Prisons: a tool of capital

Author: 
Daniel Randall

With proposed government reforms set to increase privatisation within the British prison service, and with prison officers taking illegal strike action in recent years, the issue of what attitude socialists should take to prisons, incarceration and capitalist "justice" more widely has come to the fore. Solidarity's Daniel Randall discussed some of the issues with Joe Black of the Campaign Against Prison Slavery, an activist group fighting for prisoners' rights from an abolitionist perspective.

Further reading: Interview with Brian Caton, former leader of the Prison Officers Association
Interview with Steve Gillan, POA General Secretary
A brief article on the 2007 POA strikes
A Solidarity article on the prison system from 2006, including an interview with a Basque political prisoner

DR: Tell us something about your campaign; what are your aims? How do you organise?

CAPS was formed in 2002 by ex-prisoners, prisoners families and a number of groups involved in prisoner support and solidarity to campaign against forced labour in prisons generally and the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme (IEPS) in particular, the system of rewards and punishments, brought in in the aftermath of the Strangeways prisoner rebellion and the Woolf Report inquiry into it, a system designed to ensure control over and the compliance of the prison population.

The campaign was initially based on an affiliations and subscriptions model to try and encourage trade union participation in the campaign. However, apart from a handful of union branches and the odd trades council, there was little interest and the TUC itself was “continuing to develop its policy on prison labour” and proved a dead end. This was of no surprise as trade union leaders like Derek Simpson (Amicus) was calling prisoners “the scum of the earth” at the time (in reference to Aramark moving its prison canteen warehouse and packing work into prisons, resulting in his members losing their jobs).

Our focus then changed to challenging the firms like Aramark that were directly involved in the exploitation of prisoner labour. The high street hardware shop chain Wilkinsons was chosen as a high profile target, with regular pickets and leafleting outside stores. Parallel to this was the building of our online database of firms who use Contract Services, the prisons industries arm that deals with workshops production and activities for private companies. This relied initially on prisoners and ex-prisoners coming forward with this information which necessitated getting news of the campaign directly to prisoners, which was difficult in the early days.

This proved easier in Scotland, partly from the smaller centralised nature of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) but also because we had SPS employees providing us with information on the firms using workshops in the 11 Scottish prisons. The Prison Service in England and Wales (HMPS) proved a much harder nut to crack because labour contracting is decentralised, with individual governors in the 133 public and 11 private prisons having a great deal of autonomy on say wages paid within the overall IEPS structure (they are called directors in private nicks and are even more of a law unto themselves). This has made the system much more difficult to crack, especially with the use of Freedom of Information request until very recently, but that’s a story for some other time.

DR: How much of an issue is slave-labour (or near-slave-labour) in British prisons? Are you confronted with a preconception that it's a "foreign" problem, confined to third-world prisons?

How much of a issue slave labour in UK prisons is is a bit of a moot point; everyone is affected by it but, because of the widespread lack of solidarity amongst prisoners, which is in large part due to the effects IEPS has had on prisoners, – something I’ll return to later – there is little concerted opposition to it. Prisoners complain and often rebel on an individual level but that’s about it.

Maybe I should explain how the system works and why it is akin to slavery. There are only a limited number of jobs available for prisoners – cleaning, kitchens, laundry and the various prison workshops, which make everything from prisoners’ socks and y-fronts to their cell furniture and doors and bars – enough for only a third of all prisoners and these tend to be concentrated in the training prisons. Therefore the possession of, and hard work in, a job can be used as a reward for good behaviour and compliance with the prison regime. This is the essence of the IEPS. Almost everything from the right to smoke, extra visits, phone calls and letters, to wearing ones own clothes or the right to hire an in-cell T.V. All are earned privileges, as are the different wage levels for any job given. All these can be taken away for non-compliance, such as refusing to work.

