. I think the initial link did raise understandable critcism, and did so in a rather coherent manner. Sadly the same cannot be said for the rest of this thread.

...

Most of those that has attacked us (and really not just us, this has been a sectarian fucking flamefest. utterly boring) here don't do so because they don't think a prison officer can be a socialist but because they do not trust our socialist credentials, i e these are just secterian attacks.

Well, the fun of transparent platform is that sectarians just make themselves very clear to the outside world. Don't have a headache about them, as they undermine themselves really :)

I do think this thread has resulted in somewhat of a dynamic discussion so far though.


For those of you that read the interview this should already be familiar:
If prison officers can't rehabilitate, all they can do is confine. That looks like what they really want us to do.

When we send those prisoners back into society under those circumstances, they will rape, rob and murder again. If we can't attempt to rehabilitate them or tackle their mental health problems, drug or alcohol problems then we're wasting our time sending them to prison.

We've said let's have an integrated system where prison officers and probation officers work together. Where non-custodial sentences deliver the same programmes as in the prisons but out in the community. But we can't do that with overcrowded prisons, filling them up with people who are mentally ill.
And this is justified criticism of the prison system of course, but it doesn't exactly undermine the capitalist causes for the need of prisons, nor does it explain the clear class character of the prison system within the role of the state within class society. These are elements that I miss entirely and that's what worries me. The above criticism can be fixed with the mild reforms also suggested above, and in many countries the prison system is working close together with probation services. Why do we need to cheer for this?


I think that the head of the POA has chosen to join our ranks is great news. Not only because of the labour issue involved, i e, the right to strike but because it does provide us with a man on the inside so to speak. Oh an there were jailers in the Bolsheviks aswell. The conflict between personal and political is not one most of us can afford to solve in this system. We work for companies that we dislike. Sometimes we are even state employees. Being a revolutionary is not about having the ultimate proletarian job, it is not about lifestyle. We wish to overthrow the system, you know.
I understand the point, but it's an abstract point that, as I explained, doesn't get translated in for example the interview.

[Tower of Bebel]

I think that the head of the POA has chosen to join our ranks is great news. Not only because of the labour issue involved, i e, the right to strike but because it does provide us with a man on the inside so to speak. Oh an there were jailers in the Bolsheviks aswell. [...] Being a revolutionary is not about having the ultimate proletarian job, it is not about lifestyle. We wish to overthrow the system, you know.
I would like to add that what I'm hoping for is that the SP can help organizing prison officers and probation officers as "workers" (i.e. those people who live from a wage) against the state they're currently working for. This would be the only correct answer to Q's concern and would make 'making the case for socialism' effective instead of something abstract.

And do you have any information regarding the Bolsheviks and prison guards?

The task is to win over the proletariat proper (manual workers and also clerical and professional workers) first before becoming a "people's party".But this is currently not possible. You cannot pospone this guy's (you know: a person, a human being - not a class) membership on such grounds.

[khad]

Apparently the French corrections workers strike recently did highlight the delplorable living conditions of France's prisons. This might just be France, though, because I certainly can't imagine prison guards in the USA striking to make life easier for prisoners.

http://www.nupge.ca/node/2266




French corrections strike highlights big prison issues

Murders, escapes, drug-dealing, overcrowding, underfunding and suicide behind unauthorized strike by thousands of correctional officers in France.
http://www.nupge.ca/files/images/2009/prison_bars_175.jpg
Paris (6 May 2009) - Approximately 4,000 French correctional officers have gone on strike and blocked the transfer of prisoners to protest overcrowding, insufficient funding and poor living conditions.

Approximately 120 of the country's 194 jails are affected. French prison guards are not legally entitled to strike but conditions are so serious that they have opted to walk off the job to draw national attention to their concerns.

French jails are often referred to as "the nation's shame" because of horrific living conditions, including severe overcrowding. The facilities have the highest suicide rates of all European penal institutions.

Eric Colin, a trade unionist with La CGT (Confédération générale du travail) describes the walkout as an initial step in an escalating campaign planned by guards in the coming days.

"We're going to block any intervention from the outside, that is, suppliers for the inmates' workshops and training as well as prison visitors," he says.
The officers say murders, prisoner escapes, drug-dealing and severe overcrowding are common occurrences inside the prisons. Inmates often sleep on floor mattresses in facilities housing a far greater number of prisoners than they are designed to accommodate.

As of April 1, French jails were housing 63,351 inmates, well above the 51,000 the prisons were built to hold.

A total of 115 suicides were reported last year. About 50 have occurred so far this year. Living and working conditions have also been blamed in some cases for suicides among prison officers.

