Letter: Crime Passionel (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Crime Passionel

Ref. the January issue of the Socialist Standard and the article “The Real World Outside”.

The writer of the article says, quote: “Socialist society will have no more need of prisons, than it will have of bombs”. Whilst agreeing with this statement, and the fact that 90-odd per cent of imprisonments are inflicted on people for theft, or for acts committed in the pursuance of them, which would not happen in a Socialist Society.

In a Socialist society however, some misdemeanours will still occur. How are these to be dealt with?

For one example, crime passionel, i.e.: A man desires a woman, but the woman rejects the man’s advances, preferring to live with another man, and not at all interested in the rejected one at all. In blind jealousy, the rejected man inflicts bodily harm, possibly death on the favoured one, or on the woman herself, or on both. Would nothing be done by society in a case like this? Would it be treated purely as a personal affair between the parties involved?

Regarding the criminally insane. Severely mentally disturbed people of a violent nature, would still have to be locked away, in a prison of one sort or another. No doubt with better conditions and facilities than at present, but a prison nevertheless.

J. Cardin

Merseyside.

Reply

J. Cardin raises so many interesting points that we would need a whole issue of the Socialist Standard to deal with them fully. Within the space available, we can only say this: the example of “crime passionel” is dangerously loaded with the prejudices of capitalist society. For example, you assume it is a man (not a woman) who is blindly jealous. Why? Can we suggest it is because so much of the advertizing etc. we see round us, shows woman as part of the complete man, instead of a full human being in her own right? This “blind jealousy” you talk of is usually the result of the conditioning of a perverse environment, where man assumes property rights over “his woman”. And “blind jealousy” is a phrase leaving so many questions unanswered. Why do people go off their rockers? May we suggest that one of the fundamental causes must be life under capitalism with all its stresses, and distorted values.

Why assume that the rejected one would “inflict bodily harm” on the former lover and his or her new lover? If you love someone, you don’t inflict harm on that person, or on the object of his or her affection. And if you don’t love, will you care enough to inflict harm? It is only property society which overloads basic human emotions with absurd and dangerous complications, causing absurd and dangerous reactions.

You do contradict yourself! You agree with our point that Socialist society will not need prisons in your second sentence, and then in your last sentence assume there will be prisons in Socialist society. Let us solve the riddle. There will be no prisons in Socialist society. If people commit violent acts upon their fellows it is almost certain they are mentally ill. If people are mentally sick (“criminally insane” is a brutal expression of property society) they will receive the same attention as the physically sick that is the best treatment possible.

Finally may we refer J. Cardin to the September 1974 Socialist Standard where some of these points are dealt with at more length in the article “Law and Society.”

Editors.

Between the Lines: Some riots you see . . . (1985)

The Between the Lines column from the December 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some riots you see . . .

Riots on TV are not what they used to be. In the early 1980s we used to get panicky reporters appearing live on the scene, not quite knowing whether the BBC had insured their limbs. These days no sooner does a riot start than a team of dull-witted politicians are in the studio, there to throw cliches at us like chucking nuts at monkeys The Tory says that it's all caused by criminal elements who are taking advantage of easily-led workers. Then comes the Labourite — usually Gerald Kaufman whose jackets are worn to remind us what value we're getting for our colour TV licence — who talks about how the Tories invented unemployment and while the rioters are wrong they can be sympathised with, but then again the police are doing a good job, but then again they really shouldn't shoot people if they can possibly avoid it. but then again reports have shown . . . Riots on telly are becoming more boring than The Horse of the Year Show. One good thing about the revolution: it will only happen once.

. . . and some you don’t

Remember the pictures of the Orgreave riot shown during the miners' strike? Remember how we were urged to have pity on those poor police who were doing their best to defend the peace against the violent tactics of those horrible strikers? And now, long after the strike is over, we see another view of the riot (People to People, C4. 9pm. 27 September). Clear pictures and accounts demonstrated very forcefully that what occurred at Orgreave was a police riot that the police were out of control and dished out violence to peaceful pickets in a manner which would be more typical of the Polish or South African state machine. Those with eyes to see. and minds unblocked by prejudices which tell them that the police can never be the aggressors, saw camera shots of police beating up workers who had gone to Orgreave to further their trade-union interests. Why were these pictures never shown while the strike was on? The fact is that while the camera never lies, the liars are very capable of manipulating the evidence of the camera when it so suits them.

Real lives

The banned and then censored BBC2 documentary on "political extremism" in Northern Ireland turned out to be nothing very original or surprising. Both nationalists in the programme (for let it not be forgotten that the Unionists are nationalists too) showed themselves to be buried in the politics of working-class disunity, sloganising and violence. McGuinness came across as somewhat saner than the Unionist clown whose response to the murder of some Catholics was to declare that "Christmas has come early this year". In fact, most workers are more advanced in their thinking than the sort of politically retarded mis-leaders portrayed in this film.

If only every town . . .

Have you seen that appalling advert which concludes. "If only every town could be like Milton Keynes '. Have you ever been to Milton Keynes? Has the joker who dreamed up the advert ever lived in Milton Keynes? Perhaps he should be given a chance to live in one of the uniform workers' houses in the land of his dreams. And while we're at it. why not give Jimmy Savile a free pensioners' travel pass and let him travel round the country on second-class British Rail trains instead of the Rolls which he is more accustomed to sitting in? And why not let old Barratt live in one of the poverty-homes he is so eager to advertise on TV instead of the expensive mansion near Hexham which he lives in now? Let the shoddy goods which the ad-men try to sell us be consumed by the idle parasites — they are not good enough for the wealth- producers. For workers nothing but the best is good enough — and to be sure. Milton Keynes is nothing like the best.

Showing it like it is

There is a popular view on the Left that everything shown on television is lies. Plenty of what we see on TV is lies and distortion, but much of it is both useful in providing an insight into aspects of life which most of us never experience and helpful in indicating the manifold contradictions of capitalism. Of late we have been offered several documentary series worthy of note. BBC2's series Probation (Tuesdays. 9.30pm. ended 29 October) was one of those "fly-on-the-wall" efforts in which we were allowed to look in on the ruined lives and confused existences of workers dependent on probation officers. Two points emerged from the series: firstly, that, despite the claims of the human nature brigade, there are plenty of workers in our society who are genuinely eager to help other workers to get out of their mess: secondly, it became clear that those society sees fit to punish or cure are inevitably the victims of a system in need of punishment or cure. A society which leaves thousands of workers ill-educated, unemployed, frustratedly aggressive, vulnerable to dangerous escapism and tempted by goodies beyond their reach creates more casualties than the over-burdened probation officers can hope to help satisfactorily. At best, the probation service can ameliorate the difficulties of those who attract problems like light attracts moths; at worst it serves as a rather authoritarian, patronising and sermonising outfit which seeks to normalise those capitalist normality can do without.

Infuriating though it has been. Queens': a Cambridge College (Wednesdays. 8.20pm. BBC2) provides a glimpse into an institution where students are taught that they are part of an intellectual élite. The evidence of the cameras (which could be discriminate) is that an awful lot of Cambridge geniuses are bores, morons or both. In the first programme in the series we were shown a public school twit in an interview, attempting to gain a place to "read" history. He is asked why he wants to read history and answers that it is because looking at the past will help us to understand the present Fair enough. Then he is asked to give an example of this. He mumbles vaguely that if you look at the origins of the Middle East you will understand the Arab-Israeli war. He lists as his hobby "fantasy war games" highly appropriate for a Cambridge history scholar. Asked why he wants to "come up" to Cambridge he answers that he wants to be trained for leadership. He gets in. As does the Sloane Ranger who is applying for medicine, whose parents live in the Sudan, has enjoyed "surfing on the Nile", working on a leper colony (which was absolutely amazing") and wants to work "with Third World people in North London".