Then there are the additional punishments available under Prison Rules, which are invoked for things such as refusal to work. Prisoners have no choice of job or even attendance of education classes; of whether they work or not. Hence the slavery element and wages can range from a basic £4 for a 32-hour week up to a small number of jobs in private prisons that can earn £20 plus, only for the select well-behaved few. The average wage is around £8-9, depending on how one works it out. Some jobs are in Contract Service workshops doing mostly low skill assembly and packaging work for private companies.

And if consciousness of the issue of the compulsion element in prison labour is low inside prison, it is even worse outside where the ‘all prisoners are scum’ attitude is even more prevalent than it is amongst prisoners themselves. So I would say that no one cares whether it is a UK or foreign problem. Nobody worries about their cheap tools that finds their way into High Street poundshops are made by a Chinese prison labourer or that that pack of cheap screws that they’ve just bought in a DIY store was packaged by a British prisoner earning 40p an hour.

Unfortunately, the tabloids’ attitude to prisoners is almost universal, even amongst so-called radical groups and those ostensibly dedicated to promoting working class solidarity and struggle.

DR: Are conventional worker-organising responses possible in the context of prison labour? How can prisoners forced to work for little or no pay organise?

I’ve already mentioned the general lack of prisoner solidarity, both inside and outside prisons. The lack of solidarity between prisoners can firmly be put down to the change in prison culture post-Strangeways. To that end, the government’s twisting of Woolf’s proposal of a compact between prison and prisoner into IEPS has been successful in putting down resistance in UK prisons, that and the inevitable effects of the Thatcherite attack on idea of society in general.

In the past organisations like PROP (Preservation of the Rights of Prisoners) and, to a lesser extent, RAP (Radical Alternatives to Prison) have helped prisoners organise and resist the imposition of repressive prison regimes but this sort of organisation is much more difficult nowadays. For a start, the prison system is so much bigger; prisoners in different prisons are prevented from communicating with each other, let alone organise. The latest attempt to do so is the Association of Prisoners (AoP), which CAPS has been working with on a number of issues. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been things like organised work strikes but they have been few and far between and prisoners are usually forced into individual protests.

Up until recently there has been a de facto ban on prisoners organising. The passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 put paid to that, protecting as it does the right to freedom of assembly and association. The AoP have sought to take advantage of that but the Prison Service’s response has been to try and limit that association to individual prisons and then only with a keyholder (governor or screw) in charge, rendering it largely meaningless. The AoP have just sought to challenge that restriction with a letter to the Director General of the Prison Service. What effect the outcome to this will have on the ability of prisoners to organise is difficult to say, but it will no doubt be a long drawn-out struggle as the Prison Service will seek to maintain “good order or discipline” i.e. control, at all costs.

DR: Do you see yourself as part of the "abolitionist" movement? Presumably some people would argue that fighting for reforms around the specific issue of prison slavery cedes ground to the idea that prisons should exist, just operate more humanely/"fairly". (I don't agree with this argument myself or think it's implied by your campaign; I'm just playing devil's advocate.) What are your thoughts?

CAPS has always argued it case from an explicitly abolitionist standpoint, its supporters have been largely drawn from anti-prison groups and it has mainly worked with abolitionist organisations like No More Prison and CoRe (Communities of Resistance). We of course have had links with prison reform organisation such as the Prison Reform Trust and the Association of Members of Independent Monitoring Boards, some no doubt because we challenge their positions and reformist organisations always seek to co-opt that which they find challenging.

There has always been an argument used against single issue campaigns that they detract from the wider struggle but, like many such campaigns, the aim of CAPS is to focus on one area of capitalist society in order to show up the inherent contradictions in the system. And arguing for an end to compulsion in prison work and education, for proper training and skills learning rather than, as you put it, near-slave-labour, is in no way buying into the ‘Prison Works’ ideology.