The Sarkozy government has not addressed the core problems associated with the prisons. The problem has been exacerbated by Justice Minister Rachida Dati, who failed to deal with issues raised by the guard before the walkout occurred.

NUPGE
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is one of Canada's largest labour organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring our common wealth is used for the common good. NUPGE

[Die Neue Zeit]

And do you have any information regarding the Bolsheviks and prison guards?
But this is currently not possible. You cannot pospone this guy's (you know: a person, a human being - not a class) membership on such grounds.

You know that I know that you know that Macnair's definition of "proletarian" conflicts with my own as defined in CSR, Chapter 2. ;)

Personally, I myself don't see individual prison officers or small groups of them as being much of a direct threat to the working class. Ideally I'd like there to exist Class-Strugglist Social Labour as well as the demographic "people's party"/front equivalent for sympathizing prison officers, self-employed, coordinators (mid-level managers, academic researches with research staff, etc.), proper lumpenproletarians, the odd small businessperson, and student yuppies.

Heck, for the prominent non-workers I'd be happy to consider giving them "honourary membership."

[BobKKKindle$]

But if this man openly encouraged mutiny on active duty as a prison officer, would you still not want him in your ranks? Also do you really think the SWP would not hold even prospective meetings with him to attain his views on the matter?I don't think the bureaucrats of trade unions are likely to encourage their members to defy the capitalist state and go on strike. A central problem I have with the SP not just in connection with the POA but in general is that they often fail to distinguish between the rank-and-file of trade unions and the bureaucrats who control them and ultimately share the same interests as the bosses and the leaders of the capitalist state - when No2EU was launched for example they celebrated it as a case of a major trade union breaking away from New Labour and showing its commitment to a radical and anti-capitalist alternative, but what they failed to acknowledge is that No2EU did not result from RMT members demanding that their leaders join ranks with the SP, at, say, a national conference, rather it was a case of Bob Crow getting together with a few of his old mates from the CPB and starting a lackluster campaign of which the SP was a fairly small part, without much initiative from below, even at a local level. The SWP of course supports prison officers who go on strike, as shown by the POA dispute in 2007 when we argued that prison officers should be allowed to go on strike and have a union, and also pointed out at a successful strike in the prisons would be likely to give greater confidence to other workers in the public sector, in the same way that we support soldiers like Joe Glenton who defy their officers and speak out against the war, and, in the unlikely event that Caton wanted to have a meeting with us, I would see no reason to reject him, but at the end of the day I would be very dissappointed if the party let him join, as it goes against everything our tradition stands for, and neglects the fact that, as a trade union bureaucrat, and as a member of the capitalist state, Caton will almost certainly be on the opposite side of the barricades, standing alongside people like Crow, whose job it is to restrain class struggle.

I've already written on why I think prison officers are not workers in uniform in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1518077&postcount=22) post, if anyone's interested. Just to make it clear, I don't think I would have a problem with a prison officer joining as such, despite the reactionary role that these individuals play - my problem here is that Caton is a member of the trade union bureaucracy, which is prohibited by the party constitution, and for a good reason.


The SWP has done thisI disagree. We've done a lot of bad things, but we've never tried to use the British state as a means to win gains for the working class or introduce socialism.


and really not just us, this has been a sectarian fucking flamefest"Sectarian" means putting the interests of your sect above those of the class. This thread is not sectarian, because whether it's acceptable to ally with a member of both the trade union bureaucracy and the armed wing of the capitalist state is a matter of key importance for our movement. You're the one who's being opportunist by trying to dismiss discussion of your party's decisions.

[ls]

I don't think the bureaucrats of trade unions are likely to encourage their members to defy the capitalist state and go on strike.

Of course I agree. :) I'm merely saying that if this man in particular is indeed Socialist (as he makes out by trying to join the SP), then clearly he could be a one in a million. With the power he holds, he could betray the Capitalist classes from within which would certainly be a victory for us, I haven't advocated just blindly allowing him into the party, but instead working out what his views are and what he wants, I don't think that's unfair on any level and it's what any good party should do.



A central problem I have with the SP not just in connection with the POA but in general is that they often fail to distinguish between the rank-and-file of trade unions and the bureaucrats who control them and ultimately share the same interests as the bosses and the leaders of the capitalist state

Can you show me how the SWP betters them in this respect?


when No2EU was launched for example they celebrated it as a case of a major trade union breaking away from New Labour and showing its commitment to a radical and anti-capitalist alternative, but what they failed to acknowledge is that No2EU did not result from RMT members demanding that their leaders join ranks with the SP, at, say, a national conference, rather it was a case of Bob Crow getting together with a few of his old mates from the CPB and starting a lackluster campaign of which the SP was a fairly small part, without much initiative from below, even at a local level.

