Can "tough on crime" populism be progressive?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most of the time, "tough on crime" populism is reactionary. However, can there be instances where it is progressive?

I'm looking at things like outright wage theft, other labour law violations, and the usual canard of corporate crime. Very rarely is wage theft punishable by jail time. Ditto with other labour law violations. Meanwhile, not enough corporate crime is met with practically lifelong jail time.

I don't think this labour-oriented "tough on crime" is fit for a party program, since socialism renders these irrelevant. However, electoral platforms or agitational action platforms could be the place for these "Mass Line" appeals to workers affected by crime rates in their areas.

[Raúl Duke]

Most of the time, "tough on crime" populism is reactionary. However, can there be instances where it is progressive?

I'm looking at things like outright wage theft, other labour law violations, and the usual canard of corporate crime. Very rarely is wage theft punishable by jail time. Ditto with other labour law violations. Meanwhile, not enough corporate crime is met with practically lifelong jail time.

The thing is, the instances you speak of are pretty rare.
As you said, most "tough on crime" just means more police oppression on certain, mostly low-income, neighborhoods. Also, the "tough on crime" line tends to tie in with the "war on drugs," since this is what will most likely be targeted.

The reactionary kind only sounds 'populist' to segments of the "middle class" but in reality it's anything but. However, the type you are speaking of ("tough on corporate crime") is usually just under the umbrella of populism or anti-corporate populism and its never really called or viewed as a "tough on crime" stance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wage theft is more prevalent than you think. Besides the obvious cases in Eastern Europe and other developing areas, look at this 2010 article:

The Prevalence of Wage Theft Among Day Laborers (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Prevalence-of-Wage-Theft-Among-Day-Laborers&id=4443542)

And this blog:

Wage Theft: How Employers Steal From Employees and Job Seekers (http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-employers-treat-workers-unfairly.html)

I would also add that I would prefer harsh corrective labour over jail time for the criminals I'm talking about.

[Raúl Duke]

Oh...by instances I didn't mean that wage theft was rare but that "tough on corporate crime" populism is rare and usually labeled only as "populism" depending on context and environment (for example of the politicians in the appalachia called out tough actions against Massey Coal and if the politicians of Lousiana called out tough actions on BP, these people would be labeled as being populists and not "tough on crime").


I would also add that I would prefer harsh corrective labour over jail time for the criminals I'm talking about.

I like that idea, that'll teach them not to fuck with my wage (exploiting me even more than usual/normal).

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Tough on crime" refers to the cops brutalizing low-income neighborhoods. It doesn't refer to the government cracking down on wage-theft, for reasons which should be obvious.

[gorillafuck]

I've never heard of cracking down on corporate crime and stuff like that be referred to as a "tough on crime" stance. "Tough on crime" always means strengthening the effects of the war on drugs, giving tougher sentences, making prisons even harsher, heavily increased policing, and being looser on police brutality.

[Dimentio]

If a left-wing politician in America would like to get anything done regarding social issues like housing, healthcare and so forth, he or she would need to be either "tough on crime" to the limit of public spanking for inner city kids or extremely imperialistic against other countries, since that would split the jingoistic vote. Some right-wingers for example hate Obama because of his perceived social progressiveness, while others hate him for his "pacifism". If Obama behaved even more reactionarily than Bush in the foreign theatre and did so openly, he could probably gain some support from the later group who get excited by violence.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If Obama behaved even more reactionarily than Bush in the foreign theatre and did so openly

Considering the fact that he's continued the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq (with no end in sight, despite promises to the contrary), as well as expanding military efforts in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, I shudder to think what him behaving "even more reactionarily" would look like.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think people have tried similar approaches. Michael Moore is a good example because he had a "corporate crime-fighting" mascot and did "Cops"-like skits about busting corporate criminals.

For us, I think talking about and exposing corporate crime, and contrasting that to the way the state handles petty theft and other less-monumental things, is great for exposing the priorities of the system and the way our society works (or doesn't for workers). However, it is also important for us to point out that many of the worst "crimes" in capitalism are totally legal and a part of the system: destroying countries to help control markets or trade routes, uprooting people and whole communities for profits, and so on.

