SPEW builds links with "left wing" trade union leaders

[BobKKKindle$]

"The weekend took place against a background of capitalist crisis and as the three big business parties compete to slash our public services. But Socialism 2009 was about a different kind of politics. We discussed the fightback of working-class and young people and about an alternative to the rotten capitalist system [...] Brian Caton, the left-wing general secretary of the Prison Officers Association (POA) spoke of the shackle the anti-trade union laws are to the efforts of his union members to defend their pay and conditions"

SPEW - Socialism 2009, an excellent weekend! (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8339)

Just in case anyone doesn't know who Caton is apart from his role as the leader of the POA, he was one of the riot squad members at Strangeways who charged into the protesting prisoners and gave evidence in court putting someone away for a further 9 years. He's also the man who, in a press release released just a few days ago, available here, (http://www.poauk.org.uk/press-release-101109.asp) slammed Jack Straw for the so-called "compensation culture" that supposedly exists in prisons, as if prisoners are treated too well by the British state, going so far as to state that "[the] POA have been raising the issue of capitulation by the Home Office/Ministry of Justice in respect of the compensation culture as prisoners sue the Prison Service in an aim to gain compensation at the expense of the taxpayer". This is particularly repulsive and ironic when we consider that the POA retains the services of a specialist solicitors’ firm for the sole purpose of getting "compensation" for its members, and in 2006 over £1 million was paid to six Cardiff prison officers for trauma caused by finding the mutilated body of a prisoner murdered by his cell-mate, while prisoners who have witnessed suicides and murders rarely receive any counselling, let alone compensation for the trauma.

He is also a man who has repeatedly criticized the Human Rights Act (HRA) for being too lenient when it comes to prisoners' rights. Now, as socialists we reject the idea that meaningful freedom can ever be obtained under capitalism or that we should look to the bourgeois state for answers (well, this is true of most socialists anyway - not true of the SP, given their support for an enabling act when they were part of the Labour Party, and what they did in Liverpool) but this should not stop us from recognizing that the HRA is a concession that needs to be defended and that we should not consider anyone who calls for it to be withdrawn as one of our comrades, especially when that individual is the leader of one of the most repressive and racist institutions in Britain, an institution whose members play a repressive role and are complicit in racism regardless of their personal intentions. The HRA allowed Robert Napier amongst other prisoners to take successful action against the Scottish prison system’s continued use of ‘slopping out’ (being locked in a cell with no toilet facilities except a bucket) and new mothers who had given birth in prison used the HRA to extend their rights to keep their children with them. Caton and his fellow prison officers want to destroy these gain so that they are better able to abuse and oppress one of the most vulnerable and neglected groups in capitalist society.

What is the "S"PEW doing getting friendly with these people, and on what grounds are they "left-wing"? The video of Caton speaking is particularly repulsive as he goes on a long rant about how we will always have crime and that he and his mates therefore play a necessary role.

Also, Caton is a member of the SPEW, and has been for some time I believe.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, this week's Weekly Worker devoted its "undivided" attention to the SPEW. In none of the *four* articles criticizing the SPEW (since when did SWP controversies garner that many articles?) was there any mention at all of the Prison Officers Association beyond its general secretary:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2822

[Crux]

Other than, sort of, playing out the interests of prison officers against those of prisoners, I don't see anything disagreeable. After all these settlements are merely a result of a prison system clearly in crisis. I also have to doubt the sincerity of your criticism as this more seems to be inclined to score cheap points against the Socialist Party.

[Pogue]

Well, this week's Weekly Worker devoted its "undivided" attention to the SPEW. In none of the *four* articles criticizing the SPEW (since when did SWP controversies garner that many articles?) was there any mention at all of the Prison Officers Association beyond its general secretary:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2822

And some people claim all the Weekly Worker does is try and stir up sectarianism!

[h0m0revolutionary]

Must have been a slow news day for the Weekly Worker.

There's only so much you can talk about the non-organised working class and their daily work struggles eh?

[Pogue]

Am I the only one who prefered open letter ping pong to this?

[communard resolution]

And some people claim all the Weekly Worker does is try and stir up sectarianism!

Sorry Pogue, but I don't think you understand the purpose and objective of the Weekly Worker at all. It is by intent a newspaper that addresses the existing left. We had two separate threads about the Weekly Worker on revleft, and both times I asked several posters to back up their claims that it was sectarian - they failed to do so, but were still happy to continue parroting the same phrases. I won't go into details again but am happy to link back to the respective threads if required.