I think there was ultimately a half-hearted but nonetheless valiant effort at gaining grassroots support, granted it was done after that deal of organisations working together had been made.


The SWP of course supports prison officers who go on strike, as shown by the POA dispute in 2007 when we argued that prison officers should be allowed to go on strike and have a union

Well, this points to what I said earlier. If you're so much better than the SP, why do you advocate unionising prison officers? They are only going to end up in the POA after all.


and also pointed out at a successful strike in the prisons would be likely to give greater confidence to other workers in the public sector, in the same way that we support soldiers like Joe Glenton who defy their officers and speak out against the war

Indeed.


and, in the unlikely event that Caton wanted to have a meeting with us, I would see no reason to reject him, but at the end of the day I would be very dissappointed if the party let him join, as it goes against everything our tradition stands for, and neglects the fact that, as a trade union bureaucrat, and as a member of the capitalist state, Caton will almost certainly be on the opposite side of the barricades, standing alongside people like Crow, whose job it is to restrain class struggle.

I'm not sure if you can know the full story immediately, there may be things included in him joining the SP that you do not know about, hopefully he will take a truly militant stance and act as any Socialist in his position should (what I've detailed earlier).


I don't think I would have a problem with a prison officer joining as such

Hm.. bit of a strange position there if you're talking about any prison officer joining just like a normal SWP member, perhaps in some circumstances were they willing to demonstrate a true commitment to Socialism and the willingness to be militant and really agitate for militancy in their ranks..


I disagree. We've done a lot of bad things, but we've never tried to use the British state as a means to win gains for the working class or introduce socialism.

So the SWP never said vote for New Labour in 1997? Also have a gander at this: http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/935/ireland.html. I don't think it's fair to deny your organisation has ever done that, instead you should admit it and move on.

[Crux]

"Sectarian" means putting the interests of your sect above those of the class. This thread is not sectarian, because whether it's acceptable to ally with a member of both the trade union bureaucracy and the armed wing of the capitalist state is a matter of key importance for our movement. You're the one who's being opportunist by trying to dismiss discussion of your party's decisions.
Precisely, as such the attacks have not been about adressing the issue as such but attacking our organisation. i would say this has clearly been the trend as none seem to have pondered the fact that we may have recruited caton because he is a socialist. Further more, in the very interview linked, he talks about the prospects of going on strike, illegal strikes in the case of the POA.

[Holden Caulfield]

Without much fanfare, the 15th September edition of The Socialist announced (http://www.blogger.com/%3Ca%20href=) Brian Caton, the militant general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association (http://www.poauk.org.uk/), had joined the Socialist Party. Anticipating this will prove controversial to the SP's opponents on the far left, Stoke branch (http://www.stokesocialistparty.org.uk/) decided to hold a discussion to clarify the traditional Marxist position on the state, what attitude socialists should have to prison officers, the police and the army and whether they should be permitted to join a revolutionary socialist party.

Brother P began with setting out a thumbnail view of the classical Marxist position of the state. He said that despite there being a wide variety of state forms, capitalist states all have something in common - be they liberal democracies, dictatorships or theocracies. And this commonality is the existence of a repressive apparatus, what Engels famously called 'armed bodies of men' that exist to defend private property and property relations. Other functions, such as the army's "humanitarian" work or the police's 'policing' are, from this viewpoint, secondary to the real reason for their existence. To emphasise these points, P read out a quote from Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution:


Toward the police the crowd showed ferocious hatred. They routed the mounted police with whistles, stones and pieces of ice. In a totally different way the workers approached the soldiers ... The police are fierce, implacable, hated and hating foes. To win them over is out of the question.Do those who wear the state's uniform have a place in the struggle for socialism? Do their occupations place them in irreconcilable antagonism with that struggle?

Brother J said that, like other workers, prison officers, the police and soldiers are selling their labour power in return for a wage. This means they can be open to similar pressures as anyone else. Brother A concurred. None of these arms of the state are homogenous, nor are they immune to being contaminated by the class struggle. In some ways their organisation can prove to be especially susceptible to them. For example, there are few institutions in capitalist society where class privilege and power is as clear cut as the army, and this is the case even among the more privileged elite units. For example, the Bolsheviks were able to split and win over the Cossacks during the Russian Revolution - despite their historically being Tsarism's battering ram against the people. Similarly, the police can be won over to class struggle politics. In 1918-19 the police strike on Merseyside so frightened the ruling class that they called the army out on to Liverpool's streets to confront them. P also noted it was the sympathetic chief of Helsinki's police who hid Lenin during the July Days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Days).

