We dug up THIS OLD REPORT from 1973 and thought it was something worth observing. It's very telling of human nature and how even totalitarian law can't bring an incredible social contract theory into fruition.
It illustrates how the abolition of most private property in Communist Russia hadn't succeeded in curbing some people's git for other people's shit. It seems humans, ... with government coddling and government issue still have issues. Along with a nasty habit of coveting, many of us also enjoy a natural liking for holding dominion over others. OBVIOUS MORAL: "theft begets theft... and dominion"C&B...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivisation_in_the_USSR
First let's start with an excerpt from Freud's, Civilization and its Discontents, written in 1930:
The communists believe they have found the path to deliverance from our evils.
According to them, man is wholly good and as well-disposed to his neighbor; but the institution of private property has corrupted his nature. The ownership of private wealth gives the individual power, and waited the temptation to ill-treat his neighbor; while the man who is excluded from possession is bound to rebel in hostility against his oppressor. If private property were abolished, all wealth held in common, and everyone allowed to share in the enjoyment of it, ill-will and hostility would disappear among men. Since everyone's needs would be satisfied, no one would have any reason to regard another as his enemy; all would willingly undertake the work that was necessary.
I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot inquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the systems based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments, certainly a strong one, though certainly not the strongest; but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness, nor have we altered anything in its nature. Aggressiveness was not created by property. It reigned almost before property had given up its primal, anal form; it forms the basis of every relation of affection and love among people (with the single exception, perhaps, of the mother's relation to her male child).
If we do away with personal rights over material wealth, there still remains prerogative in the field of sexual relationships, which is bound to become the source of the strongest dislike in the most violent hostility among men who in other respects are on an equal footing. If we were to remove this factor, too, by allowing complete freedom of sexual life and thus abolishing the family, the germ-cell of civilization, we cannot, it is true, easily foresee what new paths the development of civilization could take; but one thing we can expect, and that is that this indestructible feature of human nature will follow at there.
AND NOW... THE REPORT:
MUNICH, 22 June 1973 (CAA/X). Although the Soviet Press and radio give extensive coverage to crime in the West, the persistence of crime in the Soviet Union remains an ideological embarrassment to which relatively little attention is drawn.
Detailed crime statistics for the USSR are never published, and a Soviet journalist, L. Vladimirov, who defected to Britain in 1966, has confirmed that: "It is forbidden to mention ... the number of crimes
in any category for the country as a whole or for regions, district, provinces or cities". The basic Marxist premise is that crime is a socio-economic phenomenon: "the elimination of private property in the means of production, the eradication of the exploitation of one person by another, and the resolution of social antagonisms led to the disappearance of basic social roots of crime [in the USSR.]". (B. A. Viktorov, Deputy Minister for Internal Affairs. From the account of the proceedings at the fourth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime, Kyoto, 1972.) The difficulty is to explain the persistence of crime in a "developed Socialist society". Viktorov conceded that "the complete extirpation of criminal behaviour appeared to be a lengthy and complex process. The most immediate reason for criminal acts in the Soviet Union was mental retardation or an inadequate adjustment to life caused by serious shortcomings in family and school education. Many people were still under the influence of the views and habits characteristic of [capitalist] ideology and psychology..." Writing in the Soviet Communist Party newspaper, Pravda, on March 17, 1973, the Minister for Internal Affairs, N. Shchelokov, declared that "under Socialism crime is not a form of protest against the existing conditions of life [i.e. as it is in the West] but above all the result of moral deformation of the personality, intellectual retardedness and low culture". Yet the large numbers of persons apparently convicted in the USSR suggest that other factors might also be involved. A recent Western report concluded: "At present, if we estimate a rough but conservative total of 1,200,000 Soviet prisoners in camps, prisons and mental hospitals (i.e. leaving aside those in exile), then we see that 0.5 per cent of the whole population is in captivity. This compares with 0.07 per cent in Britain, 0.16 per cent in France and 0.2 per cent in the USA. The Soviet figure is much lower than in Stalin's day, but it (PTO) [page 2] RUSS (1) -- CRIME IN THE SOVIET UNION F-105 appears to be growing, and it is 2 1/2 to 7 times higher than the figures for the advanced Western, countries quoted". (From The Forced Labour Camps in the USSR Today: An Unrecognised Example of Modern Inhumanity. Report published in February, 1973, by the Brussels-based International Committee for the Defence of Human Rights in the USSR, on the basis of facts and figures from first-hand unofficial Soviet sources.) In his testimony to a US Senate Committee in February, 1973, A. Shifrin, an ex-inmate of many Soviet camps, said that there were "at least several million prisoners in the camps today and that the real figure may surpass the five million mark". Some idea of the scale of petty offences committed in the Soviet Union is given by the "comrades courts" re-instituted by Khrushchev and intended to mete out summary justice. In 1972 these courts were said to number about 300,000. Unreliable claims Despite the evidence, the Soviet authorities claim that the overall crime rate drops year by year. Soviet spokesmen (e.g. M.V.D. Gen. Shumilin, quoted in the Guardian on October 19, 1972) have claimed that it has been halved since 19A5, but the poor capabilities of Soviet statistical services cast doubt on such statements. The journal Socialist Legality (No. 5, 1972), complained: "The methods employed at the present time in the collection and treatment of primary information in connection with criminal statistics bear the stamp of amateurism... Lack of coordination in the work [of the Ministry of the Interior, the Procurator's Office and the courts, all of whom keep separate records] is probably the main obstacle to improvements in the organisation of