[page 2]
LABOUR'S PROGRAMME '82 An indictment of capitalism: but we must draw socialist conclusions LANCO MERCANTIL DE SÃO PAULO PHOTO: Popperfoto By Peter Taaffe Labour's programme 1982 will form the basis for most of the debates and discussions at this year's Labour Party Conference in Blackpool. In his introduction, Ron Haywood, the retiring General Secretary of the Labour Party, tells us that this massive document is the product of more than 50 sub-committees of the National Executive Committee and nearly 1,500 research papers since the 1979 general election. The authors claim that the programme is "a longer term socialist perspective-one which enables us to look beyond the crisis we will inherit from the Tories, to the problems MIR OCTOBER 1982 1 Mentmore Terrace London E8 3PN. 01-986 3828 Contents Labour's Programme '82 By Peter Taaffe.............1 Crisis in Soviet Union By Rob Sewell.............13 International Notes:
Brazil/Spain/Banking crisis ..22 and opportunities of the 1990s." Is this claim justified by the analysis and conclusions of the document?
Like the 1973 and 1976 programmes it is a clear indictment both of the pregovernment and of the sent Tory catastrophic record of decaying British capitalism. It states: "In Britain itself we are confronted with mass unemployment striking hardest and longest at those least able to bear it. Three million homes lack basic amenities or are in need of major repair; yet there are nearly 500,000 construction workers on the dole; our social services are desperately
[page 3]
short of resources yet more than £18 billion a year is being lost in tax revenues or paid out in unemployment benefits because of the slump. Over 60% of all wealth is owned by one tenth of the population: yet more than 11 million live below the official poverty line.
"Since May 1979 the nation's output has fallen by 6%, manufacturing production has been cut by nearly one fifth, manufacturing investment has plummetted to the lowest level for 20 years, a record number of companies have gone out of business. Four million jobs have been lost in industry since 1966-and one and a half million of these have gone since the Tories came to office in 1979. This decline is a consequence of the way industry is organised... Labour's 1982 programme claims to be "a longer term socialist perspective" looking "beyond the crisis we will inherit from the Tories to the problems and opportunities of the 1980s.'
"At least 2 million people are living on incomes below the official poverty line; a further 6 million people-more than one in ten of the population depend upon means-tested supplementary benefit; and many millions more live in the margins of poverty. Since 1979, a million people have been added to those existing on supplementary benefit; there are 2 million pensioners who look to supplementary benefits to eke out their pensions and in recent years other groups have also been facing the risk of poverty such as one parent families and more recently the unemployed. As a consequence the number of children being brought up in poverty has risen dramatically; there are now nearly one and a quarter million children in families living on supplementary benefits and a further 750,000 families claiming family supplement.
"At the other end of the scale the top ten per cent of the population own 60% of the country's wealth, whilst one half own virtually none. With income there are also sharp inequalities; the top ten per cent receives more than the total income of the bottom 50% and over ten times as much as the bottom 10%. Health standards are cruelly unequal, children born to unskilled manual parents are four times as likely to die within their first year, for example, as babies born to professional parents-inequalities which are reflected throughout life.
"In housing nearly two thirds of the profesional classes were buying a house on mortgage in 1977 compared to 11% of the unskilled manual classes and owner-occupiers are generally much the best provided for in housing. Over a million households, moreover, still lack the exclusive use of at least one of the basic amenities. In education, over half of sixteen to eighteen year olds from professional and managerial families are in full-time education, compard to less than a quarter of sixteen to eighteen year olds from unskilled and semiskilled families. Only a fifth of university entries are children of manual workers."
A reflection of the terrible conditions facing the victims of the system is given in the programme when it states, "A single unemployed person...received £7.10 less a week than a retirement pension!"
The programme is also quite clear as to who bears the responsibility for the worsening condition of the great majority of Britain's population. It states: "We reject the selfish, acquisitive doctrines of capitalism. We oppose utterly the Tory attempt to elevate greed and selfinterest to the states of high social principle. Labour's aim is to create a socialist community —one based on fellowship, co-operation and service. As socialists the concept of solidarity is therefore central to our policies and principles." It also states: 'There cannot be true personal freedom in a society where the wealthy and powerful, through their ownership and control of the means of production-or the physically powerfully-can dominate the poor and the weak." And who are the "wealthy groups" who are responsible for the worsening conditions of the worling class in Britain? The document is quite clear:
"Decision-making in the economy has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. No more than 100 large companies-almost all of them multinationals-control 40% of manufacturing output and over half our exports. The increasing concentration of ownership and control in industry is matched by a similar trend among banks and financial institutions, whose power has grown enormously in recent years. Crucial economic decisions have been taken without any accountability to workers and the community at large. Many of these decisions are responsible for the mass unemployment and industrial decline whose effects we are now suffering."