In the second programme we see a crowd of these "intellectuals" joining the Christian Society and one of them (a science student) recounting how Christ appeared to him one night in his study after he had screwed up his packet of cigarettes. Nobody asked him what he had in them. In the third programme we were irritated by an offensive law student with pretensions to being an orator. He addressed the Cambridge Union (membership. £18 a year) on why public schools must exist. Apparently they produce academic excellence. Odd that: he came from one and seemed exceptionally unoriginal in his thinking.

After The War Is Over (Fridays. 9.25pm. BBC2) showed very clearly that after the suffering of the Second World War workers had big expectations. Returning from the war, the wage slaves came to something other than a land fit for heroes. The series has been very successful in showing both the utter impotence of the reformism of the patronising post-war Labour government and the shoddiness to which workers had access in those days of never having it so good. The Ministry of Information propaganda films are particularly striking in their transparent aim of bluffing the workers into continuing the war effort after the war had supposedly been won.

All three series helped to show workers more about what has been and is going on in society. They were not exercises in deception, but full-scale. uncensored pictures of capitalist reality. Proof that television can be used in the battle for working-class knowledge.

Charles and Di

Your reviewer did not watch the interview of the happy Royals on ITV (Sunday. 20 October), but is expecting at any time now a letter from the Palace calling on him to meet with Charlie for a serious discussion about how to abolish poverty and other related matters which our heir contemplates in his spare time. Let it be noted here that whatever passes between us will be in confidence. Suffice to say that I can offer him some definite advice about how to avoid becoming the ruler of a divided nation — and it doesn't involve doing yoga and keeping off red meat.

Steve Coleman

Letter: Drugs, cash and crime (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Drugs, cash and crime

In a socialist society would cannabis and other soft drugs be legal or illegal, or would it be free access as with other goods? If the latter, how would you deal with those who misuse them?

If a racist party of about ten years can field 300 candidates in the next election as stated in a recent News of the World article, why can’t the SPGB of 72 years field fifty candidates and get five minutes’ air time? The SPGB would succeed with its policies if they were known more and it is the ideal party policy-wise to combat racism.

I understand that under Socialism there would be no prisons. I realize that due to free access there would be no need to steal. As one who has been in jail and met some real bad people, how would Socialism stop these people committing murders and arson? When I have stolen it has been through necessity. I like most things I read in the Standard I have seen, but the above is one point that bothers me.

I would like to learn more of the SPGB. Would the fact that I have stolen in the past stop me becoming a member in the future?

D. R. Broadbent,

Wakefield

Reply:

We have put your three letters together, and numbered the answers to your questions.

1. The words “legal” and “illegal” will have no application in Socialism, since they represent the rule of one class over another. “Misuse” is itself a controversial term, since practically all of the substances taken as drugs have medical or everyday uses. In some people’s view “misuse”, of many things besides drugs, means letting the working class at large have them. Aldous Huxley, who wrote about his aesthetic experiences with drugs, was of that opinion: “I think the matter should be discussed, and the investigations described, in the relative privacy of learned journals, the decent obscurity of moderately high-brow books and articles.” (Letters, 1969, p.803).

On the other hand, the medical possibilities pointed out by Huxley have overtones of keeping obstreperous workers quiet: “A group of psychologists and social workers in Vancouver and Seattle have developed techniques for using mescaline therapeutically . . . Delinquent boys have been totally transformed in a single sitting.” (Ibid., p.720).

In this capitalist society it is impossible to evaluate sensibly and say what are beneficial uses and what are misuses. A large amount of drug-taking — including aspirin, alcohol, etc. — is to relieve or escape from the worries and harassments of life today, and will not be sought by people in Socialism. If it can be shown that a drug has no application other than giving harmless pleasure, we may still have to consider whether resources can be given over to producing it; but that will be for society as a whole to decide.

2. The number of SPGB candidates in parliamentary elections reflects our resources in funds and membership, and to have fifty would require far more money than we have or could raise at the present stage. Our income is made up of members’ subscriptions and donations; the Socialist Standard is sold at a loss, and consumes funds all the year round. Other political parties do not make their finances and all their transactions open as we do, so we cannot say how a particular one manages to put up a large number of candidates.

Most organizations depend on wealthy supporters. In the case of the Labour Party the supporter is the trade-union movement. In other cases, the supporters may be capitalists who think particular interests of theirs will be furthered if the organization gets political power or is successful in its reform demands. That in itself should explain why we do not get offers of such support. However, it is also true that the Socialist Party does not accept donations “with strings” which would give the donor special influence on our policies.

What will enable us to have more candidates is, therefore, a larger membership and bigger sales of the Socialist Standard.

3. Murderers are a microscopic proportion of the population. Many commit their crimes in the course of robberies or otherwise for money. Some murders are the results of a belief in causes, or antagonism to a particular section of people. Arson is an offence against property. On the other hand, you may join the armed forces and kill people and set fire to buildings; this is held to be not criminal but heroic. Look at what society makes of people and clear your head of nonsense about “bad individuals”.

4. The condition of membership of the Socialist Party is understanding and acceptance of its Object and Principles.

C. Brinton (Harwich): We are pleased to learn you propose to examine the Socialist case seriously, and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Several letters have had to be held over because of pressure on space. We assure correspondents they will all be dealt with as soon as possible.

Editorial Committee.

Notes by the Way: Whose May Day? (1955)

The Notes by the Way Column from the June 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whose May Day?

At one time May Day was an occasion on which workers demonstrated international solidarity and drew attention to current claims and grievances. Such May Day meetings were frowned upon by governments and employers, but things are different now. Many governments have taken over May Day and from the side of the workers the demonstrations are often nationalist not internationalist. The following are reports of May Day activities in various countries.

CELEBRATIONS IN MOSCOW 

“Moscow, May 1st.

“Four giant new cannon, which might be capable of firing atomic shells, took part to-day in Moscow's traditional May Day military parade. The emphasis in planning the parade was on air power but because of low cloud and steady rain there was no fly-past”—(Manchester Guardian, 2/5/55.)

“CHINA.—Buddhist monks and nuns in long, flowing saffron and red robes marched with long columns of workers past Mao Tse-tung and other Chinese Communist leaders.

“Mr. Harry Pollitt, Secretary-General of the British Communist Party, was among the foreign guests,

“The Mayor of Peking, Peng Chen, called for the strengthening of national defences and opposing of American occupation of our sacred territory of Formosa.' Balloons with 'Free Formosa’ slogans were carried.”—(Daily Mail, 2/5/55.)

“GERMANY.—East Germany’s growing armed forces were paraded in the Soviet sector of Berlin in a giant demonstration evidently designed to impress Berliners with the Communist capacity to counter West German rearmament.

“West German trade unionists at mass meetings issued a demand for a 40-hour week to replace the present 48-hour week.”—(Daily Mail, 2/5/55.)

“GREECE.— Free Cyprus was the theme of May Day in Athens, with prayers in churches calling for Divine blessing on the ‘liberation struggle '."—(Daily Mail, 2/5/55.)

THE POPE BLESSES WORKERS 

MAY DAY IN ROME 

From our Correspondent 

Rome, May 1st.

“Labour Day was celebrated with great pomp in Rome, where the tenth anniversary of the foundation of the Italian Workers’ Catholic Association (A.C.LI.) was made to synchronise with it. Some 150,000 Catholic workers from all over Italy made a pilgrimage to St. Peter’s, where they were addressed this afternoon by the Pope.

"The Pope, who came down to St. Peter’s Square to bless the workers, announced the institution of a new feast that of St. Joseph the Workman, with which Labour Day will henceforth be celebrated by the Church. He said that he did this in order that May 1st might receive Christian baptism, so that, 'far from being a stimulus for discord, hate, and violence,’ it should be 'a recurring invitation to modern society to accomplish that which is still lacking for social peace.” —(Manchester Guardian, 2/5/55.)

MAY 1, “LOYALTY DAY” 

Washington, April 28th.