[Pogue]

Sorry Pogue, but I don't think you understand the purpose and objective of the Weekly Worker at all. It is by intent a newspaper that addresses the existing left. We had two separate threads about the Weekly Worker on revleft, and both times I asked several posters to back up their claims that it was sectarian - they failed to do so, but were still happy to continue parroting the same phrases.

Well thats interesting, that it would officially state its intention is merely to present on the left, I didn't know that, thanks.

So here we have an organisation making a newspaper which has as its sole aim criticising the left, well, I think thats even worse, I'll repeat ym own phrase, wallowing in their own insignificance methinks.

[communard resolution]

So here we have an organisation making a newspaper which has as its sole aim criticising the left, well, I think thats even worse, I'll repeat ym own phrase, wallowing in their own insignificance methinks.

It is only 'worse' if you think that the existing left is beyond criticism. And what the WW really does is offering criticism precisely to end the existing confessional sects of the left's wallowing in their own insignificance.

[communard resolution]

Well, this week's Weekly Worker devoted its "undivided" attention to the SPEW. In none of the *four* articles criticizing the SPEW (since when did SWP controversies garner that many articles?)

This is because the SPEW held their annual school in London two weeks ago. Several CPGB members were present and contributed to the debate. Though their opinions were often diametrically opposed to those of the SPEW, exchange between the groups was very comradely and debate was constructive.

I was impressed with the SPEW's friendliness and their openness to discuss dissenting points of view when arguing with comrades of the CPGB as well as the International Bolshevik Tendency. It was the opposite of what one is used form certain other large groups on the left.

[ls]

It is only 'worse' if you think that the existing left is beyond criticism. And what the WW really does is offering criticism precisely to end the existing confessional sects of the left's wallowing in their own insignificance.

Which is let's face it, a catch 22.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Yeah the WW spends all it's time attacking the existing left and yes much of the existing left is a roadblock to revolution. But when CPGB offer an alternative to the existing state of the left, their politics manifest themselves in pure kautskyism, wrapped in shit anti-fascism and little regard for liberation campaigns.

What's that phrase "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?

[communard resolution]

their politics manifest themselves in pure kautskyism

I haven't read enough of the early Kautsky's writings (which I suppose is what some CPBGers are so fond of) to form an opinion - have you? All I know is that Lenin regarded the early Kautsky as the ultimate authority on Marxism - I'm sure there were reasons for this.

How do you think do their politics manifest themselves in pure Kautskyism? Could you elaborate on this as I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

I think it's wrong to assume that everybody in the CPGB is a 'Kautskyite' of some sort. My impression is that there is no such 'line' in the CPGB.


wrapped in shit anti-fascismBut this is not true at all. Shit, bourgeois anti-fascism has in fact frequently been a target of criticism in the WW.


and little regard for liberation campaigns.Do you mean national liberation?

[h0m0revolutionary]

I haven't read enough of the early Kautsky's writings (which I suppose is what some CPBGers are so fond of) to form an opinion - have you?

I have indeed ;)


All I know is that Lenin regarded the early Kautsky as the ultimate authority on Marxism - I'm sure there were reasons for this.

yes. That Lenin was dumb-struck by the German Social Democrats.


How do you think do their politics manifest themselves in pure Kautskyism? Could you elaborate on this as I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.

Defence of Kautskyite positions, from maintaining that the split in the SPD was unjust to going with the line "forceful is we must, peaceful if we can" regarding revolution - fostering illusions of pascifism in the class. Which came from Kautsky originally who of course opposed the idea of a violent revolution.


I think it's wrong to assume that everybody in the CPGB is a 'Kautskyite' of some sort. My impression is that there is no such 'line' in the CPGB.

There is no such line, but there are several leading theorticians. And there is little contention on matters such as publicising propaganda in the name of the orginisation claiming to be in the tradition of Kautsky.


Shit, bourgeois anti-fascism has in fact frequently been a target of criticism in the WW.

I don't think it has been. All's I ever read is that the EDL and BNP aren't worthy fights and that no-platform is a shit tactic. In fact in a debate on this issue last year they referred, lovingly, to fighting the BNP as "fighting ghosts". What's their alternative?


Do you mean national liberation?