For example, our efforts to highlight the situation in Scottish prisons, naming-and-shaming the companies involved and forcing them to cancel contracts in large number because the feared ‘bad publicity’, thereby showing how little pride they really had in working with prisoners. This has had a direct financial effect on the SPS, forcing them to change tack and initiate a proper skills-based Contract Services set-up. Now, this may not have had a dramatic effect on wider prison conditions but it has focus Service minds on how they train and educate prisoners. Unfortunately, the problems of the prison system are so monumental that it is merely scratching the surface but we never set out to solve their problems, merely cause them more.

DR: From your website it's clear that there are some anti-capitalist implications to a lot of your arguments; do you think prison abolition is something achievable under capitalism or will it only be possible to eradicate prisons in a post-capitalist society? If the former, what immediate alternative to prisons do you advocate?

Crime is essentially a product of capital and the majority of laws ultimately seek to maintain social inequalities, protecting the wealthy and privileged from those who might try to take away their ill-gotten gains. The vast majority of people in prison have always been from the working class and the rich and powerful rarely enter its gates. Even when they do it is normally after being caught stealing from someone richer and more powerful – one only has to look at the term ‘white collar crime’ to see the truth of this. Therefore it is logical to assume that the abolition of prison is only possible in a post-capitalist society.

A huge amount of crime is drug related. Most ‘acquisitive’ crime, burglaries and shoplifting, in this society are carried out to feed drug habits, not empty stomachs. Add that to the fact that the drugs trade operates in the classic capitalist mode, creating the necessary supply and demand, exploiting a market largely created in response to social breakdown and the failures of capitalism to make everybody a millionaire or a celebrity or whatever other aspirational folly is being pedalled. The same is largely true of violence: of assault, rape and even murder.

Which brings us to the classic question, “What about murder in a post-capitalist society?” There will always be accidental injuries and deaths caused by individuals, just as there will always be conflicts between individuals and, to a lesser extent, groups but surely in a truly healthy post-capitalist society there will be ways to de-escalate such conflicts and prevent potential unwanted outcomes. And in a world without societal inequalities, a world without need, there will be no need to find illicit ways to acquire capital.

Inevitably there will be homicides but they will not be endemic and can be ‘punished’ by expulsion, for example, as there will be no need to ‘make an example of someone’ in the same way that if there is no crime there is no need for the so-called ‘deterrent effect’ of prison (surely one of the most inane concepts ever invented).

DR: There's some debate on the radical left and within the workers' movement about whether prison officers - whose union has been relatively militant recently and has been led by people who identify very explicitly as socialists (its previous general secretary was a member of a revolutionary group!) - are workers or part of the armed machinery of the state in the same way that police and soldiers are. What's your view on this?

Prisons, as I’ve already stated, are by and large used as a weapon to keep the working class compliant, to protect the rich and help maintain the structural inequalities in our society; to keep a lid on the fermenting unrest within it. And prison officers are an essential part of the machinery that keeps prisons functioning. That they and most of the rest of the workers movement look upon them as being ‘workers in uniform’ is delusional to say the least. They are obviously a “part of the armed machinery of the state”, and in that, effectively an enemy of the working class. The POA certainly want to lock as many of them up as possible to maintain and extend their membership.

That is not to say that all screws ate ex-coppers and soldiers who go into the ‘profession’ to brutalise and abuse prisoners, there are many that genuinely think that they are helping people get back on the ‘straight and narrow, to be better more productive members of society. Just as there are any who do it to try and save the sinners and their mortal souls.

It is a really sad indictment of the state of the trade union movement that they should try and put the POA forward as their saviours, exactly the sort of people that would have been recruited as strike breakers in days gone by. I’m with Ricky Tomlinson on this one.

DR: What do you think are the implications of the government's current policy on prisons and imprisonment? What demands should activists be fighting for in response?