[Hiero]

There was a trend in the UK of Left acadamics calling for more police in working class communities under some form of community control. Most victims of crime are working class people, whether corporate or other. It is a concept overpolicing and underpolicing in the same community, policing people for misdemaenor offences but not responding quickly and efficiently enough and not solving enough crimes in working class areas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some comments from another board:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/can-tough-crime-populism-be-progressive-re-labour


We're not going to change the world by campaigning for revenge trips against individual "bad bosses". We'll do more damage than good. That's why I also feel very uncomfortable about calls to increase prison time for white-collar or executive or similar crime. We'll never win on that playing field.
Besides, there aren't really enough white collar criminals and corporate executives to staff a decent GULAG, though I must admit the image of Conrad Black leading a tree planting crew up by the French River does appeal.
I don't see anything wrong, in the realm of political theater, for the NDP or labour to use the reactionary rhetoric on tough on crime to go after corporate crime, business fraud or political corruption. But as far as actually doing something about those problems, the left has to stop looking to government, and start taking action themselves. We need to learn how to investigate and learn how to bring private prosecutions, and in general, make life more difficult for corporate criminals and those in law enforcement, the judicial system and the politicians that purposely turn a blind eye to these kinds of activities.

I responded to Cueball's post by asking about the many petit-bourgeois elements that do violate labour laws frequently, most notably on the question of hours.

[Raúl Duke]

We're not going to change the world by campaigning for revenge trips against individual "bad bosses". We'll do more damage than good.

Depends on who you appeal to. To some people at the bottom who have worked minimum wage jobs, particularly industries where tipping is involved (i.e. basing this on what I heard on here, that some members got money from the tip jar taken from them by the boss), such anti-corporate crime policies would be very popular and a very populist appeal. Right now, with the whole BP thing and the Massey mine incident, there's a segment that would love to see such "tough on corporate crime" actions.

I mean c'mon, I would love to see BP's assets seized and/or being revoked of doing business in the U.S. for the crime of environmental destruction at a scale that could be considered a "crime against humanity (and world)." I would like to see Massey, inc brought to court for criminal negligence. I bet I'm not the only one.


Besides, there aren't really enough white collar criminals and corporate executives to staff a decent GULAG, though I must admit the image of Conrad Black leading a tree planting crew up by the French River does appeal.

The issue is that when it comes to corporations, the responsibility is diffused so in most cases you don't end up arresting anyone (only punitive measures against a corporation) unless you can prove that certain executives were master-minding to commit a corporate crime without the knowledge of the other members of the board/share-holders or some such conditions/requistate.

[khad]

If a left-wing politician in America would like to get anything done regarding social issues like housing, healthcare and so forth, he or she would need to be either "tough on crime" to the limit of public spanking for inner city kids or extremely imperialistic against other countries, since that would split the jingoistic vote. Some right-wingers for example hate Obama because of his perceived social progressiveness, while others hate him for his "pacifism". If Obama behaved even more reactionarily than Bush in the foreign theatre and did so openly, he could probably gain some support from the later group who get excited by violence.
Coulda fooled me. US arms sales are setting records now that Obama is here.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4BE6KB20081216



U.S. arms sales seen booming in 2009


(Reuters) - U.S. government-to-government arms sales are on track to total as much as $40 billion in fiscal 2009, up from a bumper $36.4 billion last year, despite a sharp drop in oil prices that typically tracks with reduced demand, the Pentagon's top official for such deals said on Monday.

Among likely big sales are Patriot missile defense systems made by Raytheon Co (RTN.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=RTN.N)) and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=LMT.N)), said Vice Admiral Jeffrey Wieringa, head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington.

The United States already has concluded $11.8 billion in arms sales since fiscal 2009 began October 1 and expects to deal with 208 countries or organizations, the Pentagon agency said.

Wieringa said he conferred last week with a transition team from President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration ultimately will decide which deals may move forward under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program.

The New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group, has called on Obama, who will be sworn in January 20, and the new U.S. Congress to consider multilateral efforts to curb "destructive and destabilizing" weapons exports.

More than half of the top 25 U.S. arms purchasers in the developing world were "undemocratic governments or regimes that engaged in major human rights abuses," in 2006 and 2007, the foundation said in a report last week.

Wieringa did not address such criticism but said he would "move, or not, as directed."

He said his organization had found a 92 percent "correlation" between rising oil prices and rising U.S. arms sales.

But the projected boom in fiscal 2009 appeared likely even as oil and other commodity prices decline under pressure from global economic woes, he said. Arms makers including Lockheed and Raytheon have attributed strong overseas demand for their products to tensions surrounding Iran (http://www.reuters.com/places/iran), North Korea and other regional disputes.

Wieringa said potential buyers of the Patriot system included South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea), Poland, Turkey and unspecified others.
In addition, he said, "billions of dollars (in U.S. arms sales) is flowing to Iraq."

The U.S. Defense Department also is working closely with Saudi Arabia (http://www.reuters.com/places/saudi-arabia) on a naval modernization program valued at $15 billion to $20 billion that could be concluded next year, he said.