“President Eisenhower to-day proclaimed May 1st as loyalty day and called on citizens to observe it 'by reaffirming their loyalty to our beloved country'." Reuter.—(Manchester Guardian, 29/4/55.)

More Prisoners, In Worse Prisons

There are more people in prison today than there were before the war and more than at the beginning of the century. In the debate on Prisoners in the House of Lords on 4th May, 1955, Lord Pakenham commented on the decline of the number of people in prisons and Borstal institutions from 24,000 in 1953 to 21,000 at the present time, but added: “There is still nearly twice the pre-war figure of about 11,000.”

His figures related to England and Wales only. The total for the United Kingdom, after adding Scottish and Northern Ireland prisons, was 13,005 in 1938 and 26,224 in 1952. (See “Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1954, pages 58-68).

A corresponding figure representing the daily average prison population for the years 1900-1904 was 18,775, and the number in 1913-14 was 17,056. (“English Prisons Today” Brockway, p. 28).

In the House of Lords debate Lord Templewood, who has long been active as a prison reformer, regretted that our “Welfare State” has not dealt with this problem “in a common sense and urgent manner.” He said that though “over the last generation we have had a series of great prison reformers . . . in certain respects, particularly in the matter of accommodation and work, so far from making any progress in a world in which a great deal of progress has been made in other walks of life, we have actually fallen back, I would almost say 50 or 60 years.” (Col. 758.)

He went on:—

“To-day there exists a thing unheard of in the days when I or my predecessors were connected with the Home Office. No fewer than 4,595 prisoners are confined three in a cell; they are shut up in that cell about tea-time in the afternoon, and left there with nothing to do until the following morning. A state of affairs like that would have horrified the great penal reformers of the past, who made our system one of the best in the world.”

Lord Huntingdon thought that something should be done, “not only from the humanitarian or Christian standpoint,” but also from the economic point of view—the cost of prisons is nearly £10 million a year and this could be reduced if the prisoners did more useful work.

He described appalling sanitary conditions which would be a “ disgrace to a Hottentot village.”

Lord Chorley said:—

“There are still in existence jails which were condemned long before the First World War and which are not fit to house swine, let alone human beings.”

Taxing the Rich out of Existence ?

For half a century the Labour Party has been lamenting the existence of the very rich and promising to do something to end, or at least to diminish, inequality of property ownership. The rich themselves and the Tory Party joined with the Labour Party in agreeing that as a fact, whether desirable or not, the rich were disappearing. From time to time, however students of the subject intervene to point out that extermination by taxation had plainly failed and the rich were still with us, not noticeably reduced or inconvenienced.

It is a fact that the concentration of property ownership in the hands of a very small minority has not been materially altered by the ups and downs, war and crises of the past half century.

A special correspondent of the “Times Review of Industry” (April 1955, page 109) has bean analysing the report of the Inland Revenue Department and has drawn some interesting conclusions.

Dealing with duties levied on properties left at death he remarks on the very large proportion of the total payments that came from the small number of large estates: “ This year 97 per cent. of the total duty was paid by 16,514 estates (those over £10,000), and 5,205 estates (those over £25,000) paid 87 per cent.”

The year in question was 1953-4, in which there were in all 71,510 estates that paid duty (estates under £2,000 are not included in these figures as they paid no duty in that year).

The writer of the article had forecast a year ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive less revenue from estate duties. This turned out to be wrong and the Chancellor actually received £10 million more than on the previous year. Part of this increase is attributed to the rise in share prices on the Stock Exchange— “no doubt the rise in stock market values has helped to swell the capital value of estates. . .”

The writer makes an estimate from the official figures of the income and property of the wealthiest group, those with income above £12,000 (before tax) and with estates above £250,000.

He finds that this group (at present numbering about 2,900) have investments worth £1,300 million. The net income of the group (after paying tax) is about £10 million a year whereas the same group are paying out on estate duty some £40 million a year. In spite of this, he writes, “the class is by no means declining in numbers. . .” and note his final comment:—

“No doubt in many instances the high taxation is offset by tax-free capital profits, but even so the steady increase of a class which, in theory, is being taxed out of existence shows the remarkable resilience of capital in a welfare State."

Crime in America

“The crime rate in the United States rose in 1954 for the seventh consecutive year, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reported to-day. Major crimes committed last year numbered 2,267,250.

The statistics, published in the bureau’s annual crime report, showed that the crime rate has increased by 26.7 per cent since 1950, while the population increased by seven per cent, in the same period. On an average day last year an estimated 34 persons were feloniously slain and 256 other felonious assaults were committed; 49 rapes occurred; 3,674 larcenies were committed; 592 cars were stolen; and there were 185 robberies and 1,422 burglaries.” (Manchester Guardian, 26.4.1955.)

Mental Illness Hits One in Twenty

The following is taken from a report in the Manchester Guardian (24 March, 1955) of an address given by Mr. Walter Maclay, of the Ministry of Health, at a Mental Health Research Fund Meeting at the Mansion House on the previous evening:—

“Nearly half of all the institutional beds available for all forms of illness, he said, were, in fact, required for patients suffering from mental illness. Anything from 10 to 30 per cent. of all patients seen in general practice were not suffering from physical illness at all, but from some form of psychotic or neurotic condition. One in 20 of all children born would spend some time in a mental hospital. It was most important in the national interest that more should be found out about the causes of such illness and how to cure and prevent it. Research was going on continuously, but it was not enough—it was the object of the Research Fund to provide more opportunities for such research in related fields and, if possible, to co-ordinate them."

Edgar Hardcastle

Prisoner’s Story (1955)

Book Review from the June 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the summer of 1953 Rupert Croft-Cooke, a novelist by profession, was arrested on a charge of homosexuality. A few months later he appeared before the Quarter Sessions at Lewes, was found guilty on some charges and not guilty on others, and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. Apart from a few days at Brixton he served out his sentence (actually six months, allowing for remission) in Wormwood Scrubs. His book, “The Verdict of You All,” is the story of his experiences there.

Rupert Croft-Cooke, to judge by the scraps of personal information scattered throughout his book, has not been too hardly dealt with by life. Well-educated, much-travelled, a lover of things good to eat and drink, he was living a well-ordered and comfortable existence in the Sussex countryside until he was rudely awakened one night by the village policeman and two detectives. These, after due observance of the usual legal ceremonial, took him off to the local police station, and from then on he found himself in a world he had hardly known existed. “The Verdict of You All” records his reactions to, and observations of, this world into which he was so suddenly and so rudely thrown, an alien world inhabited by beings he had heard about only through the crime stories of newspapers, a world a million miles removed from the bright and comfortable surroundings he had been accustomed to enjoy.

To those who cherish comforting delusions about the wonderful reforms that are supposed to have been wrought in our prisons, this book will come as a shock. The tale told by the author is of a penal system grim, drear, unimaginative, means, and degrading – to prisoner and keeper alike. It tells only of Wormwood Scrubs and Brixton the first a prison for first offenders serving sentences of six months and over, the second for men sentenced to less than six months. Only briefly and occasionally does he make mention of places such as Dartmoor, most notably on the occasion when some of its inmates were sent up the Scrubs to receive their annual visits from relatives unable to make the journey to Princetown. To the author these men conveyed

“by their very appearance and movements, dark horrors suffered, depths of evil and desperation, which the Star prisoners of Wormwood Scrubs had never known.”

Yet the picture he draws of even a Star prison like Wormwood Scrubs is frightening in its grimness; and of Brixton, which he thinks is much worse, he is vitriolic. This is his account of the sight that met him on his entry for the first time into Wormwood Scrubs:–

“A long interior street on each side of which are rows of identical cell doors. The floor of this street is of concrete, the doors are blank and painted a dull cream with formidable black bolts on each and a small eye-hole. The street is a hundred yards long, lit with naked not-too-powerful electric bulbs and running down to iron railings and a gated wall at the far end… There was, as we entered, complete silence in this grim and ugly street and it was hard to realise that behind each of the uniform doors was a man in a cell.”