At the same time, another recently published document, the TUC-Labour Party Statement, Economic Planning and Industrial Democracy points out that: "In 1980, the total sales of the 50 largest private UK manufacturing companies came to £63 billion; that is 30°% of our national income and £23 billion of that total was accounted for by the top five companies." These facts should serve as a starting 2
[page 4]
Baggage handlers at London's Heathrow Airport meet on 11 February 1982 to decide on further action after being locked out by British Airways' management. After redundancies and productivity agreements had been imposed on them, the baggage workers refused to accept management's unilateral implementation of new work rosters, part of the bosses attempt to make the workers pay for BA's "survival". However, without effective backing from the trade union leaders and left isolated from other airport workers, the baggage handlers reluctantly agreed to return to work after seven weeks, bloodied but unbowed. PHOTO: Denis Doran/Militant point for an analysis which shows that only by eliminating the power of these handful of monopolies will it be possible to organise the resources of society for the benefit of working people. Indeed, in the earlier part of Labour's 1982 programme it appears to be saying just this: "A bold socialist programme is needed." he arsenal.
This slogan and many others in the programme are borrowed from the arsenal of Marxism. They reflect the effect of Militant's ideas on the Many of the slogans are borrowed from the arsenal of Marxism. But it is not sufficient to denounce the evils of capitalism. From the criticism made in the programme Labour must draw all the necessary conclusions.
labour movement in Britain over the last decade. How many times have the right wing parliamentarians jeered at Militant for using just such phrases?
Incidentally, the imprint of Marxism on the document is shown in the section on housing "We would need to build or where we read, renew little more than a million dwellings a year."! This has been one of the central demands in Militant's programme which was much deried in the past not just by the right wing but also by those who stood on the left. In this respect, the programme is undoubtedly an advance over previous documents. However, it is not sufficient merely to denounce the evils of capitalism or the measures of the present Tory government. It is necessary to draw all the conclusions from the criticisms made in the programme. This is what the authors of the document fail to do. There is a merciless criticism of monetarism but no real analysis or explanation as to why the Tory leaders, and with them the British bourgeoisie, have embraced monetarism. The document says, "Labour will have nothing to do with monetarism." Yet there is no criticism of Keynesianism which the ruling class abandoned in favour of monetarism. The reason for 3
[page 5]
Workers at meeting on 7 May at the British Rail Engineering Works, Swindon, where 1,500 jobs were threatened by BR "ra. tionalisation" plans. The National Union of Railwaymen's threat of a national strike forced BR management to back down, for the time being. Last year BR Chairman, Sir Peter Parker negotiated a 25% salary increase, giving him £60,000 a year, PHOTO: Denis Doran/Militant as the price of his staying on to "save" BR. this is that the proposals on the economyboost public spending to solve the crisis-are an attempt to return back to the ideas of Keynesianism. However, the ruling class in Britain and in America did not abandon these policies Thatcher and her government have seemingly viewed with equanimity the collapse of one industry after another. According to their Alice-in- Wonderland theories the vacuum created by the collapse of manufacturing was to be filled by services, banking, finance, and tourism.
