Response: “A Word on Words”

Disagreements between prison abolitionists and those advocating sustaining prison reform may come down to words, but those words matter.

Inmates in the Alcatraz dining hall, unknown date.Carl Sundstrom / Wikimedia


It’s good to see a response to my piece, “How to End Mass Incarceration,” from Dan Berger, Mariame Kaba, and David Stein. The fact that we don’t appear to disagree on much in practice suggests that the debate is about words — but it also shows that what prison abolitionists point to as evidence of their best work is being done in the register of reform. This work tacitly accepts the legitimacy of the state’s role in social welfare, including public safety. On this point, we seem to agree. Otherwise, the piece reads like a list of product endorsements, a compendium of individuals with name recognition, and a list of groups whose effectiveness has not been demonstrated.

To me, this suggests that we’re not really having a meaningful exchange.

My question was not, “Who are the social actors and groups out there that adhere to an abolitionist goal?” Any answer to such question would describe a wide array of committed, conscientious people. It was, rather: Should abolition be the normative goal of the socialist left? My answer was no, and I rehashed the history of mass incarceration and gave some comparative context — basically a synoptic review of really existing social-democratic models — to try to make my case.

Sorry, but this article is available to active subscribers only. Please log in or become a subscriber.