Clearly neither are a homogenous reactionary mass, and to pretend they are - especially at moments when their interests contradict those of the state (such as the recent debacle over police pensions, or the discontent over inadequate equipment in Afghanistan) - risks driving them further away from the labour movement and firming up their support for the state. A key objective for socialists to weaken them as a defence of bourgeois interests is to establish relationships and encourage fraternisation. Generally speaking the police would find it harder to spy on, harass and batter labour movement mobilisations if their representatives had to regularly sit down with them. Furthermore, in preparation for a future period when the system is thrown into general crisis and socialism is back on the agenda it's in the interests of the labour movement that the police and army do not stand in its way. To this end socialists call for the election of officers, the right to form independent trade unions, and the right to take strike action to break them from their historic functions.

Brother G argued recent history of police deployment to pursue government's class struggle objectives demonstrated the uneveness of their character. It was not for nothing Thatcher drafted in police battalions from outside areas at the forefront of the miners' strike. Village coppers were too embedded in miners' communities to ever be effective as a means for repressing their families, friends and neighbours. Similarly A added the police already fraternise with a well-organised workforce everyday: the civilian back room staff you can find in any police station.

P returned to the theme of weakening the police as guarantors of capitalist property relations. He suggests no one joins the police because they want to protect the interests of the rich and powerful. While it is true some are little better than thugs in uniform, most join up out of a commitment to the ideology of the thin blue line. The SP's historic call for democratisation of the police is about limiting the purview of the police to their crime-fighting functions above high profile stunt busts and protecting the powers that be. Because it asks the police to live up to their official ideology, it's quite possible reforms and demands of this character could win support from within the force.

Rounding off the discussion, A added there is only one set of criteria that matters for any party member, and that's their commitment to building the party, the labour movement and fighting for socialism. If this is the case then membership is entirely justified, regardless of whether they're a copper, a soldier, or a screw.

Also, it turns out Medway SP were simultaneously having the same discussion. A report can be read here (http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2009/10/03/workers-in-uniform/).

[Q]

What a funny use of "brother", sounds like our English comrades are in fact a church? :lol:

But an interesting read nonetheless.

[Random Precision]

What a funny use of "brother", sounds like our English comrades are in fact a church? :lol:

In the ISO we actually use the word "brother" or "sister" in place of "comrade" most times. I'm not sure how it got started.

[MaoTseHelen]

In general, I have no problem with recruiting low level police and prison guards into the movement. Most successful organizations do so, including major religions and whatnot, simply because it's good to have eyes and ears in the local police network.

In this case, recruiting a union leader, it smacks of selling out.

[Crux]

Selling out to what exactly? Union struggle for Prison Officers?

[MaoTseHelen]

Selling out by inviting in people who's only real aim is control over workers - separate from the state, but trying to corral them for selfish purposes either way - to the party.

[Crux]

Selling out by inviting in people who's only real aim is control over workers - separate from the state, but trying to corral them for selfish purposes either way - to the party.
That's a terribly schematic view, don't you think? How is Caton "aiming to control the workers" for "selfish needs" exactly?

[chegitz guevara]

So in other words, you don't have a Marxist understanding of the state. You think the organs of state terror are class neutral. :thumbup:

I think that if you read what I've written elsewhere, you'll understand that is most certainly not the case.

What most certainly is the case is that unless we manage to win over a considerable portion of the armed sections of the state, there will be no revolution. In this day and age, no one is capable of defeating a modern military force that is fully committed to winning.


Also calling "citation needed" on your claim that the SP-USA was the only American party of which Trotsky was a member.http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/usa/parties/spusa/1918/1107-lore-trotsky.pdf

Not only was Trotsky a member, but so were Bukharin and Kollentai.

Or, if you want something from Trotsky himself, read My Life, the chapter "New York" where he discusses his time in the SP.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch22.htm

[chegitz guevara]

"Chegitz" of the Socialist Party USA joins the chorus of the cops' racist campaign to lynch Mumia Abu-Jamal, an innocent man. No wonder he thinks the bosses' professional thugs can be "socialists."

As opposed to you, who doesn't support the right to kill a cop in self-defense. We should just let the cops murder us in the streets without fighting back, Fred?

[KC]

In the ISO we actually use the word "brother" or "sister" in place of "comrade" most times. I'm not sure how it got started.

It probably started with many people's obsessions with the Black Panther Party.


What most certainly is the case is that unless we manage to win over a considerable portion of the armed sections of the state, there will be no revolution. In this day and age, no one is capable of defeating a modern military force that is fully committed to winning.

Yes, of course we should intervene in actions taken by various sections of the state against the state as a whole, and specifically with regards to this situation that would involve getting involved in this union's strike actions, learning where they are at and what they are fighting for, and then explaining to them the larger picture and where they fit into that picture. What we shouldn't be doing (and which I thought was quite obvious) is recruiting members of the state into our organizations.