The Saudi program could include the small, agile Littoral Combat Ship, under development for the U.S. Navy, Wieringa said. Lockheed and General Dynamics Corp (GD.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=GD.N)) are developing separate versions of the new ship. Israel is considering buying the Lockheed version, Lockheed officials have said.

Wieringa said the Saudi deal also may include the H-60R Seahawk multimission helicopter built by Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=UTX.N)); unmanned Fire Scout helicopters built by Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=NOC.N)); and the P-8 maritime surveillance plane being built by Boeing Co (BA.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=BA.N)).
"We're trying to help the Saudis with their Saudi naval expansion program," Wieringa said. "That would be very exciting."

Asked about rival bids from Boeing and Lockheed to meet India's request for 126 new fighter aircraft, he said he could not judge either's prospects in the competition with Russia (http://www.reuters.com/places/russia)n and European warplane makers.

"There's questions asked, answers given... I feel good about the dialogue," Wieringa said.

The No. 1 remaining issue with India, he said, was "in-use monitoring," under which the United States reserves a right to make sure U.S. arms sold abroad are used for their intended purpose and that the technology does not leak to third countries.

"We have a standard condition of sale in the contract the U.S. has with another sovereign country, and that has been a sticking point for a while," he said.
India is also interested in ships and other equipment, Wieringa said.

"They have some very interesting ideas about initial production in U.S. shipyards and then transferring production to Indian shipyards and right now I'm just letting the Navy have those discussions with India."

[Dimentio]

Considering the fact that he's continued the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq (with no end in sight, despite promises to the contrary), as well as expanding military efforts in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, I shudder to think what him behaving "even more reactionarily" would look like.

Like blasting Tehran with a nuclear weapon?

The American people don't like occupations, because US troops could die or get their skin hurt. Something which they love though is bombing campaigns. If a US politician wants to stay popular, he or she should not send in ground troops but just focus on bombing. As long as US soldiers doesn't die, only people who never would vote Republican are reacting angrily.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Depends on who you appeal to. To some people at the bottom who have worked minimum wage jobs, particularly industries where tipping is involved (i.e. basing this on what I heard on here, that some members got money from the tip jar taken from them by the boss), such anti-corporate crime policies would be very popular and a very populist appeal. Right now, with the whole BP thing and the Massey mine incident, there's a segment that would love to see such "tough on corporate crime" actions.

I mean c'mon, I would love to see BP's assets seized and/or being revoked of doing business in the U.S. for the crime of environmental destruction at a scale that could be considered a "crime against humanity (and world)." I would like to see Massey, inc brought to court for criminal negligence. I bet I'm not the only one.

The issue is that when it comes to corporations, the responsibility is diffused so in most cases you don't end up arresting anyone (only punitive measures against a corporation) unless you can prove that certain executives were master-minding to commit a corporate crime without the knowledge of the other members of the board/share-holders or some such conditions/requistate.

Since you're tying this to the corporate person, I have written before about "the abolition of legal personhood, most notably with respect to corporations, and the prohibition of legally defined political contributions made by non-government entities other than eligible voters."

The reason is that the responsibility isn't as diffused as you think. Corporate leaders at the top are supposed to assume responsibility for the actions of subordinates, and this goes right down to management signatures required by external auditors.

Either that, or perhaps you're suggesting a sort of "negative" personhood for corporations, whereby they have no benefits of the present legal personhood but have all the liabilities and then some?

[Raúl Duke]

a sort of "negative" personhood for corporations, whereby they have no benefits of the present legal personhood but have all the liabilities and then some?

Yes, I'm speaking with this kind of view in mind.

But if we can get away with personally arresting Tony Haywood, et.al and the executives who run Massey Coal Mines; I'm ok with that.

[Ocean Seal]

The question is broad and uses the word "can." Therefore the answer is yes. Being tough on white collar crime, being tough on executives who milk the system for huge bonuses, and being tough on those who abuse the masses is highly progressive.

[727Goon]

I think that "tough on crime" attitudes towards white collar crime hurts our cause more than it helps it. It will lead to working people thinking that the capitalistic government has their interests at heart, and make them less likely to consider revolutionary solutions.

[M-26-7]

Most of the time, "tough on crime" populism is reactionary. However, can there be instances where it is progressive?

I'm looking at things like outright wage theft, other labour law violations, and the usual canard of corporate crime. Very rarely is wage theft punishable by jail time. Ditto with other labour law violations. Meanwhile, not enough corporate crime is met with practically lifelong jail time.

I don't think this labour-oriented "tough on crime" is fit for a party program, since socialism renders these irrelevant. However, electoral platforms or agitational action platforms could be the place for these "Mass Line" appeals to workers affected by crime rates in their areas.