No sorry i mean't liberations as in disabled, LGBTQ, women's, etc. :)

[communard resolution]

I don't think it has been. All's I ever read is that the EDL and BNP aren't worthy fights and that no-platform is a shit tactic.

I think no platform is indeed a shit tactic that has proved to be counterproductive. But this is a different discussion, so within the framework of this thread we'll just have to agree to disagree.


In fact in a debate on this issue last year they referred, lovingly, to fighting the BNP as "fighting ghosts". What's their alternative? Fight capitalism, which provides fertile ground for national chauvinism and racism, of which the BNP are only a particularly obvious manifestation. Look at the bigger picture instead of concentrating all energy on fighting the wicked fash.

Oppose nationalism in all its various manifestations, including the respectable nationalism of mainstream parties and left nationalism of the No2EU variety.


No sorry i mean't liberations as in disabled, LGBTQ, women's, etc.I don't imagine they have disregard for liberation of these groups (they mention that "communists are champions of the oppressed" in their "What We Fight For" blurb), but like most Marxists, they will have a disregard for single-issue struggles and liberal ID politics that are disconnected from the broader class struggle.

I find your mention of Kautsky regarding 'peaceful revolution' and the CPGB's slightly vague wording interesting. I might get in touch with the CPGB and ask them about it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

yes. That Lenin was dumb-struck by the German Social Democrats.

Um, maybe because the slogan "Educate, Agitate, Organize" was more effective than "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate"?


Defence of Kautskyite positions, from maintaining that the split in the SPD was unjust

Sorry, but I think you're slandering the CPGB here. Read the material in the Revolutionary Strategy group, and you'll see that the split between those loyal to the bourgeois state, such as tred-iunionisty, and those opposed to it should and will never be reconciled.

Also, you've confused the SPD with the USPD. The split in the latter may have been justifiable in the revolutionary period of Germany, but not beyond that. After that, the German communists should have "humbled" themselves by becoming the majority tendency of the USPD and kicking out the renegades. On a related note:


wrapped in shit anti-fascism... All's I ever read is that the EDL and BNP aren't worthy fights and that no-platform is a shit tactic.

My suggestion above was the only way for a united front in Germany to ever work.

As for today, anti-fascism tends to be a diversion from building class solidarity. All that wasted time could have been better spent on building an alternative culture for workers in Britain. This isn't Weimar Germany, where the renegade Kautsky exhibited weakness re. the Nazis.


To going with the line "forceful if we must, peaceful if we can" regarding revolution - fostering illusions of pacifism in the class.

The slogan, which harks back to Marx, could have been more accurate: illegal if we must, legal where we can. While that statement is more dodgy on the question of pacifism, it also opens a third road between violent urges and legalistic submission: civil disobedience.


Which came from Kautsky originally who of course opposed the idea of a violent revolution.

Actually, Kautsky before the war did resign himself to the idea of "violent revolution," precisely because the bourgeoisie would ban elections before the SPD gained majority support. Besides, the Bolsheviks themselves didn't take power in the typical storm-the-barricades romanticism, but because the state collapsed right before them: power was on the streets for them to pick up.

You confuse the two scenarios (romanticism and state collapse).


There is no such line, but there are several leading theorticians. And there is little contention on matters such as publicising propaganda in the name of the organisation claiming to be in the tradition of Kautsky.

Well, Die Neue Zeit was the best theoretical newspaper in the entire Second International.


No sorry i mean't liberations as in disabled, LGBTQ, women's, etc. :)

Well, a return to orthodox Marxism means the downplaying of New Left identity politics and an emphasis on class politics. I don't see a problem there.

[redsnapper]

Totally agree. Comrades should remember Trotsky on this, same goes for screws:

‘The fact that the police was originally recruited in large numbers from among Social Democratic workers is absolutely meaningless. Consciousness is determined by environment even in this instance. The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker.’ Leon Trotsky

[Random Precision]

Sorry Pogue, but I don't think you understand the purpose and objective of the Weekly Worker at all. It is by intent a newspaper that addresses the existing left.

Addressing only the "existing left" and not looking outward is pretty much to expect that only the currently existing militants and the groups they are in will form the revolutionary vanguard. It just makes them a kinder, gentler version of the Spartacist League.

[Pogue]

It is only 'worse' if you think that the existing left is beyond criticism. And what the WW really does is offering criticism precisely to end the existing confessional sects of the left's wallowing in their own insignificance.