The prison system is in crisis and has been for decades. All sorts of sticking plasters have been applied, including IEPS, to try and keep it limping along, as it has gotten ever more bloated under successive ‘bang even more of ‘em up’ style governments. The Prison Service in England & Wales has already had to put up with 3 successive year on year cuts in their budget – one of the consequence of which has been the ending of Friday afternoon education, training and association. Instead, prisoners are locked in their cells and many remain banged up from Friday lunchtime to Monday breakfast apart from meals, the odd shower or bit of exercise. All to save £6.4m from the budget!

Another attempt at cost cutting was the so-called Workforce Modernisation programme, creating a 2-tier prison officer pay structure by reducing the training and pay that new screws get. The POA, the alleged saviours of working class militant trade unionism fought this and lost.

Add to all that the overcrowding crisis which has been exacerbated by the ever increasing number s of indeterminate sentence prisoners who are unable to take the behaviour modification courses they need to attend before being considered for release but can’t take because the Prison Service can’t afford to provide them. Not to mention the fact that prison sentences have been getting longer – the number of people sent to prison for 6 months or more has doubled in the last year.

Now, top it all off with a need to find 25% ‘savings’ in the £2.2bn HMPS budget… And what have you got? Chaos. How they are going to find the savings is anyone’s guess. One thing that is sure, with staff costs amounting to 80% of the whole budget, POA members are going to be directly in the firing line.

Obviously, the idea of not jailing people on shorter sentences could save some money. Napo, the National Association of Probation Officers, have claimed that the government could save £350m if they were to end sentences of 6 months or less but would then need £50-60m to recruit the necessary probation officers to supervise the replacement community sentences. Yet the ending of sentences of less than 12 months would also be likely to result in a shift towards longer sentences and a negation of the hoped cut
in the prison population.

Clearly the big winners in all this will be the outsourcing firms who stand to profit from what is effectively a massive plan to further privatise the criminal justice industry. The already run a number of prisons, prisoner escorting and contracts within the courts system. They also are poised to takeover any ‘failing’ probation service franchises following Labour reforms. All these moves have been driven by the desire to cut costs, not to mention pave the way to a seat on the board when they lose the next election or retire. One such move, the re-tendering of the prison education contract has resulted in a strike this week by UCU [University and College Union] members against the imposition of contract changes and job losses as their employers, The Manchester College, try to find savings as they discovered they over bid for the contract.

This I think is the big threat; the slippery slope towards an ever more American-style Prison Industrial Complex and that people should definitely be campaigning against. Not because I think the state should be the body providing these ‘services’ but because private industry should not be profiting from the misery of prisoners in any form.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

POA is part of the workers movement.

The interview with Joe Black is really interesting and the use of Prisoners as slave for the likes of Wilkinson's is something that needs to be exposed.

However I do want to take to task a few things Joe Black says.

I agree there should not be 'prisons' in post capitalist society, the basis of justice should be public safety, rehabilitation and re-education rather then revenge, punishment or deterrence. However a classless society is not the second coming; suffering, pain, hatred and jealousy we still exist. Personality disorders will not be cured by a universal republic of labour. Murders and violence will still happen and the workers state will have to deal with it. There will still have to be some form of secure detention of those who pose a risk to others. Though much transformed some of the tasks currently carried out by Prison officers will still be necessary.

Joe says "That they and most of the rest of the workers movement look upon them as being ‘workers in uniform’ is delusional to say the least. They are obviously a “part of the armed machinery of the state”, and in that, effectively an enemy of the working class. The POA certainly want to lock as many of them up as possible to maintain and extend their membership."
There is no doubt that prison officers are part of the coercive apparatus of the state. However this is not the final word. Teachers, Psychiatric nurses, probation officers, Job Center workers are also to varying degree's part of that apparatus as well as being workers. Now obviously there is a huge difference between the social role of a teacher and a prison officer. This difference is a matter of degree. Also the current General Secretary of the POA Steve Gillan or his predecessor Brain Caton have long advocated the reduction of prison numbers and the transformation of members roles into rehabilitation and drug treatment. This is echoed in Steve Gillans article for solidarity.
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/07/15/prisons-clarkes-front-door-privatisation

Now there is no doubt that there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the POA. These are militant workers who psychically coerce other working class people. However I think in the balance Prison Officers are workers and the POA is a part of the union movement. It is our duty to offer solidarity to the POA workers taking action and at the same time argue that those workers roles need to be transformed.