I think your post demonstrates beautifully that every supposedly objective system of laws (objective in the sense that "all are equal before the law") actually has a class content. Indeed, control of one class over the other is the primary function of any system of laws, and it doesn't take long to determine which class a system of laws is meant to serve.

"Tough on crime" is a phrase that people just accept as though it has a straightforward meaning. Yet toughness on crime has a class content: which kinds of crime are you going to be "tough" on? Some sections of the capitalist class might be highly in favor of fair play in business, and hence favorable toward punishing white collar crimes. Other sections of the capitalist class might like their kickbacks, and thus be against strict punishing of white collar crime. But there's one kind of crime that they all agree the state should bring the hammer down on: working class crime, such as shoplifting, stealing from work, etc. And their ideology is so dominant in society that most working class people have internalized it, and take "tough on crime" to mean working class crime, without questioning it.

Hell, most people I talk to are more likely to get worked up about working class people who declare bankruptcy, and how they are "gaming the system", than they are to get worked up over a round of multibillion dollar corporate bailouts. The banks and corporations aren't gaming the system--they're merely too big to fail!

Of course, as an anarchist, I don't believe that any system of laws favors the working class as much as no system of laws, i.e. self-governance from below. When the working class (made up of the vast majority) is in the saddle, there is no need for a state, which is by its very nature an instrument of minority rule. Some general agreements about behavior will always be necessary for people living together in a society, but not "laws"--with all their apparatus of enforcement such as cops, courts, and prisons.

Also, history shows that when Leninist states attempt to create a system of laws that are "tough" on the kind of crimes of the rich that you are talking about, they inevitably start passing laws against working class people whose economic activity they (the state) deem undesirable. People don't want to wait in line at the state meat shop only to be told that there is none left, so they trade with other people directly? Why, they're "speculators", and "speculators" are the scum of society. Peasants don't want to go to work for a state-appointed boss on a state farm, where they won't even have control over the products of their labor? They're "kulaks", and they need to be liquidated, naturally.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a system of laws in favor of the working class. The state is the instrument of minority rule, and laws are the instruments of the state to achieve this rule. No laws, means no state, means no more minority rule--which of course means no more capitalism.

[AK]

Being "tough on crime" is reactionary and not progressive, both for reasons stated in this thread and because the populists always ignore the root cause of crime. They ignore poverty and other social problems arising from capitalism and instead use police as a painkiller, essentially - they just mask the problem.

[AK]

A lot of text.
Pardon me, but wouldn't an anarchist society need laws that were democratically decided upon by all members of the commune? And enforced by a sort of militia or - dare I say - a police force that is accountable, specially trained, doesn't exist to break up strikes and stop labour conflicts (although it would be impossible for the last two to happen, unless you believe that tyranny of the majority crap) and is elected by the people? This is self-government. Everyone is part of the government and a few specialists enforce those laws on behalf of the commune.

[meow]

Considering the fact that he's continued the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq (with no end in sight, despite promises to the contrary), as well as expanding military efforts in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, I shudder to think what him behaving "even more reactionarily" would look like.
republicans "we will bomb you!" and they do.
democrats "we wont bomb you" but they do.


as for tough on crime. i would support breaking up companies like bp. of course i support 100% tax on companies. fuck them. but yes the phychopaths in companies and governments should be removed from there position.

[Kotze]

How about the slogan tough on corruption?

Produce propaganda against corrupt high-ranking individuals. It's not hard to find somebody who received massive "donations" (always use sarcasm quotes here) and in turn enabled massive subsidies or reduced environmental protection. Everybody loves stories about villains. The individuals that are the target of the campaign should not to be selected based on how especially corrupt they are, typical corruption is enough, more important is whether you can find a nice alliteration, like SLIMEY STEVE.

When SLIMEY STEVE goes down, you produce propaganda against systematic corruption. Now it's time to talk about how entire parties work like the individuals that were somewhat arbitrarily selected in the first step, so the slogan becomes something like THE SLIMEY STEVE SYSTEM, the system that enables SLIMEY STEVES (note the plural).

Distribute information about how to replace the corrupt system, instead of replacing individuals or even parties: Media funded by the public, parties funded by the public, not allowing companies to lure high-ranking politicians with high-pay fake jobs.

[M-26-7]

Pardon me, but wouldn't an anarchist society need laws that were democratically decided upon by all members of the commune? And enforced by a sort of militia or - dare I say - a police force

A police force? What kind of anarchist are you, exactly?

And no, in my opinion it would not need "laws" - because for me the distinction between formal laws and horizontal/mutual social agreements about behavior is the same as the distinction between a formal state and a bottom-up structure of self-governance based on workers' councils.