There are four floors like this, each containing 80 cells. At the level of the first floor is stretched wire-netting to lessen the risk of suicide from those throwing themselves over from the upper floors, and also prevent injury from articles dropped intentionally from above. The author adds:–

“A prison ‘hall’ realises the hopes of its original architect for it is probably the ugliest structure ever conceived by man… From entry to discharge the prisoner never sees anything inanimate which is not positively ugly, and of living things there is nothing on which the eye can bear to dwell, except occasionally the faces of some fellow-prisoners.”

So much for Wormwood Scrubs. His description of Brixton is even more horrifying.

“It would be difficult to imagine and impossible to create a more rank and stagnant breeding-ground of evil than Brixton goal. Life at the Scrubs was not without a certain gloomy dignity; a prisoner could pass his days there with no affront to his manhood and the men he met were often rumbustious sinners with a tale to tell. Here everything was mean and degrading – the very appearance of the place was grimed…

“C Wing, in which most of the convicted men were herded, was a ‘hall’ about half the size of those in the Scrubs, but housed more prisoners, since they were crammed three to a cell. This leads to the most filthy pollution. Imagine an airless cell, scarcely large enough for one man, filled with the bunks, the bodies, the clothes and the chamber-pots of three. If it were an ordinary bedroom or a ship’s cabin it would be monstrously unhygienic, but when it is an almost windowless cell in which men are locked without respite from half-past five in the afternoon to seven o’clock the next morning it becomes foul and pestilential beyond all words…

“The whole place stank. The cells at night were pigsties and the effect of this gloom and neglect on the wretched prisoners was evident. Abject creatures, for the most part they made no attempt to keep their spirits up, or show any of the generous geniality of men suffering together, but grumbled and blasphemed in the filthiest terms, abandoning themselves to the atmosphere of shame and abomination which filled the place like a cold miasma.”

“The Verdict of You All” is a book of highly personal comment and description – one man’s account of his experiences in prison. His account may be true, it may be false, it may be a mixture of the two. Every reader must be his own judge of the category in which it should be placed. The author is a novelist, has naturally a good command of words, can tell his story well. Inevitably, there must lurk a suspicion that harbouring a feeling of injustice (he strenuously denies that he was guilty of the charges brought against him) he may tell the story too well. In spite of himself, indignation may get the better of judgment. Resentment may carry him beyond the limit of accuracy. Situations, conditions, may become over-coloured. In the last analysis, only those who have themselves been subjected to his experiences can confirm or deny his story.

This much, however, can be said: If it is, in fact, an essentially reliable and authentic account of life as it is actually lived in such prisons today, then it is a downright, uncompromising challenge to all the fine words that have been said about the reforms in our penal system. If it is but half true, it is a grim and sorry reflection on the efforts of those reformers who have laboured over the years to improve conditions in our prisons.

Stan Hampson

Voice From The Back: Polluting for profit (2002)

The Voice From The Back Column from the October 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Polluting for profit

The major problems of pollution are caused by the excessive burning of fossil fuels, everyone except the coal and oil lobby agrees. There are alternatives such as wind and solar power; so why aren’t they being developed at the same rate as fossil fuel usage? Simple really. “At present wind power costs between 1.9 and 3.1p a unit, while solar is more than 20p. Conventional generated power sells for between l.1p and 1.3p.” Observer (25 August). Inside a socialist society we won’t be polluting the earth if we have an alternative, but then we would not be producing wealth to make a handful rich but to satisfy human need.

DIY hanging

Clive Fairweather, the outgoing HM Inspector for prisons in Scotland had some figures on suicides in prison that might cheer the “hang-’em, flog-’em” brigade but should chill any compassionate human being. Think of the despair that lies behind a young man taking his own life. Another indictment of the inhumanity of capitalism. “Mr Fairweather told his audience that in the eight years he had been chief inspector of prisons, 170 prisoners had died, yet between 1900 and 1963, only 35 were executed by hanging. 'Bring back hanging? It’s DIY hanging at eight times the rate these days, for our young in prison', he said.” Herald (4 September).

The close circuit society

In the Guardian of 7 September there was a supplement on surveillance in Britain today. It was pretty scary stuff and shows how capitalism is becoming more and more restrictive . “From the moment a worker logs on in the morning to the moment they shut down at night, corporate information *technology departments can watch each and every action they make — which keys they press, which websites they visit, what emails they receive and send . . . Security procedures such as swipe cards on entrances also allow detailed following of employees — if management wants to — of how much time is spent in which parts of a building and, in some workplaces, with cards required for entry to workplace toilets.”

Exporting destruction

As the US and UK leaders claim an attack on Iraq is justified because that country has stocks of “mass destruction weapons” it is worthwhile noting where Iraq was obtaining these weapons from. Surprise, surprise, from the US and the UK. “Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs — which oversees American export policy — reveal that the US under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr. sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia . . . Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxin, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxin can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.” Sunday Herald (8 September).

The Voice of America?

Ann Coulter, an American journalist and broadcaster has written a book “Slander” containing outrageous right wing views. It is subtitled “Liberal Lies About The American Right” In her column in the National Review she put forward her solution to the Middle East problem, quoted in the Sunday Herald Magazine (8 September): “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Voice of America?, let’s hope not; though her book does currently top the New York [Times]  bestsellers list.

Oxfam’s solution to famine

Have you ever given money to Oxfam for them to help out by distributing food during some famine? If so, you may well be surprised by the following news item: "British charity Oxfam today launched a 'coffee rescue plan' urging political and business leaders to destroy surplus stocks and guarantee a fair price for farmers" (Guardian, 19 September).

Oxfam's original name was the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief but it later branched out into being a reformist campaigning organisation, working within the context of capitalism. We have always argued that those who set out to reform capitalism end up accepting its logic. This latest episode proves this point up to the hilt. Capitalism periodically produces crises where "too much" food\ has been produced, a crisis of plenty amidst poverty. It solves such crises) not by distributing the plenty to the poor (that would be against its logic and undermine profits), but by destroying the plenty. This has been a classic illustration of the socialist case against capitalism: that it is a system of production for profit rather than to satisfy human needs. Now OXFAM, an organisation set up to try to distribute a bit of the plenty to some of the poor, has come round to the capitalist solution: destroy the food! Remember that next time they shake a collection tin under your nose.

Voice From The Back: An oil business (2004)

The Voice From The Back Column from the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

An oil business 

It is not just socialists who point out that the present conflict in the Middle East has a basis in the need for oil in modern capitalism. John Chapman, who was a former assistant secretary in the British civil service from 1963-96, expressed similar views in the Guardian (28 July). “Saddam controlled a country at the centre of the Gulf, a region with a quarter of world oil production in 2003, and containing more than 60 percent of the world’s known reserves. With 115bn barrels of of oil reserves, and perhaps as much again in the 90 percent of the country not explored, Iraq has capacity second only to Saudi Arabia. The US in contrast, is the world’s largest net importer of oil. Last year the US Department of energy forecast that imports will cover 70 percent of domestic demand by 2025. By invading Iraq, Bush has taken over the Iraq oil fields, and persuaded the UN to lift production limits imposed after the Kuwait war. Production may rise to 3m barrels and about double 2002 levels.” It is surely no accident that the Bush administration is heavily backed by western oil giants, is it?

 

Another Labour triumph

“The gap between rich and poor has widened since Tony Blair took office, and social class and ethnic background still influence heavily an individuals life chances, a report by the Institute of Public Policy Research, a centre-left think-tank, says” Times (2 August). Is there anybody out there who still imagines that the Labour Party has got anything to do with socialism?