criminal statistics. The time is ripe for radical changes in this field... "There also exist no statistics about comrades' courts or commissions for juvenile affairs which, as is well known, have to deal with a very large number of cases of amoral behaviour and criminal and other offences". But even if improvements are being made it is difficult to understand how Soviet spokesmen can be so categorical about the crime rate in previous years. Another factor is the reluctance of the militia to record crimes so that they can claim a better detection record. (more) [page 3] RUSS (2) -- CRIME IN THE SOVIET UNION F-106 In the USSR there has been a growing willingness to discuss some of the causes of crime. The link between drunkeness and crime, for example, is repeatedly stressed, particularly during the periodic anti-alcoholic campaigns. Moscow Radio's home service claimed on July 6, 1972, that half of all crimes and nearly all acts of hooliganism are committed under the influence of drink. Ninety per cent of young people are said to be drunk when arrested (Socialist Industry, June 8, 1972). Again, one survey on juvenile delinquents in Leningrad demonstrated that in 160 out of 200 cases of juvenile crime alcoholism affected one or both parents (Novy Mir, No. 5, 1972). Another factor beginning to attract discussion is the mass migration from rural to urban areas. Writing in Party Life (No. 8, 1972) Shchelokov stated that the crime rate was above average in areas with an influx of immigrant workers who had come up against "unforeseen difficulties" and lack of attention to their needs by local authorities. One important factor in widespread lawbreaking is the inefficient management of the Soviet economy and the distribution network. This creates shortages which lead to bribery, black marketeering and speculation in "deficit goods". Similar problems arise in services of which the State theoretically has a monopoly. Livelier Soviet publications like the weekly Literary Gazette have occasionally called for licence for home decorators, for example, and the "wild brigades" who perform essential services privately in rural areas. Such people are necessary in view of the State's inefficient monopolies, but disapproved of by the ideologists. The RSFSR Minister of Justice (Soviet Russia, June 13, 1972) urged people not to accede to the petty speculators blandishments - "even if it only concerns a book or theatre ticket, but to grab [him] by the arm [and have him arrested]". Public ownership has led to another problem: the feeling that as products (e.g. building materials) have no visible owner they are there for the taking. "Thefts of Socialist property" are among the commonest crimes, and were mentioned specifically in the March, 1972, CPSU Central Committee resolution expressing dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. At one end of the scale are major rackets such as the ones exposed in Georgia involving at least 82 people and total losses to the State of over 800,000 roubles (Zarya Vostoka, February 3, 1972) while at the other is the pilfering rampant even at a "model" factory (Pravda, January 4, 1972). The necessity for factory managers to bend the regulations to fulfil plans is another aspect which cannot increase respect for the law. Nor is it increased by the practice of covering up for members of the same circles. Frequent cases involve party officials who have disgraced themselves in one job but are simply transferred without penalty to another. M. Malyarov, the first deputy Procurator General, wrote in (Izvestiya, April 10, 1972): "Unfortunately some leading officials do not react at all to infringements of State and labour discipline, do not fight against drunkeness, thefts, padding of figures and other ... crimes. Sometimes they even themselves commit infringements of their duty towards the party and their job". (PTO) [page 4] RUSS (3) -- CRIME IN THE SOVIET UNION F-107 Malyarov had earlier given a rough break-down of crime (Pravda, July 11, 1972): "Despite certain successes, the state of affairs in the struggle against lawbreaking is rightly causing anxiety among Soviet people... Hooliganism occupies first place in the crime structure. This is followed by the pilfering of State and public property and the theft of citizens' private property. These three types of crime account for more than half of all criminal cases". Drugs and young peop1e Observers have testified that soft drugs like hashish form part of the traditional culture of parts of Soviet Central Asia, and their use is gradually spreading to student circles in European Russia. Official alarm at narcotics abuse seems to be increasing. In September, 1972, following legislation in other Republics, the Russian Republic decreed the detention of persistent drug takers in special "curative, labour" establishments. Occasional cases involving hard drugs are also publicised. In one case a pusher of "technical morphine" (presumably the base for heroin) was caught in possession of 20 five-grain packets (selling for 10 roubles per grain): Socialist Industry, August 6, 1972. An underground drugs factory was later uncovered in Chimkent. The Soviet authorities do not seem to have had marked success in curbing juvenile delinquency and recidivism. The USSR Interior Minister admitted (Socialist Legality, No. 10, 1971) that juvenile crime, "presents us with one of our greatest and most complicated problems. Its complexity lies above all in the fact that it cannot be solved by punishment alone". Random violence and vandalism by youths are sometimes described: Press articles refer to unemployed school-leavers, drop-outs and teen-age gangs. The tedium of life in the Soviet countryside and cramped living conditions in towns are contributory factors. Public feeling about juvenile crime is known to be strong and jurists have often had to explain in the Press that increasing penalties does not in itself solve such problems. A leading Moscow police official, writing in Izvestiya on March 27, 1973, pleaded for more help in finding jobs for released convicts who were "treated everywhere with distrust". To counter the high crime level much use is still made of traditional Soviet measures - volunteer watchdog bodies, show trials, occasional tightening-up of legislation, etc. Shchelokov (Pravda, March 17, 1973) emphasised the need for preventive measures: "Studies demonstrate that there are far more infringements of the law where educational [i.e. indoctrination] work with people is neglected, where work discipline is low ... and where the problem of the rational use of free time is still badly solved". A campaign has been under way for some years to make the Soviet people more conscious of the law through lectures, etc. Courts are urged to issue critical riders with the sentences they hand out. At the same time, the police forces are being equipped with modern equipment, and mobile patrols and night squads have been instituted in towns. 10/1745/73