[AK]

No.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3593

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also, history shows that when Leninist states attempt to create a system of laws that are "tough" on the kind of crimes of the rich that you are talking about, they inevitably start passing laws against working class people whose economic activity they (the state) deem undesirable. People don't want to wait in line at the state meat shop only to be told that there is none left, so they trade with other people directly? Why, they're "speculators", and "speculators" are the scum of society. Peasants don't want to go to work for a state-appointed boss on a state farm, where they won't even have control over the products of their labor? They're "kulaks", and they need to be liquidated, naturally.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a system of laws in favor of the working class. The state is the instrument of minority rule, and laws are the instruments of the state to achieve this rule. No laws, means no state, means no more minority rule--which of course means no more capitalism.

Up until these two paragraphs, your post wasn't questionable.

Your comments on speculators would be rendered irrelevant if consumer prices could move up or down if supply is below safety stock or above some other limit. Nonetheless, there are speculators that need to be dealt with, since the whole crux of money capital is M-C-M'.

What makes laws minoritarian is the role of the lawyer profession, from which judges emerge. The grunt cop role of arresting criminals can be performed by something like enforcement conscripts, and prisons can be guarded by conscript militias.

[Dimentio]

"Tough on crime" laws and attitudes do not equal progressiveness, but they could be useful.

Actually, its very much so that "soft on crime"-attitudes are prevalent within the bureaucratic and academic segments of society especially because of the detached universalism of academics.

Working class people who are living in crime-ridden neighbourhoods do often have "hard on crime" attitudes, especially concerning their own neighbourhood. Its usual to hear statements like "castrate all rapists", "reintroduce the death penalty" and so on.

The people who are most exposed to crime are the working class. Except for marginalised youth and representatives for some minority communities, the working class in most western nations would probably gladly give up some civil rights in return for a greater sense of safety in their neighbourhoods.

Often, we assume a priori that the working class is vehemently opposed to the capitalists, the police and other symbols of the powers that be, while the truth indeed is more complex. The truth is that no system built on repression could work for a longer amount of time without a certain amount of collaboration.

I'm not saying that working class people are stupid, and neither that all of them have the same political opinions. But I'm never heard statements like these from the academic environments: "If muslim women want to wear their veils, they have nothing here to do", "If we may not build churches in Saudi Arabia, they shouldn't build their mosques here", "People on social welfare should not have any voting rights", "We should stop sending aid to Africa so they start to get eaten by lions again and get in balance with their environment".

From my experience, working class people - and then especially working class males - often have no problems with ideas and values which are reactionary, as long as the group and identity they identify with isn't affected.

In Sweden, those who most often vote for the main right-centrist party, the conservative party, are male industrial workers, while those who tend to vote for the main left-centrist party, the social democrats, are female industrial and public workers.

There is some worker resentment here against for example capitalists, bankers, politicians and high heads of the police, media and other institutions. But there is also a strong resentment within the working class against for example muslim immigrants, people on social welfare, people on artisan support, disabled people and so on.

I'm not writing this to scold off workers or somehow paint them as troglodytes or "less intelligent". I'm writing this to paint a realistic picture, since if we ignored a part of the map - no matter how ugly it is - we would be less likely to be successful.

And oh yes. I think a large part of the working class would love tough-on-crime populism.

Addenda: The kind of police abuse which I heard industrial workers, builders and others complain about the most is "victimless" crimes which they or someone they've known has committed, like for example getting caught while pissing in a public place after a wet night on the pub, or being caught for drive-speeding.

[RasTheDestroyer]

Well yes, but only after the signifier 'crime' undergoes a radical transfiguration.

[Jazzratt]

Often, we assume a priori that the working class is vehemently opposed to the capitalists, the police and other symbols of the powers that be, while the truth indeed is more complex. The truth is that no system built on repression could work for a longer amount of time without a certain amount of collaboration. Well this is the thing. I don't think that we should encourage or embrace such "capitulation" as a class. The point isn't that we are all automatically conscious workers who hate the ruling class; were that the case then resolving the class struggle into a post-capitalist society would be much more simple.


But there is also a strong resentment within the working class against for example muslim immigrants, people on social welfare, people on artisan support, disabled people and so on. Right and it's for exactly the same reason that the left doesn't pander to these prejudices that they shouldn't pander to the inane bollocks about castrating rapists and so on. Preaching the same shite we see day in, day out in the tabloids and hear from the shoutier twats down the pub isn't going to strnegthen our position; on the contrary it will be dilute and eventually indistinguishable from any other flavour of oppurtunism that moulds itself around the ugly prejudice.