4 LL at is las -5c0 just because of some quirk of Thatcher, Joseph or Howe in Britain or of Reagan in America. The policies of Keynesianism, i.e. deficit financing, was one of the factors in the explosion of inflation throughout the capitalist world and particularly in Britain in the 1970s. What the document studiously avoids mentioning is that it was a Labour government under Denis Healey which first introduced a watered-down version of Thtacherism, that is monetarism. The theory of monetarism was that by savagely cutting living standards by means of cuts in public expenditure, strict control of the money supply and a conscious policy of forcing "inefficient"
sections of British industry to go to the wall they could stimulate a regeneration of the British economy. Above all, the aim of Thatcher's policy was to boost the profits of big business as a means of retooling the British economy, which in turn would lead to a re-birth of British capitalism. At the same time, Thatcher and her government based herself on finance capital as opposed to industrial capital. They have seemingly viewed with equanimity the collapse of one industry after another. According to their Alicein-Wonderland theories the vacuum created by the collapse of manufacturing industry was to be filled by the service industries, including the banks, insurance companies, shipping, the ex-
[page 6]
EF
ASLEF train drivers picket a road-rail refuse transfer point at Cricklewood, North West London, 15 July, and win the support of the workers. There was widespread sympathy in the trade unions for the drivers' strike in defence of the 8-hour day, won in 1919 , and many workers were ready to take supporting action. The TUC's decision not to support ASLEF meant the strike was called off after two weeks, while solidarity on the railways and other trade union support was becoming daily stronger.
LE
PICKET
pertise of the the city of London and tourism. The more serious strategists of capital have recognised the catastrophe which has resulted from Thatcher's policies. Thus The Times Business News declared in March of this year: "Britain today has ceased to be an industrial nation. Industry, once the engine room of economic growth, now contributes less than two-fifths of the nation's total output of goods and services and accounts for an even smaller proportion of the employed workforce. In terms of both output and employment, it is much less significant than the services sector." Thatcher had the delusion that the growth of service industries, investment in property, investment abroad etc. could replace manufacturing industry which is the ultimate and real source of wealth. Like the French capitalists in the past, Thatcher looked towards Britain becoming a rentier economy.
The Times Business News now points out: "Few countries have experienced a fall in manufacturing output even approaching that seen here in recent years. Furthermore, until the mid-1970s, Italy, Japan and Germany were reindustrialising. In the case of Germany, services contributed only about 30% of gross domestic product, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and well under 20% of government services are ex-
cluded compared with more than twice that for Britain. " It is true that British capitalism has been very successful in its "invisible trade", that is the services of the City of London plus investment income and government transactions. Britain's receipts from these sources are the second highest in the world after the United States. However, as The Times pointed out, "the international markets in services is only about one fifth of the side of the market for visible goods and world demand for manufactures has shown the more growth."
At the same time, the growth in service jobs came to an end after 1979. While not declining at the same rate as manufacturing industry there has been a decline in this field since the Thatcher government came to power. The consequences of Thatcher's policies have been brought home to the British capitalists in their true horror in the past period. Thus with barely concealed anguish The Times stated recently: "Britain could before long suffer a deficit on its trade in manufactured goods for the first time since the industrial revolution." The percentage of imports into Britain as against exports has increased from 61% in 1971 to 93% in 1981, and it is expected that on the basis of present trends it will be more than 100% in the next two or three years.
From an era of reforms the bourgeoisie inter-
PHOTO: Denis Doran/Militant
[page 7]
From the era of reforms, the bourgeoisie internationally has moved to counterreforms. The spokesmen of capitalism have made it quite clear that they are no longer capable of granting lasting improvements in the living standards of the working class.
nationally has moved into an era of counter reforms. The spokesmen of capitalism have made it quite clear that they are no longer capable of granting further lasting reforms and improvements of the living standards of the working class. The bourgeoisie of Britain, now the sickest and most decrepit capitalist power, have, through their spokesmen, declared that the already meagre standards of the British workers must be depressed even further as the cost of maintaining their system. Thus CBI spokesman, Beckett, has declared in the last month that "wage restraint" (that is, cuts in living standards) must become "permanent" Yet the NEC document proposes a series of reforms without at the same time proposing the abolition of capitalism and the socialist transformation of Britain.
These reforms will of course be welcomed by the whole labour movement. The programme proposes the reduction of unemployment to less than one million in five years, it hints at the eventual introduction of a 35-hour week, and the possibility of a minimum wage without putting any figure on this. It also calls for the indexation of pensions and benefits, to keep the increase in pensions in line with the rise in the cost of living. There are some other very important demands made in the programme which in some respects is an advance over the 1973 and 1976 programmes. For instance, we have the call for the disbandment of the Special Patrol Group and the demand for trade union rights for the ranks of the police and the armed forces. The call for all sixteen- to nineteen-year-olds in fulltime education to be given a grant of an educational maintenance allowance, which was included under the pressure from the Labour Party Young Socialists, will be welcomed by millions of working class youth denied the opportunity to continue any training because of the economic situation facing them and their families.