I'd just see it as sectarianism really. I mean, they hardly offer a valid alternative, do they?

[BobKKKindle$]

To add to what RP said, the CPGB's approach also seems to be based on the assumption that it's possible to develop correct strategy and analysis simply by sitting back and pointing out things that other left-wing groups have done wrong (or rather, what the CPGB says they have done wrong) and coming up with your own ideas in complete isolation from real-life activity, simply by introspection, so to speak. Marxists, on the other hand, recognize that there is a unity between theory and practice, so that the only way we can hope to develop correct strategies and theories is by involving ourselves in the struggles of working people, which we recognize as our own, and evaluating strategies on the basis of the results they provide when we apply them. The CPGB does not do this - in fact, despite describing Oxford as one of their "centers", not one of their members (which, to be fair, only extends to one student and one of their national leaders, who is a university lecturer - hardly a "center") bothered to even contribute to the collection, let alone come down to the pickets when the postal strikes were taking place

Anyway, I'd be interested in what CWI members have to say about their largest party not only showing an extraordinary amount of faith in a trade-union bureaucrat but also siding with a union which represents part of the capitalist state and maintains bourgeois class rule. This is not me being a sectarian, it's an important political issue.

[redsnapper]

Well this SP/CWI member is totally opposed for the reasons that you have described and more.
If only more comrades would have the bottle and say so as well. Is there anybody else out there?:thumbdown:

[communard resolution]

I'd just see it as sectarianism really. I mean, they hardly offer a valid alternative, do they?

You keep repeating your "sectarianism" mantra for the 3rd CPGB thread in a row without ever actually caring to provide any genuine examples of the CPGB's sectarianism. I refuse to debate this any further with you unless you finally provide some hard evidence and, based on this, explain how the CPGB act in a sectarian manner.

The fact that you got rep points for that post beggars belief.

[Crux]

Anyway, I'd be interested in what CWI members have to say about their largest party not only showing an extraordinary amount of faith in a trade-union bureaucrat but also siding with a union which represents part of the capitalist state and maintains bourgeois class rule. This is not me being a sectarian, it's an important political issue.
This has been responded to before I believe. I have no reason to doubt that the comrades amde the right decision in recruiting Caton. And as for the abstract I believe this has been responded to aswell. While the police force is indeed reactionary in itself, the POA as a union is not.
Hopefully comrade Caton himself will be able to produce some material on this issue aswell.

[redsnapper]

The POA oppose voting rights for prisoners, they oppose prisoners forming unions, they want their members to be able to use metal batons against working class children in YOI's meaning under 18's as at present they cannot be used against this age group. Caton supports all these measures, its no secret as a google search will confirm. Caton himself was in charge of a MUFTI riot squad during the Strangeways uprising in 1990 and stitched up a prisoner who got another 9 years as a result.
The list is endless, again google. He and the POA are firmly on the Daily Mail wing of the criminal justice debate putting them way to the right of even liberal prison penal reform organisations. How a "socialist" let alone a revolutionary one managed to end up there really beggars belief!
Surely voting and union rights are basic reformist demands aren't they? I've had a discussion on facebook full timer who supports the use of batons against working class children as well as opposing prisoners right to vote and join unions. It really beggars belief!:(

[Pogue]

You keep repeating your "sectarianism" mantra for the 3rd CPGB thread in a row without ever actually caring to provide any genuine examples of the CPGB's sectarianism. I refuse to debate this any further with you unless you finally provide some hard evidence and, based on this, explain how the CPGB act in a sectarian manner.

The fact that you got rep points for that post beggars belief.

The fact that all their articles slag off other left groups without ever posing a valid alternative, perhaps?

[communard resolution]

The fact that all their articles slag off other left groups without ever posing a valid alternative, perhaps?

That's just a generalistic statement. As I asked you many times before, provide a link to an article where the WW slags off a group without suggesting an alternative regarding the respective issue, please. We can then discuss this further.

[Pogue]

That's just a generalistic statement. As I asked you many times before, provide a link to an article where the WW slags off a group without suggesting an alternative regarding the respective issue, please. We can then discuss this further.

How about every issue? Come on, lets be honest, its a gossip rag, it doesn't offer objective, constructive critique, it slags off othe other left groups. Look at its tone, this is like asking me to prove the sun is racist.