 

A wake up call

The news that HSBC, Britain’s largest bank, rang up record six-month profits of £5.2bn at the same time that they are in the process of cutting 7,500 jobs, of which 4,000 are being transferred to low-wage call and processing centres in Asia brought forth a burst of righteous indignation from a top bank trade union official. “Yesterday’s figures drew condemnation from unions representing HSBC’s employees. Rob O’Neill, Unifi’s National Secretary, said: “We don’t know how HSBC’s directors can sleep at night. Instead of rewarding staff for their part in making HSBC as profitable as it is, the bank is slashing jobs in the UK and exporting more and more work to Asia in an attempt to cut costs” Independent (3 August). We imagine the directors and shareholders will sleep just fine, it is O’Neill who should wake up. The purpose of all capitalist concerns is to make as big a  profit as possible, one of the ways they do that is by cutting costs. If O’Neill imagines the purpose of capitalism is to reward workers he is living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

Crime and punishment (1)

A piece of summary “justice” that even Labour’s tough guy David Blunkett might balk at occurred recently in Russia. “A passenger riding the Moscow Metro without a 20p ticket has been shot by a policeman. The unnamed 29-year-old has been charged with attempted murder. Labourer Rustam Balbekov was shot in the mouth and doctors say he is lucky to be alive . . . The bullet smashed his jaw and went through his neck. Witnesses heard the sergeant say: ‘Do you want to get shot?’ before he opened fire after getting no response” Sky News (4 August). Capitalism just gets madder and madder!

 

Crime and punishment (2)

The dreadful carnage keeps increasing in Britain’s women prisons. “Officers in Holloway prison are cutting down five women a day from nooses, the Guardian has learned, and recently saved one inmate six times in a single night. But these women are the lucky ones. Already this year 11 female prisoners in English and Welsh prisons have apparently taken their own lives and campaigners fear that this year will see the greatest number of female jail deaths since records began . . . At the heart of the problem is overcrowding. The female prison population, like that of men, has soared in the past 10 years from 1,811 in 1994 to 4,475 at the start of last month” Guardian (9 August). What a society capitalism has become. Shoplifters committing suicide!

Prison in "Socialist" England (1969)

From issue number 1 (1969) of The Western Socialist

Among the various reform movements in the countries of the so-called free world, there is one which is devoted to improving the lot of prisoners. It is, by its very nature, doomed to be a Cinderella among reforms. After all, only a small minority of people are liable to be in gaol and so most people don't tend to get too worked up about the matter. “If they don't like prison conditions, let them go straight” is the view of the average “free” worker when taxed with the matter. Still more important, no doubt. is the sad fact that there are not enough people in gaol at any one time to make them into a sizeable vote for politicians to woo with promises of better things to come. In England, for example, the various parties vie with one another from time to time in wooing tenants and sometimes bring in legislation which may well make life difficult for landlords whose votes are naturally less important than those of tenants. (It is a well-known feature of capitalism that from time to time, the interests of one group of capitalists will be sacrificed for the common good of the capitalists as a whole). But in most countries, prisoners, besides being few in numbers, do not even have a vote to sell.

The press cries out 

Every so often, however, the papers have a splash about the degrading hardships of prison conditions. There has recently been not so much an amelioration of conditions as a distinct worsening largely due to the tightening of security in many prisons owing to the increasing number of escapes. This feature has itself been caused partly by the increasingly technical organization of crime which can sometimes engineer spectacular escapes and partly because of the desperate need to escape felt by prisoners who are the victims of savage thirty-year sentences now handed out by the courts for crimes like espionage, or the “Great Train Robbery,” where capitalist society felt the need to avenge itself on workers who aped their betters by stealing a couple of million pounds in one go.

When the papers are in this mood it is natural that publicity will be given to the few prisoners who are able to express articulately their opinions of the conditions they endured whilst serving their sentences. Equally naturally, such educated prisoners are readily found in the ranks of those convicted of political crimes. (It would, perhaps, be a little misleading to use the term “political prisoners” as this conjures up the image of people like Sinyavsky and Daniel in Russia, serving savage terms and being treated with rigorous harshness, not for defying the law of the land but merely for daring to exercise so-called constitutional rights.) So that one readily expected a paper like the liberal “Guardian” to feature letters from ex-convicts of this ilk when the subject was in fashion a few months ago. And it is perhaps worth studying some features of two letters which were prominently featured in that paper.

Don't say "hypocrite" in Church 

The writers were Nicolas Walter and George Clark, both of them well-known members of Protest Movements, a side of reformism that has become prominent in many countries in recent years. Walter's imprisonment is worth a mention in itself as the conviction in his case was a particularly nasty business. He attended a church service where the lesson (on the subject of peace) was read by Harold Wilson, the pseudo-socialist Prime Minister and George Brown, at that time his deputy. Being concerned at their government's continued support of the American war effort in Vietnam, they felt that it was rather hypocritical of these gentlemen to preach peace in church on the eve of a Labour Party conference. And in England, the mother-country of free speech, Walter and his friends were convicted and sentenced merely for calling hypocrites by their proper names, in church. Even Labour leaders could not have secured convictions if they had been called such names in the street. (Nor could they have sued for damages in a civil court because Walter would have no difficulty in convincing a jury that “hypocrite" was a true description. And truth is a good defence to slander In law.) But it seems there is some ancient law regarding sacrilege which is almost never used; and this was good enough for Labour leaders to get their revenge. It is doubtful if avowed capitalist leaders, like the Conservatives, would have dared to proceed on such lines.

The letters themselves follow the usual pattern that one knows so well. All reformers have no difficulty in showing the evils of their pet aversion. Walter himself, a well-known Campaigner for Nuclear Disarmament, would have no difficulty in telling a tale of horror about Hiroshima any more than here about prison life. But in the letter from Clark there was a passage which would be of particular interest to socialists. “Since working in Notting Hill (a slummy area of London), I am struck by the similarity of conditions which exist . . . People are living in rooms scarcely larger than a cell in the Scrubs. The general atmosphere is one of all-pervasive horror . . ."

The Prison of Capitalism 

So here is one prisoner who has spotted that, for many workers, the harsh conditions of ordinary working class life, even in a great modern capital city like London (so much for the theory now so fashionable that the harshness of poverty belongs only to the so-called under-developed countries), are but a reflection of life in prison. Needless to say, there is nothing new or surprising in all this. It would indeed be surprising were things other than they are under capitalism. Where the mass of humanity is regarded as primarily raw material for producing profits for a small minority, it follows naturally that their living conditions should be less than pleasant in the great prison which capitalism makes of the world.

Unfortunately, the conclusion that Clark comes to as a result of his experience is rather less than convincing. He appeals to the Home Secretary Mr. Callaghan (in whose sphere prison administration lies) to consider: “What kind of life are they going to return to?" Can anyone really imagine that the very man who was recently, as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of devaluation, one of the foremost managers of the interests of the British capitalist class and who had the whole population following the monthly trade returns, balance of payments, gold stock etc. with as avid interest as football pools (the workers' key to the gates of paradise), could such an obviously fraudulent socialist possibly do anything to alter the conditions of life which are part and parcel of the present system of society? One has merely to ask the question for the very notion to seem ludicrous. And it is sad to see an articulate, feeling member of the working class seemingly getting near to the heart of the matter and then waffling away into such hopelessly unrealistic attempts at solution. And to think that we socialists are the ones who are often called unrealistic or utopian. Could anything be more utopian than to hope for sweetness and light among the animals whilst leaving the jungle intact? And how ironically futile to appeal to the humanitarianism of these “socialist" managers of capitalism to alleviate conditions in prisons when it is precisely under their rule that the conditions have been made so much worse.

Contrary to the opinions of some misguided critics, we socialists are as pleased as the next man when reforms are instituted which achieve some amelioration in the conditions of capitalism. It makes us a little happier if we hear that the powers that be are less brutal in their treatment of prisoners, for example. But the pathetic attitude of people like Clark who fondly imagine that it is possible, while retaining the degrading social set-up which he himself sees produces conditions for “free” workers that are little better than those endured by prisoners, to achieve anything but the merest superficial advantage (usually illusory, invariably transitory and liable to be swept away by the next government or even the same one), this attitude sometimes makes even a case-hardened socialist scratch his head and wonder if it is possible for people to see the simple, glaring truth: which is that a society whose whole ethos is the production of profit out of the sweat and degradation of most human beings, can never be reformed into a human society. Humanity is imprisoned by capitalism. When that prison is broken down, then, and only then, will the prisons within the prison themselves disappear.