What are prison officers "for"?

Dave,
In a capitalist state, what is the precise role of these 'workers' we call Prison Officers? What is their exact relationship to (a) the Police and armed forces, (b) the 'law', (c) the labour movement, (d) labour movement activists who break the 'law' ... I could go on. Do you suppose that if you happened to be locked up for your socialist activities a quick flash of the party card would get you better treatment? Rather than noting the "fundamental contradiction" with the POA, we need to look at the exact role of prison officers, their union and their relationship to the state.
TomU

The POA makes the difference.

Tom

I think there are three key question when it comes to approaching workers who social role is to coerce and oppress the working class.

1, Is there a union organised in this sector that is independent of the state/ employer and are those worker free to politically express themselves through that union? The Police Federation is not a union because it includes Chief Constables as part of its leadership and it was created by the state. Police are also subject to a greater degree of political control. Military personnel have no political or organizational independence what-so-ever. The POA by contrast is a member of the TUC, often in conflict with the Prison Service a democratic union and open to political debate including about questions of their social role.

2, Is this workers role something that we argue to be immediately abolished rather then transformed? As international socialists and consistent democrats we believe that borders should be immediately abolished. Therefore the UK Border-force should immediately be liquidated with the workers transferred rather then made redundant. As I argued before unlike borders there is a role for secure detention and rehabilitation. I don't think we would simply advocate flinging open the gates of Broadmoor and Grindon even in a revolutionary situation.

3, On a subjective level what are the balance of forces between reactionary politics and the politics of union solidarity in this section of workers? POA elections and conferences prove there is section of the membership of the POA that identify with the workers movement and even the socialist movement. These workers see themselves as part of a public sector workforce under attack and are not entirely blind to their role in the capitalist system. Obviously their are also large numbers of Prison officers with racist, arch reactionary and even fascistic ideas, but crucially these sections are not in control of the POA.

In the fight against cuts the POA are a part of this and we cannot afford to re-buff these workers due to a mixture of ultra-leftism and an understandable distaste for what they do.

Dave

Not "ultra-left"

Dave,
Throwing the term "ultra-left" around is just silly. What socialists think of prison officers is not just a matter of "distaste". I'm concerned that we understand the role of the prison system as part of a Leninst conception of the state.
I understand the prison system to be something like the chopping block to the police forces axe. I think that a socialist revolution would see the almost immediate emptying of the prisons and the disbanding of the prison service as it currently exists. The question of how to treat those with mental health problems currently in the prison and criminal justice system is a related but essentially different matter.
Now consider the role of the POA as distinct from the 'prison system'. At the very least, the POA is there to protect the jobs, wages and conditions of prison officers. What does this mean? It may mean arguing for more prison officers, higher wages (of course), more powers for prison officers to 'do their job' etc... Are any of these basic demands objectively 'good'? I think not.
I last looked at the motions to the POA conference in 2007-2008. Nowhere did I find motions or demands on wider social issues. I found no motions which addressed the conditions of prisoners themselves. Compare this to the motions put to other public sector union conference - the NUT and Unison, for example. In both these cases you will find motions taking up issues relating to the experiences and interests of 'service users' ie. the young, sick and vulnerable. The last POA demand that hit the headlines (in my memory, at least) was for greater powers to use direct physical force against child prisoners! Do not confuse the political trajectory of Brian Caton with a political mood in the union as a whole - no such mood exists.
On the armed forces: would I oppose the creation of an independent union? No. Why? Isn't this contradictory? No, because any such development could only weaken the military as an institution of the state. I can see no signs of the POA playing such a role with regard to the prison services relation to the state. The wild-cat actions in 2007, although in some senses 'showing the way' for other unions, did nothing to fundamentally disrupt the functioning of the prisons. Doesn't this tell us something about the real nature of the POA?
Finally, I think we should be clear that the prison system and prison officers play a very different role to other sections of the 'public sector' who have powers to "coerce". Social workers, nurses, doctors, teachers etc... have substantial legal powers. However, their actual role in society - their 'function' - is not as part of the "armed wing" of the state.
TomU