[communard resolution]

How about every issue? Come on, lets be honest, its a gossip rag, it doesn't offer objective, constructive critique, it slags off othe other left groups. Look at its tone, this is like asking me to prove the sun is racist.

I give up. I asked you so many times, and every time you failed to provide even one little example (of which there are many, as you happily claim).

This is no basis for a discussion.

[Pogue]

I give up. I asked you so many times, and every time you failed to provide even one little example (of which there are many, as you happily claim).

This is no basis for a discussion.

Well for fucks sake if its such a big fucking deal. I am saying theres absolutely no point in me linking as theres one in practically every issue. You need to stop protecting this precious group your not even a member off, they are pathetic.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/793/confident.php

Bang, ana rticle which has as its oopening paragraph a piss take, a pedantic, anorakish piss take of how many people attended socialism 2009.

How many people attend the CPGBs rallies?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/791/timelyquestioning.php

read the language. 'shrill'. this is not a constructive criticism, its a slagging off.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/790/index.php

ooo, look at this vitaly important headline.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/ending.php oh look

etc etc

Its fucking full of it. Its not so mucht he criticism, criticism is fine, every one of these groups needs criticising, the point is, this is all the weekly worker does, i.e. all the CPGB does, it doesn't have anything to offer, its not significant enough, it just slags things off in its gossip rag.

[Pogue]

I also think its a shame you'd base your hope in such an organisation that is so inwardly looking. I think they may appear uniquely attractive form a distance but I think thats just cos they don't make any mistakes because they dont try anything. From your psots and attitude I think you are too politically sound to waste your time on a sub-par group with nothing to offer, I think if you got involved with them you'd find urself disappointed.

[communard resolution]

Finally! I'm off for today, but will be back to discuss this further soon. Split thread perhaps?



Well for fucks sake if its such a big fucking deal.

The deal is that you kept claiming something that you didn't seem to be able to provide any examples of - I ran out of ways to ask you to do just that, and I tried a few. Anyway, more soon.



You need to stop protecting this precious groupI'm not protecting them, I'm discussing them. And I feel attracted to them based on the high quality of their paper and because the accusations made against them tend to be inane, baseless and emotionalistic (by this, I mean in general, not by you in particular).

[Die Neue Zeit]

So far, the not-so-constructive criticisms of the CPGB have used the code words "practice" and "activism" as a euphemism for an older critique of the Second International's alleged lack of such: a healthy dose of "propagandism" (hence the quality of the WW being at least near Die Neue Zeit's).

Extensively criticizing other left groups for their broad economism, fetishes for the agitate-agitate-agitate "action" strategy which has failed workers too many times (since the ultra-left of the Second International), and class-collaborationist frontism (a variant of the coalitionist strategy of the right) is a good thing.

Rediscovering Marxist theory, coupled with one-line jabs at said left groups ("Today [the SWP's] ‘revolutionary defeatist’, supposedly anti-imperialist, alliance with political Islam involves sacrificing fundamentals of democratic, let alone socialist, policy" remark in Revolutionary Strategy), is even better. :)

[Crux]

The POA oppose voting rights for prisoners, they oppose prisoners forming unions, they want their members to be able to use metal batons against working class children in YOI's meaning under 18's as at present they cannot be used against this age group. Caton supports all these measures, its no secret as a google search will confirm. Caton himself was in charge of a MUFTI riot squad during the Strangeways uprising in 1990 and stitched up a prisoner who got another 9 years as a result.
The list is endless, again google. He and the POA are firmly on the Daily Mail wing of the criminal justice debate putting them way to the right of even liberal prison penal reform organisations. How a "socialist" let alone a revolutionary one managed to end up there really beggars belief!
Surely voting and union rights are basic reformist demands aren't they? I've had a discussion on facebook full timer who supports the use of batons against working class children as well as opposing prisoners right to vote and join unions. It really beggars belief!:(
Well,this indeed seem worrysome. The impression I have got so far is quite mixed.

[redsnapper]

Please tell me more about your "mixed" response, as all I have seen is unconditional and uncritical support even for Caton and POA's reactionary views. Maybe better to discuss at CWI group?

[Revy]

Caton of the POA apparently said that Labour was like "the prisoner who attacks you then apologizes" (may not be the exact quote).

Reading that was just bizarre....as if the working class under the current conditions is comparable to a prison guard, and the capitalist class our prisoner. rofl....