L. E. Weidberg, 

S.P.G.B.

Prisoners of capital (2004)

Editorial from Issue 19 of the World Socialist Review

Millions of human beings around the world are forcibly detained, their liberties removed by governmental authorities. Anyone who takes seriously the immediate potential for replacing capitalism with a world of real abundance and freedom knows already that the great majority of crimes are either crimes against property or involve the illegal trafficking of property — or are the likely direct result of living the restricted and stressful life of a wage- slave.

While there are those who justify the existence of laws on moral and ideological grounds, the defenders of the status quo must always argue their case referring to a swashbuckler’s haven of spurious doctrines, some of them philosophical (“free will”), theological (“good and evil”), psychological (“mental illness”) or political (“justice”). And yet the wasting away of countless millions of human lives remains a potent critique of a society of private property, as much as the maltreatment and exploitation of animals or children in our society. The sheer hypocrisy and failure of the law is inevitably the feature subject of this issue.

It is illegal to kill one’s fellows in a fit of rage but perfectly legal to kill fellow workers from other countries to satisfy the ruling class’s need to protect or assert its economic or political spheres of influence in another part of the world. One must not steal, say both the law and the Bible, and yet it is perfectly legal and morally acceptable to rob working people every day of the wealth they produce above their wages, distilling the high life for the greedy and lazy few out of the gradated deprivations visited on the majority, stymying people’s efforts to provide enough for themselves and their children. The subject of prisons goes to the very heart of our so-called civil society, putting to shame the naive suggestion that we live in a democratic society. The truth is that a society of privilege must be protected by the brute powers of the law. We are not allowed to enjoy more wealth than the crumbs we are permitted in our wages or welfare income, and anybody who attempts this in our society will be handcuffed and taken away.

Make no mistake about it, the lack of freedom inside the prison cells directly mirrors the lack of freedom for working people outside them. On the outside you will be forced to work, unless you want to live in a cardboard box and seek food in a garbage can; you will be forced to accept your wages or salary for the work you do, forced to accept the nature of the job, forced to spend vast hours of your life even outside work just preparing for it and getting to and from it. You will be forced to put up with the other side effects of capitalism — its pollution, its stress, its shoddy goods, its wars, and the fact that billions must starve to death, including tens of millions of children each year. Your “free” time itself will be carved up into the various consumer “entertainments” and “pleasures” available for the right price. What is truly yours in capitalism is debatable.

Your fate and that of the prisoners who languish behind bars every day are inseparably intertwined. Indeed, inside or outside prison, we will never be free until we establish a society in which humans come first and the production of wealth is oriented toward meeting our needs and those of our children — one in which we are no longer forced to work in order to be adequately fed, clothed and housed, and in which the economic priorities of the rich no longer send poor and uneducated youth to die abroad, or condemn the planet to a slow death by self-poisoning. When property is owned in common, we will find ways as a community to better meet our needs for wealth, creativity, decision-making, love, rest, productivity, and freedom.

We challenge the myth of the present era that some people are good and others evil, or that crime is an entirely moral issue. We maintain as scientific socialists that behavior must be understood in its social context: that of a society divided into two classes, one owning the vast proportion of wealth without working for it, and the other producing all the wealth while owning but a miniscule proportion of it.

Until the vast majority of us are liberated from the prison of being workers, we must denounce all the moralistic assumptions and shoddy social analyses of our public behaviors that lead so many of us to be locked away behind bars. We will on such a glorious day liberate our brothers and sisters in jail, and we urge them now to join us in the worldwide project of designing a system that promotes for real the enjoyment of the abundant wealth and freedom that are our birthright. 

News in Review: Business as usual (1966)

The News in Review column from the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Business as usual

The first job of a new Labour government, after the victory champagne has been drunk and the rosettes put away with all the other mementoes of an election campaign which was full of hasty promises, is to assure everybody that nothing will be done to disturb the capitalist social system which the millions who voted Labour—not to mention the other millions who voted Conservative, Liberal, etc—so ardently support.

So it was that on the first Sunday after the election Mr. Harold Lever, who is. Labour MP for Manchester Cheetham, rushed into print in The Observer.

He opened his article like this:

Labour’s decisive victory has aroused anxiety in the City and large areas of the business world. In my view all these fears are unjustified and need to be promptly dispelled . . .

Mr. Lever then commenced to tick off, one by one, the fears which these business men who have not taken the trouble to observe a Labour government in action might unreasonably have thought about what Mr. Wilson will do to capitalism.

Nationalisation? Clause Four? Economic planning? Taxation? Investment incentives? The Labour Member dealt with them all, and ended on a justifiably hopeful note:

It is to be hoped that we will enter this difficult period without damaging and needless misunderstandings between Labour and the world of business.

Now this must have been very bracing to any capitalist who troubled to read it. And his satisfaction must have been even higher if he also read an article on the following day by William Davis, the Financial Editor of The Guardian, which reviewed the prospects for profits under a Labour government, and ended with the conclusion:

Looking ahead two or three years . . . there is good reason to believe that the upward trend in dividends will be resumed.

There should be no need to point out that trade unionists, whose unions often do so much to help Labour get power, cannot look to the immediate future with the same optimism as businessmen. And no Labour MP has yet tried to assure them on this point.

Hypocrisy over Rhodesia

As the world knows, Mr. Harold Wilson is having quite a fight with the Smith government in Rhodesia.

Mr. Wilson takes his stand (in public, at any rate) on moral grounds. The Smith government, he says, offends against all accepted standards of conduct by its racialist policies. He also complains for the benefit of those who are not impressed by an attack on racialism, that Mr. Smith is a rebel against the Queen.

The world also knows that the British government has tried to impose a blockade on Rhodesia and that there have been attempts, of varying success, to break the blockade.

There need be no surprise that these attempts are justified also by moral arguments, although of a different kind from those of Mr. Wilson.

The blockade runners talk about the freedom of the seas, and about the sanctity of commerce. This is just as Rhodesia's situation is a grand opening for a free-lance oil company and shipping magnate to make some money. This is the basic reason for the attempts at breaking the embargo; the justification comes after.

What of the future? Speculation has its dangers, but the chances are that Mr. Smith will find plenty of other companies willing to cash in on the situation and run the risks of defying the embargo.

Probably, too, there will be undercover outlets for Rhodesia’s tobacco duce, to replace those closed by the sanctions programme.

International trade is a matter of profit and loss and while it can be influenced for a time by political considerations the basic conditions of capitalism will in the end dominate.

Mr. Wilson has publicly said that he would win an easy victory in Rhodesia. He would not be the first leader of capitalism to fail lo understand the basic realities of a situation he is trying to control.

Prison reform

One of the problems which capitalism faces over sending people to prison for offending against the system’s property laws is that while they are inside they may forget what it means lo be docile, industrious members of the working class.

To discourage this, there is a veritable army of probation officers, welfare societies, clergymen and other soul-savers who are only too willing to help the released prisoner back into capitalist society.

They remind him that he is after all a worker; they talk about his making a constructive contribution to society; they spare no effort to find him a job and so help him from one form of imprisonment into another.

Now the reformers are going even further.

An electrical component firm in the Midlands, is collaborating with the authorities of a new prison there to get the convicts working on the assembly of their products.

The firm is not, of course, doing this purely as a money making venture; they claim that it is a social experiment.

The prisoners will be able to earn at most 11s. a week at this work—for a full time, forty hour week on piecework.