However, many of these excellent demands were made in the 1973 and 1976 programme. Why were they not implemented by the last Labour government? On the contrary, rather under the pressure than reforms, of the capitalists, Denis Healey and the right-wing Labour cabinet introduced counter-reforms. Unemployment doubled, there was a worsening in the conditions of the lowest paid sections of the working clas. There is a deafening silence by the authors of the document on this. Previous programmes made the call, for instance, for a wealth tax. This programme also calls for the introduction of a wealth tax on the wealthy top one per cent of the population, with an exemption limit of £150,000 at 1982 prices. Yet the last Labour government attempted through the capital transfer tax to "squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked", to use the celebrated phrase of Denis Healey (that is before he became the Chancellor of the Exchequer). More than 130 amendments were introduced to the capital transfer tax under the pressure of the City of London and big business. There were even amendments to amendments until the original proposal was completely emasculated and was therefore acceptable to the bourgeoisie.
The document eloquently describes the widening chasm between rich and poor. But the authors want to eliminate inequality without eliminating the sources of that inequality, capitalism.
The document is very eloquent in its description of the widening chasm between rich and wish to poor in Britain. But the authors eliminate inequality without at the same time that inequality, eliminating the source of capitalism.
Not just the past and present experiences of Labour governments, bur the current pertormance of the socialist government in France shows the impossibility of carrying out long term and lasting reforms within the confines of ailing capitalism. The Mitterand government introduced a wealth tax and a programme of "reflation" similar to the proposals in Labour's programme. In the first period reforms were introduced by the Mitterand government: increased minimum wage, increased social security benefits etc. However, this has not prevented 6
[page 8]
Sidney Weighell, heckled by angry ASLEF pickets, is escorted by police as he enters Congress House (16 July) for the meeting of the TUC Finance and General Purposes Committee which refused to back the ASLEF strike. Despite protests from many of his nwn members, also under attack from the British Rail management, Weighell attacked the train drivers' strike action and approved strike-breaking by some railway workers. the huge increase in unemployment in France in the past 12 months which now exceeds the two million mark. Because of the colossal pressure exerted by the French bourgeoisie on the Mitterand government the taxes on the capitalist to pay for increased social security benefits have been watered down or withdrawn altogether. The "reflationary" programme of Mitterand has not eliminated unemployment but has stoked up inflation. And yet the state of British capitalism is far more parlous than its French counterpart.
How will the next Labour government pay for the reforms promised in the programme? The NEC promises that the aim will be "to reduce unemployment to under a million within our Labour's first five years." Peter Shore, spokesman on the economy, has outlined a programme of increased public expenditure amounting to $9,000 million in 1982 figures, which will be introduced by the next Labour government. This, he promises, will create half a million jobs a year. Thus approximately 2½ million jobs will be created in the course of the first five years of a Labour government. But unemployment now stands at 3.3 million and is expected to increase by at least half a million by the time of the general election. The TUC, however, has ointed out that the real figure tor unempioy ment is at least a million above that which is given in government statistics. Thus in real 7 PHOTO: Andrew Wiard/Report terms there could be five million unemployed by the time the next Labour government comes to power. Yet Labour's measures in the best circumstances will have the effect of creating 2½ million jobs over five years. The conclusion which one would have to draw from Shore's figures is that there will be 2½ million still out. on the stones at the end fo the term of office of the next Labour government.
How will the next Labour government pay for the promised reforms? The Programme does not explain where the cash will come from to pay for increased public spending, spending which the whole labour movement would support.
[page 9]
PHOTO: Denis Doran/Militant
Health Service workers set off from University
College Hospital for a rally at Westminster on one of the NHS unions days of action, 19 July.