[redsnapper]

Unfortunately it actually is worse as I was at the Socialist Party National Congress, 2008, where a guest speaker from the POA ended his outline of the 2007 POA strike for better pay for vicious thugs, with these immortal lines: "we don't back down to prisoners and we don't back down to the government". Says it all really. Shameful to note that he got a very loud round of applause with some delegates even giving a standing ovation! After the session he was mobbed outside as if he was a film or rock star! That guest speaker was John Hancock, the head of the POA at Wormwood Scrubs prison where screws have been implicated in racism and brutality that's off the scale! :confused:
With reference to the above Caton said that Labour was like a prisoner who kicks you in the teeth and then apologises and the Tories were simply like a prisoner who kicks you in the teeth and doesn't apologise. As far as I know caton still has his teeth so what would he know? Its more a case of Screws kicking prisoners in the teeth judging by the statistics of prisoners injuries and deaths in custody.

[Crux]

Unfortunately it actually is worse as I was at the Socialist Party National Congress, 2008, where a guest speaker from the POA ended his outline of the 2007 POA strike for better pay for vicious thugs, with these immortal lines: "we don't back down to prisoners and we don't back down to the government". Says it all really. Shameful to note that he got a very loud round of applause with some delegates even giving a standing ovation! After the session he was mobbed outside as if he was a film or rock star! That guest speaker was John Hancock, the head of the POA at Wormwood Scrubs prison where screws have been implicated in racism and brutality that's off the scale! :confused:
With reference to the above Caton said that Labour was like a prisoner who kicks you in the teeth and then apologises and the Tories were simply like a prisoner who kicks you in the teeth and doesn't apologise. As far as I know caton still has his teeth so what would he know? Its more a case of Screws kicking prisoners in the teeth judging by the statistics of prisoners injuries and deaths in custody.
There's no need to romanticize about the prison population, but I do see where you are coming from. Adressing issues such as racism and abuse within the POA is a discussion I think we not only should, but ought to have with Caton himself. I am not comfortable with criticising a comrade in a forum where he has no chance to defend himself.

[Crux]

Double post.

[redsnapper]

I do not regard Caton as a "comrade" nor anyone else who holds such views. As a revolutionary socialist those views are the very opposite of mine and I should hope that most SP/CWI members would agree with me on this.
All the information that I have posted and linked to here and on the CWI discussion group on revleft is easily available in the public domain so am not saying anything behind Caton or the POA's back. Its all out there for all to see if you search for it.

[Saorsa]

The very nature of work as a prison guard, as with the police, affects the character and outlook of the people who perform the job. It's a job which is at it's core about domination, the subjugation of man by man, enforcing oppressive power imbalances and denying people their freedoms. It's a job where you wander the halls of your fiefdom with weapons in hand, feeling (and needing to feel if you want to keep going) superior, above the people your charged with keeping in line. A job based on power imbalances, authoritarianism, treating grown adults like children, a job based on denying freedoms and enforcing misery.

A prison guard is an enforcer of the capitalist (in)justice system. If prisoners riot demanding better conditions or even for general political demands, the guards role is to crush them. Racism and all kinds of abuse are endemic amongst prison guards. Black and aboriginal deaths in custody are a massive problem in country after country.

The man who leads the union for these thugs is not a comrade of mine, and frankly anyone who considers him to be a 'comrade' of theirs isn't my comrade either.

[BobKKKindle$]

The very nature of work as a prison guard, as with the police, affects the character and outlook of the people who perform the job

This is exactly right - well said, comrade. The reason the prison service is one of the most racist institutions in any capitalist society isn't because all of the people who work in it just happen by chance to be bad people who can be reformed and turned into progressives as long as we have the right arguments and can show that racism is wrong, it's because of the nature of a prison environment, and the role that prisons play in sustaining the class rule of the bourgeoisie, alongside the other institutions that comprise the bourgeois state.

[cyu]

it's because of the nature of a prison environment, and the role that prisons play in sustaining the class rule of the bourgeoisie


And there is experimental evidence to support this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment

[Die Neue Zeit]

Addressing only the "existing left" and not looking outward is pretty much to expect that only the currently existing militants and the groups they are in will form the revolutionary vanguard. It just makes them a kinder, gentler version of the Spartacist League.

Um, the Spartacist League thinks it alone is the vanguard, like practically every other left group thinks, and on top of this actually seeks to destroy other left groups by entry activity. Addressing the "existing left" is a means of reforging once more the worker-class movement, since those doing the addressing are admitting that they aren't "the vanguard."