This is the first time a closed prison in Britain has undertaken work of this kind. The governor has made it clear that the assembly line in the prison will be just like one in a factory outside:

We shall encourage prisoners to produce as much as possible as efficiently as possible.

Thus the prisoners will have no excuse for feeling unsettled when they are let out at the end of their sentence. The disciplines, the exploitation — and the life will have continued while they were inside.

Presumably this is intended to make the men more amenable to their lot under capitalism. Has any reformer considered whether it may have the opposite effect?

Running Commentary: Miracle or Myth (1987)

The Running Commentary column from the October 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Miracle or Myth

When all is said and done, the reason British workers are encouraged into awestruck admiration towards Japan is because it is where the workforce are supposed to submit happily to their own intensely organised, single minded exploitation. Japanese workers. we are told, don't come out on strike; they wouldn't know a demarcation dispute if one came up and punched the clock beside them in the morning; Japanese managers wear the same work clothes, eat in the same canteen, do the same physical jerks, as the workers on the assembly lines. A Japanese company doesn't just employ its workers, it operates like a second family to them, taking care of them all their lives.

This, to take the argument further, is what has made Japan the second richest country in the world. Considering their defeat in the last war. it's nothing short of an economic miracle. Why don't British workers follow the example — kick out the trouble-making union leaders and learn to love working hard for the shareholders?

Well one reason is. perhaps, the evidence that Japan is not a land of unrelieved contentment. For example the suicide rate there has been rising dramatically during recent years. The figure for 1986 was the highest ever and averaged at one suicide every 20 minutes; 55 per cent were by people aged between 40 and 64. The reason, according to the National Police Agency, is ". . . the stresses of Japan's competitive society".

In 1985 the Japanese Ministry of Labour found that almost half the absences of more than one week due to sickness were caused by some stress related illness. One in 30 office employees needed treatment for mental disorder such as schizophrenia, depression or alcoholism.

It is no coincidence that these social ailments are appearing in such strength just as Japan s economy hits trouble in world markets. This has posed extra problems for managers and executives — the higher paid, higher stressed workers and many of them have taken their own lives rather than face the reality that, for millions of people, the Japanese economic miracle is a myth. It is not the Japanese workers who are the second richest in the world but the capitalist class there — the parasites who own the means of life.

Japan has been described by a psychiatrist as a country of ". . . 121 million people . . . ruthlessly competing with each other while desperately pretending to be co-operative". Does that sound like a place of secure happiness? Does it sound like a miracle of prosperity and mutual help? Or does it sound like the capitalist system which workers know and hate all over the world, all the time — but writ large for its distress and destructiveness.

Release

Douglas Hurd is the latest of the Home Secretaries who have declared their intention to bring an end to overcrowding in the prisons. Nearly twenty years ago the "liberal" Roy Jenkins warned that a prison population of 40,000 would be "intolerable"; the fact that recently it exceeded 50,000 and continues to hover around that level says something about the tolerant nature of Home Secretaries, not to mention the prisoners and prison staff. During his time at the Home Office Leon Brittan — who set something of a record by managing to upset the police, prison officers and prisoners pretty well all at once — promised to end the overspill of remand prisoners into police station cells. Yet until last month hundreds of prisoners were spending months crammed into those gloomy, insanitary conditions, at the end of which they may have been acquitted of the charges against them or given a non-custodial sentence.

Hurd's "solution" to the overcrowding has been to slash the sentences imposed on minor offenders so that anyone getting twelve months or less is released after half their sentence instead of after two thirds as before. As a result nearly 4000 prisoners were abruptly ejected from the gaols of Britain during August.

Leon Brittan did not approve: "a sad development for British justice" he called it. But what need was there for him — and for anyone who suffered nightmares at the prospect of hordes of dangerous thugs roaming the streets — are social inadequates, which means inadequate not only to keep up in capitalism's rat race but also inadequate in the crimes they commit in their efforts to keep up. For many of these the exact date of release matters little for within a fairly short time the seemingly inexorable cycle of destitution, crime and prison — perhaps speeded up by addiction or alcoholism -— will begin again. One authoritative estimate says that 80 per cent of short term prisoners emerge from gaol to face acute housing problems — which must make even Leon Brittan wonder why they should want to come out.

Hurd's reform is the latest in a long list which have failed to stop the rise of the prison population. There have been suspended sentences; community service; bail hostels and parole, to name only a few. In many cases there is little doubt that courts have adjusted their sentences upwards to compensate for such measures and the expectation is that this will happen to take account of Hurd's half remission.

No reform will affect, let alone solve, this problem. The roots of crime lie in the very system which needs a state machine with its police, judicial and penal organs, to protect the property right of the ruling class. No Home Secretary could ever have —- or want — a brief to do anything about that.

Success

Rudolf Hess' dramatic flight to Britain during the last war was at first met with a sort of stunned optimism. Did this mean that the Nazi leadership was breaking up. that in spite of the fact that Panzers had swept over half of the Continent Germany was on the verge of defeat? But this was soon followed by an official reticence; one theory about this is that the British government decided it was best to devalue the whole episode by labelling Hess as mad, placing him in the "care" of a squad of psychiatrists. At all events, the episode saved Hess from the death sentence at Nuremburg although what would have happened to him if the war had gone the other way. . .

The most popular theory about the reasons for Hess' flight is that he was trying to negotiate an Anglo/German alliance against Russia, which was about to be attacked by Germany. Of course such a proposal was bound to fail — at least at that time, when the British ruling class were in no doubt about the source of the principal threat to their standing and where their interests therefore lay.

It is a different situation today. Although he was not responsible for it, Hess may well have looked with an ironic satisfaction on the present unity between Britain and West Germany, directed as it is against Russia. Over the past forty-odd years the basic interests of capitalism have remained unchanged but their elements have been re-arranged, rather like a kaleidoscope, so that some countries which were once allies are now enemies and vice versa. Capitalism's history is littered with such changes, notably in the case of relations between the British and the German ruling classes.

These changes bring obvious problems to the makers of national propaganda. The wartime alliance between Britain and Russia was represented by both sides as a unity in defence of democracy. Now the alliance between Britain and Germany, aimed against Russia, is justified with the same reason. The only way to make any sense of this is through grasping the fact that wars — including 1939/45 are not fought to save democracy. In the last war the nature of Nazi Germany enabled the British propaganda machine to persuade many workers to join the war effort under the delusion that they were fighting for some worthwhile, human objective and to conceal the truth — that the war was fought to protect the economic interests of their national class of exploiting parasites.

The essential cynicism and lies of capitalism are rarely revealed more clearly than in wartime. One thing about the flight of Rudolf Hess is that from beginning to end it was subject to this treatment. Even his death was a matter of international wrangling, of one ruling class trying for advantage over the others. As a one-time political leader himself, he could have asked for no more appropriate end.

News in Review: Mr. Robens (1960)

The News in Review column from the August 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Robens

The Labour Party rank and file and the Mineworkers’ leaders have received with mixed feelings the news that Mr. Robens, a Labour Party leader, is to be elected Chairman of the National Coal Board. The majority of the Mine Workers’ leaders at their Conference at Llandudno were vociferous in their attack on the proposed decentralization that is now being discussed by the Management side of the industry. Mr. Sam Watson however suggested that Robens' name should be kept out of the discussion as the Conference should have confidence in a man who has spent his life in the working class movement, and he should be preferred to a retired General, Admiral or a Tory.

Putting aside all the discussions on the rights or wrongs of the appointment, one should view the set-up in its true perspective. After all, the retiring Chairman, Sir James Bowman, ex-Mineworkers’ leader, has been a party to the closing of uneconomic pits for at least the last two years. In fact, the East Fife coalfields of Scotland have become almost a depressed area, and this year it is proposed to close another 40 pits. And he also spent his life in the “working class movement.” With all the changes that will have to take place in the industry, it is important that the Chairman should have some understanding of the running of it and also some understanding of the best approach to the union.

