Mariano Pujadas Badell /Montoneros) The recent wave of protests and demonstrations in "Her Majesty's Prisons" have attracted very little attention from either the revolutionary left or the organized working-class movement as a whole. Yet this was a movement of really impressive strength and militancy that swept the prison system throughout the country. If this movement had taken place inside the factory instead of the prion -workers demonstrating and occupying to protest about their working conditions, slandered by an hysterical ruling class press. and then given viciously vindictive sentences by the courts on the orders of the government - then the entire British trade union movement would have been up in arms. There would have been mass solidarity strikes across the coun try. just as in the struggle around the jailing of the five dockers.
As it was, the prisoners fought out their battle in total isolation, receiving no support other than from fellow prisoners. As a result the movement - for the time being at least - has been forced back onto the defensive. Why then are prisoners - "criminals" - treated so differently from workers by trade unionists and revolutionaries? What after all are "criminals?
IMPORTANCE This is a question of considerable importance for trade union militants. First of all, because trade unionists are often involved in the repression of revolts in the prisons. The most dramatic instance is the frequent use of the fire brigade to deal with demonstrations. But equally concerned are the many auxiliary workers necessary for the day-to-day operation of the prison system. Finally, of course, the prison officers (through the Prison Officers Association) are themselves part of the trade union movement. Secondly, the prospect of growing class struggle in Britain makes it likely that an increasing number of trade union militants will find themselves on the other side of the prison walls as a result of their trade union activity. To repeat: what are "criminals? There are those on the revolutonary left who assert that "all crimes are political" and that a criminal, because he refuses to respect the laws of private property, is therefore a revolutionary. This idea is exaggerated and prevents a real understanding of the position of the "criminal" and prisoner in capitalist society. There can be no doubt that the category of criminal would continue to exist after the working-class took power in a country such as Britain: individuals who could not adjust to the new social climate that permitted a collective solution to individual and social problems might continue to express themselves through individual attacks upon other members of society or upon socialized property (which should belong to the whole of society but which they would try and take for personal enjoyment). Such persons would indeed be anti-social in their outlook and activity, and would be subject to certain disciplinary and restrictive measures: although in a much less harsh and vindictive fashion than is now the case. CAPITALIST SOCIETY But clearly what holds true for a society ruled by the working-class does not apply to capitalistsociety. A crime is indeed "criminal" Criminals or militants? asks Brian Slocock Albany Jail - the yards littered with burned bedding and other debris - during the prisoners" revolt in the first case because there are genuine opportunities for the members of the working-class to work together, make decisions about the running of their society, and then put them into action: in capitalist society this is impossible - the capitalist class controls and receives the economic benefits from the process of production, it exercises an absolute tyranny (in law if not in reality) over the running of the workplace, and it controls all the various levels of government through the political parties.
Of course, it is not true that there are no possibilities for collective actions under capitalism. Workers can form trade unions or other organizations to fight for their needs as a group. In fact the strength of capitalism is in part based upon various means of preventing workers from doing this - including repressive laws, the use of press attacks whenever workers do band together, and mechanisms like Parliamentary elections which split workers up into "individual" citizens casting separate votes rather than members of a single class. But of course capitalist society is not based upon this collective action of the working class -rather capitalist society and this collective action are always, to one degree or another, locked in mortal combat. INDIVIDUAL RESISTANCE We can see, then, what workers and "criminals" have in common, and what differences they have as well. Both are in opposition to capitalist society, and both are seen by that society as deadly enemies (after all, a "criminal" is technically anyone who has broken a capitalist law — so the capitalist class can make any of their enemies into "criminals" just by passing the right law: e.g. the Idustrial Relations Act). However, the trade union militant has chosen to fight through collective action directed at the heart of the capitalist class; the "criminal" has taken the course of individual resistance, which often takes as its victim a fellow worker or, at best, an individual member of the capitalist class.
But one thing must be pointed out: the path of individual action is not just taken by the "criminal", it is the normal course for all backward sectors of the working class. The worker who refuses to join a union, who crosses a picket line, or agrees to handle goods that are being blacked by other workers is doing exactly the same thing. Yet no serious trade union militant would label them as "criminals" and leave them to their own resources: he would make every effort to draw them into the collective struggle of the working class against capitalist oppression and exploitation. And he would be dead right. In fact the action of a "criminal" may be more class-conscious than that of a militant worker. If a worker is out of work, needs money for himself and his family to live on, and chooses to rob a bank rather then take a job that involves scabbing on other workers, is he right Perhaps not - perhaps he should have found some way of holding out, and got involved in the trade union or revolutionary movements. But clearly trade unionists are far better off in a society full of potential bank robbers than in a society full of potential scabs.
GROWING CLASS STRUGGLE Backward sections of the working class and this includes "criminals" - do not remain backward forever. Growing class struggle and vigorous resistance by the better organized sections of the class often break through the confusion of more backward groups and draw them into real collective struggles. When they do move they can be a tremendous force because they will make up for their years of passive oppression by an heroic dedication to the struggle. Any trade unionist confronted by a formerly backward sector of workers moving into collective struggle who said, "I won't support them in their struggle because they scabbed on me last year" would have failed to understand the ABC's of the class struggle. And yet this is exactly what every trade unionist was doing who said to himself during the prison revolt, *They're just bloody criminals, they deserve what they get". The failure of trade unionists to actively solidarize with the prison movement was a tremendous victory for the capitalist class in its attempts to split the working class, and shows just how strong is the hold of ruling class ideas over even the best trade union militants.
There can be little doubt that the growing militancy of the British working class and its willingness to fight capitalist power was an important inspiration to the prisons movement. Unfortunately the organized working class left them high-and dry. It's a mistake that must not happen again. If, in the not-toodistant future, we should see a general strike against the government, let us hope that we will have the crucial advantage of a big section of the police and army being held down by a tremendous movement of solidarity inside "Her Majesty's Prisons" with the struggle of the organized working class outside.