If you had said "a kinder, gentler version of the International Bolshevik Tendency," your argument would have made slightly more sense (since that group does discuss politics directly with other left groups, like the IBT's presence in both Socialism 2009 and Communist University 2009).

[Crux]

Um, the Spartacist League thinks it alone is the vanguard, like practically every other left group thinks, and on top of this actually seeks to destroy other left groups by entry activity. Addressing the "existing left" is a means of reforging once more the worker-class movement, since those doing the addressing are admitting that they aren't "the vanguard."
Hence the "kinder, gentler" part. It's not that hard to get at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did you read the second part at all?

[Crux]

Did you read the second part at all?
You can't be serious.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was serious, and by "slightly more sense" I still meant it as being dismissive towards RP's anti-CPGB assertion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/795/criticalsupport.php



Critical support for POA strikes



Are prison officers ‘workers in uniform’ or just agents of state oppression? Paul Greenaway argues for a nuanced approach and a strategy for splitting the state machine



Last week saw brief, but seemingly successful, wildcat strike action by prison officers on Merseyside. Unsurprisingly, they had had enough of being at the receiving end of “continued bullying and harassment” by the macho senior management at HMP Liverpool. So in September a Prison Officers Association member took his grievances to an employment tribunal, which resulted in a particularly sharp tongue-lashing for both the governor and deputy governor.

However, the prison bosses blithely ignored the tribunal’s strictures and carried on the regime of intimidation. Indeed, so much so that on November 13 the irate deputy governor, Mark Hanson - clearly an habitual offender - discharged a vengeful communiqué declaring that the seditious prison officer in question was to be sent on “detached duty” to another establishment. Saying enough was enough, there was an impromptu walkout by disgruntled POA members, demanding an investigation into the conduct and behaviour of the governor and his deputy and a “public apology” from the management for their grossly “unfair treatment” of the staff.

The strike is illegal, given that the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act prohibits any action which could be deemed to “induce prison officers to go on strike or to take other industrial action which could put the safety of the public, prisoners or staff at risk” - and left HMP Liverpool being run by a skeleton staff of only 20 scab POA officers and 30 managers, with increased police patrols outside the building. Giving voice to their anger, the POA issued a press release on November 17, in which Brian Caton - its general secretary and now a member of the Socialist Party in England and Wales - gave a resounding call to arms: “The membership of the POA stand fully behind the Liverpool branch ... in the face of a management team who appear unable to command the respect of their staff and who have resorted to running their prison on threats and intimidation.”

More significantly still, there were solidarity walkouts by prison staff from jails (including young offenders’ institutions) in Lancashire, Cheshire and Dorset. Obviously surprised, and wrong-footed, by the sudden display of militancy, the management blinked and hurriedly agreed to a meeting with the POA - and agreed to a prompt “investigation” into the managerial practices at HMP Liverpool, as, of course, demanded by the striking prison officers. Whether triumphantly or in sorrow, it is hard to judge, the deputy general secretary of the POA, Mark Freeman, told a local newspaper that “after 25 hours” the prison service “gave us what we asked for on the very first hour of this walkout” - if they had conceded this in the first place, then “none of the other prisons would have walked out” in solidarity.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that this is an isolated incident - a callous culture of intimidation and bullying pervades UK prisons - and it is clearly not just the prisoners who are liable to become victims of the system, which dehumanises both the jailed and jailers.

So what attitude should communists take towards prison officers - and specifically the POA, which is a fully constituted member of the TUC? Well, there are those who you can very broadly classify as falling into reflex ‘leftist’ and ‘rightist’ stances. On the one hand there are those, such as SPEW and the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, who treat prison officers purely as ‘workers in uniform’, and therefore just like any other section of the working class - thus the POA is to be accorded the status of a ‘normal’ trade union, no different from the National Union of Mineworkers or the Communication Workers Union. Then there are those who assume a moralistic, and plain stupid, stance that regards POA members as merely agents of the oppressive state machine - and hence shrilly denounce any show of solidarity, or political sympathy, with striking rank and file POA members as tantamount to an act of class treachery.

For a pristine example of this brittle ultra-leftist nonsense you can do no better than the International Bolshevik Tendency - a split from the Spartacist League. A recent IBT leaflet demands: “Kick the screws out of the TUC!” and, for good measure, “Throw immigration cops out of the Public and Commercial Services Union”.