Mr. Robens is undoubtedly a good choice from the Board’s point of view. Firstly, he has the association with trade unions as an ex-official of a union and Labour M.P. and also as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power in the Labour Government. He clearly has a knowledge of the administrative side of the industry. So, to sum it up, Mr. Macmillian has appointed himself a good chairman, and Mr. Robens has got £10,000 a year. What, of course is not mentioned by the Press is that nationalisation is just another form of capitalism and whoever is chairman of the N.C.B., his job is to run the coalmines and make them pay.

Cuba

Until recently, America has been paying inflated prices for Cuban sugar for the privilege of refining and marketing oil in Cuba. The current fracas was touched off by the American proposal to limit imports of Cuban sugar. As to be expected, the old imperialist game of fishing in troubled waters is being played with great gusto by the Soviet Union. Their agreement to supply crude oil to Cuba will serve the dual purpose of getting rid of some of the surplus oil that is steadily accumulating in the Caucasus and getting one foot firmly stamped down on America's doorstep. Undoubtedly, having the “enemy” so close to the American mainland will upset the U.S. defence system. The Cuban dictator, Dr. Castro, is taking full advantage of the situation and whether America will tolerate this remains for the moment a matter of conjecture. Only one thing is certain, Whatever the outcome, the poverty stricken peasants and workers of Cuba will remain the poverty stricken peasants and workers of Cuba.

Japan in Turmoil

From recent events in Japan it would appear that the more help one gets the less grateful one becomes. When it is considered that Japan’s economic recovery was primarily due to U.S. assistance and America’s need for overseas military bases, one would have thought Uncle Sam’s representative, Mr. Eisenhower, would have had no difficulty in a courtesy call to a “ great sister democracy.” The visit was to have been marked by the signing of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty which would extend the Japanese agreement to U.S. military bases. Despite the precautions taken (which included the President’s “ bullet-proof bubble-top car,” 25,000 police, 2,000 firemen, 38 fire engines, 15 ambulances and four radio cars), the trip was called off.

We are not particularly concerned with the reasons for the cancellation of the visit. It is certain that considering the nature of the mass demonstrations, many of the Japanese have memories of the consequences of military alliances, particularly since it is the only country which has had experience of nuclear warfare and its effects. The point must be made, however, that mere demonstrations against the effects will not solve the problems facing the Japanese people. The history of capitalism is littered with broken treaties and alliances. The Japanese capitalist class whom Prime Minister Kishi represents, and who have benefited greatly by their close relations with America and its enormous post-war loans, have every interest in establishing and developing once again their so-called “defensive forces.” These armed forces and the fact that Japan is the most highly industrialised power in Asia with a dearth of natural resources and an increasing population, will ensure more success in their demands for greater “freedom of action” and the usual demand for a more independent “foreign policy” which in capitalist terms means the rat-race for a share of the world’s markets. To the Japanese working class we suggest that treaty or no treaty, they have still got capitalism and the constant threat of another holocaust, nuclear or otherwise.

The Labour Party

The decline of the Labour Party since its 1945 election success has now reached a level that has caused some speculation in the Press as to whether the Party is finished as a political force In their articles on the subject, the writers usually attribute the troubles of the Labour Party to the lack of unity within its ranks. In capitalist political circles, unity is an expedient for winning elections and not a factor brought about by an understanding and acceptance of basic principles. How often in the past has the SPGB been urged by critics to unite with the various capitalist left-wing parties as a means to further the cause of Socialism? This despite the fact that the political outlook of the parties are in direct opposition.

The present dilemma of the Labour Party arises out of the apathy of the working class towards policies which sufficed to lure the workers into returning a Labour Government in 1945, but failed to deliver the goods. The arguments ranging round Clause 4 show that the main plank in the Labour Party’s policy—nationalisation—has been tried and found wanting as a solution to the workers’ problems.

Homes—at a price

Are you desperately searching for a flat? Are you dissatisfied with your present housing conditions? Do you feel perhaps that you would like to improve upon your existing living quarters? Do not delay, but instantly get in touch with Ralph Pay & Taylor, agents for builders Rush & Tompkins (absolutely no connection with Slapiton & Leavitt of Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist fame), who are just about to start building a block of 12 luxury flats and a penthouse in Hyde Park Gardens with splendid views across Hyde Park Evening Standard (30/6/60). The flats will sell for about £40,000. However, if you’re interested in the penthouse, which will cost more, you’d better put your skates on, because Mr. Whitney Straight, deputy Chairman of Rolls-Royce, is understood to have first refusal.

Nationalisation and Profits

A little simple arithmetic gives the game away. Last year, the British Transport Commission piled up what they call a working deficit of £12.6 millions. But this deficit was declared after taking account of the fixed interest which the Commission must pay on its stock. This stock, of course, replaced private shares many of which had not paid a dividend for some time before the nationalisation of the railways and other transport undertakings by the Labour Government. The fixed interest charges, with other central expenses, came to £42 millions. Now £12.6 millions away from £42 millions leaves £29.4 millions. And that is the profit which the Transport Commission actually made last year. It is fairly safe to assume that no privately owned railway—or any other company—which made £29 millions, would deliberately land themselves in the red by paying £42 millions out in interest. But that is precisely what British Transport Commission—like many other nationalised industries—have done. Which is an indication that, whatever nationalisation may be, it is not a kick in the teeth for the shareholders.

Clean Sweep

Hoovers have something of a reputation for American business ruthlessness. This was a popular explanation for their recent declaration that 800 of their workers were to be sacked as redundant. It was certainly common among the two and a half thousand Hoover workers who struck in protest at the proposed sackings. Hoovers blamed the redundancy on to the hire-purchase restrictions which the government had just imposed. But that is only part of the story. In fact, orders for products like washing machines had been falling for some time before the restrictions came on; production had started to decline well before the last Budget. In addition, foreign competition has been strong, as a glance in the window of any electrical goods shop will reveal. Hoovers estimate that 10 per cent of the washing machines and 8 per cent, of the vacuum cleaners sold in this country in 1959 were imported.

This could mean that last year’s boom in what are called the durable consumer goods industries has blown out—and Hoovers, who benefited so extraordinarily from it, have been the first to suffer. There is one other point worth noticing. Hoovers employ some expensive brains so that they can be forewarned against slumps. The company’s last Annual Report said that 1960 would be “. . . another satisfactory year although not at the same level as 1959." This is not the first economists’ forecast to be upset by . the inherent anarchies of capitalist society.

Inside Prison

Recently, the Home Office announced the Government’s plan to spend £12m. over the next three years on a new prison building programme. It is hoped that the new prisons and other penal-institutions will ease the present need to incarcerate thousands of prisoners three to a cell.

One feature of the new buildings that has been claimed as a step forward is the proposal to build lower perimeter walls.. In future these will be concrete walls only 6 ft. in height though just within these walls will be an inner 12 ft. chain fence surmounted by barbed wire. But for the most part, prisoners will continue to be confined within punishment houses, such as Wandsworth, Brixton, Reading, Strangeways and Dartmoor, all jails many years old.

A great deal has been made of these proposals and they have been taken as the policy of an enlightened administration, but in fact they are further evidence of the Government’s commitment to dealing with offenders against propertied society with repressive punishments. In perspective, prisons are a horrible scar across the face of modern society filled with the worst failures of our cruelly competitive social system, persons who in the main start out with enormous handicaps of ignorance and poverty. At best prisoners are robbed of all dignity and locked up in degrading circumstances. At worst they are starved on a diet of bread and water, sometimes flogged and occasionally have their necks broken on the scaffold.

A basic hypocrisy of capitalism is that it legalises the exploitation of the mass of mankind and supports the social privilege of the propertied class. The individual is usually held responsible for crime and very few suggest as the cause the failure of our own society. When all men are elevated to the dignity of an equal relationship in regard to wealth, the rebellious act of crime and the irrational institutions of punishment will not exist.