It isn't, of course, just

It isn't, of course, just POA members (or potential members) who work in prisons. It makes sense, surely, for members of other unions fighting cuts - in prison budgets or whatever budgets precisely their jobs and wages are paid out of - to find ways to unite with the POA. When I was a member of what was then NATFHE working in a jail, we thought it was a good thing when we managed to get some joint meetings with the POA. The POA, as individuals anyway, weren't on the whole very friendly to NATFHE types, but they understood it was in their interests to have joint meetings. And it was, wasn't it, in a very real sense - in their interests? And doesn't that imply something?

It seems to me prisons are different, in some ways, to other institutions of the state, like the police or the army anyway. Dave is quite right that although a different social system, different forms of social solidarity and what have you will do a lot to eliminate crime, there are certain crimes which are not simply the product of 'capitalism', or at least will not disappear very quickly.

'Abolishing' the police or the army, and replacing them with a democratic militia of some kind, is not only something you can imagine happening suddenly in a revolution, it would *have* to - it's kind of what a revolution *is*. I don't find the idea of the sudden abolition of prisons very appealing (radical reform, sure). Frankly, I think anyone who thinks you can just throw open the gates of prisons and let them all out, because *all* that prisons are is a system for coercing the working class, is - shall we say - seriously naive.

Prisons in all but name?

I have just been directed to this interview which, combined with comments section, I have found interesting to read. Certainly there appears to be a difference of opinion on the matter with Clive's comments not answered by the earlier posters. Is there a concluding view on the difference for an AWL "line"? I am also interested in the view of AWL on the recent riots that occurred at Ford Open.

If we ignore the differences between Clive and TomU/Joe Black for a moment and assume that the view is that prisons are not particularly liked by revolutionary socialists, I have a further question: what would AWL do with ideological opponents of the revolution? These could be counter-revolutionaries physically acting against the revolution, intellectuals arguing against the revolution or simply people who resist - in effect go on strike against - the revolution and refuse to work for the socialist society. Would they be placed in what might be called "re-education camps" or some other name and be forced to work? These camps would be, of course, prisons in all but name. Would we be reduced to the red terror and the Gulag?

Regards,

Mikey.

Revolution is a 'process'

Revolution is a 'process' and not just a sudden outburst. We can reasonably assume that the overthrow of capitalism will come off the back of a sharp and protracted period of class struggle. What do you think the main function of the prison system and prison officers will be in such a situation? My guess would be that rather than locking up petty criminals and the mentally ill (a large proportion of those currently locked up, I think) the state will prioritise trade unionists, socialists and revolutionaries. Doesn't this point to two things: (1) that if the state can deal with not locking up the two groups already mentioned in times of sharp crisis then there's no reason they should be locked up now and (2) the priority for the legal and prison system at any given time is to marshal and discipline 'problematic elements' however defined.

Outside of this extreme example, there's a 'moral' question. I'm not certain of the current statistics but my guess would be that a large proportion of those currently in prison are 'guilty' of relatively petty offences ie. assault, small-scale drug dealing, theft, burglary, criminal damage etc... None of these things are 'nice' and you probably wouldn't want those implicated round for tea but given the levels of re-offending and/or the personal experiences of those involved can you say with any moral certitude that prison - ie. the denial of freedom and the extreme narrowing of future prospects - 'works' in any real sense. I'm not even sure that in the large proportion of cases prison serves to 'protect' anyone, least of all those inside.