But in contradistinction to the above confused and mistaken approaches, communists instead emphasise the dual nature of an organisation like the POA. We cannot simply treat it like any other trade union - because POA members are responsible for the direct physical oppression of the section of the working class: and a section that is regrettably - and quite monstrously - increasing in numbers with each month that goes by. That is the straightforward, honest truth and we should not be afraid to say so.

Whatever the bigoted and spiteful crap churned out by the tabloid and rightwing media, only a tiny minority of UK prisoners are dreadful anti-social monsters (cynical murderers, serial rapists, etc) who need locking up for the protection of society. There are very few ‘Mr Bigs’ or criminal dons behind bars - forget it: they normally have the money, power and influence to flee the roost long in advance and securely hole themselves up far away in some considerable comfort.

No, rather the vast majority of prisoners are nothing more than the victims of an indifferent society, which prefers to sweep them under the carpet of a hellish UK prison system than seriously address and resolve the manifold and pressing social problems which produce such huge numbers of criminals in the first place. So, almost inevitably, the vast majority of prisoners have some form of drugs and/or alcohol dependency, while one-fifth have debilitating mental health issues and nearly a quarter of all youth offenders officially suffer from “learning difficulties” (see opposite).

Self-evidently, such offenders should not be locked up at all in prison - to further deteriorate and become effectively institutionalised. Consequently, we oppose any demands of the POA that could only come at the expense of prisoners - like yet longer lock-up times or additional refinements to the means of oppression (bigger and harder batons/shields, use of water cannons or tear-gas, etc). But at the same time we will critically support those demands - as we would for rank and file police officers - that act to cohere intra-solidarity against the senior officers/wardens and thus help to undermine and eventually split the state machine. So, yes, we are definitely fully in favour of prison warders and members of the police force having the right to form and join trade unions and the right to go on strike. It is logically analogous to our demand that members of the armed forces also be given such rights.

In other words, it would be utterly crass to regard prison workers as simply part of the state machine - any more than Russian army was by mid-1917 - by then ever larger swathes of it were ‘defecting’ to the Bolsheviks and the general revolutionary (anti-war) cause. As for the POA itself, it has clearly shifted to the left as an organisation, under the influence of a not insignificant tranche of former miners entering the prison service over the last 20 years or so (and let’s face it, if incarcerated, who would you want in charge of you - a former NUM man or the more ‘traditional’ POA military type, like a down-on-his-luck, semi-sadistic ex-army sergeant?). But, whatever the exact explanation, the POA’s distinct turn to the left is something we should welcome and hope to see continue.

And we should not forget that there is a long history of militancy among unionised prison officers, with the POA tracing its origins to the Prison Officers’ Federation - which in 1916 affiliated to the Labour Party. Not long after its formation, the POF fused with members of the police to form the Police and Prison Officers’ Union. Then we had the 1919 police strike, which so put the fear of god into the British establishment - and quite rightly - that it was made illegal for police and prison officers to join or form trade unions. It was only after two decades of vigorous campaigning that prison officers won back the right to organise, though it still remained illegal for them to take strike action. More recently the Tories introduced legislation which was nakedly designed to smash the POA as a trade union, but eventually a ‘compromise’ was settled upon in the shape of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, where industrial action remained illegal.

As for Brian Caton himself, he is undoubtedly a sincere leftwinger - indeed, he is one of the most militant and leftwing leaders we have at the moment in the essentially quiescent trade union movement. Before a fanfare-free decamping to SPEW this September after 40 years of Labour Party membership, Caton had already made plain his views on ‘crime and punishment’ - telling The Socialist: “Capitalism is wrong, it’s unfair and it leads to an uncivil society. I don’t want to live in an uncivil society where greed is the master and crime becomes the norm.” In September, Caton informed The Socialist - now his publication, of course - that he had become “sick and tired of people saying that just because you’re a prison officer you’re rightwing” and recounted how he had told Jack Straw (former home secretary) at a POA conference what the “founder fathers” of the Labour Party “would think of him now”: engaged in “fighting illegal wars and privatising prisons”, for which Caton received a “standing ovation” from POA members.

[ls]

"kick the screws" would've been more than enough, prison guards are absolute scum - even more so than cops, I don't know why SPEW are going along with all this inclusive rhetoric.