There are, of course (and I've worked with some of them in a 'secure unit') people so damaged and dangerous that they can never be released. Some of these people are vicious and horrible individuals. They have done vicious and horrible things. The irretrievably damaged and dangerous are, however, a minority and in many cases would benefit from more than simple incarceration and second-rate 'therapy'.

I don't know the specifics of the Ford riot but in another life I did get to see the police footage of a riot in another, higher security jail (the joys of a summer job). In this instance prisoners rioted against being locked up for 22 hours a day and because of bad food etc... Many horrible things happened in the riot and people were badly injured. Now, as far as I can tell the prisoners at Ford were drunk and people on the street don't need much more excuse than that for acting violently when challenged. The degree of 'challenge' from the prison officers is likely to have been greater than elsewhere. Who knows what actually happened but I wouldn't be shocked if an independent report down the line pointed to general conditions. Who knows?

Lastly, I'm going to indulge in the fine rabbinical tradition of answering a question with a question and seeing where it ends: you ask how we'll deal with capitalist opponents of the revolution ... will we lock them up? The scale of the question is important so I'll ramp-up the demagogy. How do you think Iranian democrats should deal with the remnants of the clerical-fascist regime who - being the 'party of God' - will almost certainly continue campaigning for the restoration of their version of an 'Islamic' state when they are finally overthrown?

Answering Questions Directly.

Dear TomU

Thank you for your response to my enquiry.

You misinterpret my question as to what AWL would do with "ideological" opponents of the revolution to what should be done with "capitalist" opponents of the revolution. I trust that it is is accepted that it might not just be capitalists opposed to the revolution or the way the revolution is handled.

In any event, capitalist opponents will do for this example. As you admit, you do not answer the question directly but pose a different question. I do accept that this would be in line with a rabbinical tradition. Your question is as follows: "How do you think Iranian democrats should deal with the remnants of the clerical-fascist regime who - being the 'party of God' - will almost certainly continue campaigning for the restoration of their version of an 'Islamic' state when they are finally overthrown?" I shall answer as follows:

I would allow the clerical opponents to form a party and run for election. The whole point about true democracies is to regularly have fair elections where the leading party can be thrown out. In 1979, over 30 years ago, the Iranian people were asked a simple question a simple question: "Do you want an Islamic Republic?" They answered with a resounding yes. However, they have never been offered a chance to reverse this vote. The Islamic Republic was put in place and over the years it seems to have become less and less popular. If there was a fair referendum with the same question now.I would like to think that there would not be a "yes" vote due to the fact that the Iranians now know what an Islamic Republic means in practice. Iran is probably a good case study in comparing what many thought they would get from the revolution and what they did get. The Trotskyist left in the UK cheered on the Iranian revolution. They may not have supported Khomeini but reading through the their publications, they spent their time denouncing the Shah and praising the revolutionary forces. There is no reason why it could not theoretically happen in the UK as well. Supporters of AWL could find itself outmanoeuvred by, for example, supporters of the late Gerry Healy or some other monster. In such an event, I would guess just like Stalin purged and killed the old Bolsheviks, so the supporters of AWL would be some of the first to be lined up against the wall and shot.

I accept there is not much need for prisons if you resort to killing your enemies. This was, of course, the tactic of Lenin and Trotsky with the Red Terror and their treatment of those they did not like. Blood and more blood. Lenin and Trotsky therefore killed ideological opponents of the revolution. And it is also true that the Gulag system was started not by Stalin,but by Lenin. Anne Applebaum's Pulitzer Prize winning book,Gulag: A History shows this to be the case. So I resort to my earlier question: "what would AWL do with ideological opponents of the revolution? These could be counter-revolutionaries physically acting against the revolution, intellectuals arguing against the revolution or simply people who resist - in effect go on strike against - the revolution and refuse to work for the socialist society." This time, I should prefer if my question was answered directly and not with another question.

I thank you for your assistance.

Mikey

--