Demanding a 12% increase, these low-paid
workers were offered
72% by the Tory
government. "TUC BETRAYED ASLEF-WILL
THEY BETRAY THE NHS?" said one nurse's placard. Such has been the success of the NHS
unions action and the
strength of support
from other trade
unionsists, the TUC at
Brighton was pushed
into calling on all unions to support a day
of industrial action on
22 September.
BRANLI
pomnen
ARE OUT
JUSTICE
But Labour's programme does not really explain where the cash will come from to pay for this increased public spending, spending which of course, the whole labour movement woul support. As the Marxists have pointed out many times, ultimately public expenditure comes from two sources. The working class can be taxed, as this Tory government has done by massively increasing VAT and income tax (notwithstanding its promises to do the opposite in 1976). If this is done to finance Labour's programme it will merely cut the market and cancel out the effects of increased government expenditure. If on the other hand, the capitalists are taxed in the form of wealth tax, the capitalists-as the experience of the last Labour government demonstrated-will resort to a strike of capital: investment will drop, factories
will close down, new factories will not be opened up, and the consequence will be a rise in unemployment. If, however, the programme of increased public expenditure is paid for by the issuing of pound notes which are not backed up by the extra production of goods and services this will merely fuel the fires of inflation. This in turn will cancel out the effects of the government's measures.
The authors of the document suggest that by merely increasing "demand", that is by increasing the market for capitalism by increased public expenditure, an increase in the British economy would be triggered off. Yet there is no lack of demand for the goods which capitalism can produce: working people are crying out for homes, consumer goods, etc. The problem for the capitalists is producing these goods pro-
[page 10]
fitably. And yet the NEC gets itself into a tangle when it proposes price controls. In practice, they are completely inoperable on the basis of capitalism, as the experience of the Labour government of 1945-51 and of the Prices and Incomes Board demonstrated-but even if they were implemented controls would limit the profits of big business and cut across any expansion of the capitalist economy.
The profits of the capitalists, in the final analysis, come from the unpaid labour of the working class. The only way to restore profits is by cutting the living standards of the working class, that is the share of the wealth which is a product of the working class itself. The NEC ensnares itself because it is not prepared to learn from the experience of the labour movement over the past decade and deficiencies of past Labour governments. It is the experience of these Labour governments which is a major factor in the growth of the Social Democratic Party.
The right wing have even succeeded in watering down the call for the nationalisation the banks, substituting propoosal for "public control, planning, and development agreements"
and financial institutions.
of banks
We have now to combat not just the open Tory enemy but the renegades from Labour. The ruling class have deliberately built up the SDP as a safety-net to catch millions of Tory voters who have been threatening to swing over and support Labour in the last three years. But they have found fertile soil for the SDP in the disillusionment which exists with previous right-wing Labour governments. In the last 35 years we have experienced seventeen years of right-wing Labour governments. Many of the gains in the National Health Service, in Education, housing, etc., have been cancelled out in the past decade. Thus, it has been recently revealed that there are now fewer beds in the National Health Service than when it was set up under the Labour government in 1948.
The right wing have even succeeded in watering down the proposal for the nationalisation of the banks contained in this programme. At the last National Executive Committee meeting, on
9
the initiative of Doug Hoyle and backed up by
the leader of the Association of Scientific,
Technical and Management Staffs (ASTMS),
Clive Jenkins, a resolution was passed which
deleted the clause for nationalistion of the
banks. In its place was a proposal for "public
control, planning and development agreements"
of the banks and financial institutions. The
resolution also included "reserve powers to take
into public ownership of one of the major clear-
ing banks if the necessary investment does not
take place, through planning agreements." We
will get milk from bulls before the banks in Bri-
tain invest sufficiently in industry to revive the
British economy. There is no need to wait for
the experience of the next Labour government.
The banking chiefs together with the directors
of the big monopolies have brought Britain to
the verge of ruin. As a minimum the movement
must demand the immediate nationalisation of
the banks and the insurance companies when
Labour comes to power. The claim that the
banks and insurance workers are oppsoed to
this demand is not sufficient to explain its dele-
tion from the programme. It is precisely the
bank workers who can suffer more than most sections of the working class from the introduction of new technology which is just being in-
troduced into the banks and finance houses. Already this year 25,000 fewer young pople are being taken on by the clearing banks in London alone because of the technclogy which is being introduced into their offices. A campaign of explanation by the whole labour movement, showing that the nationalisation of the banks and the insurance companies is the very minimum measure which a Labour government would need to undertake, would find, we believe, a big echo amongst the bank and insurance workers themselves.
Yet, even if a Labour government introduced this measure, it not would in itself give them the instruments to be able to halt the catastrophic collapse of industry and the conditions of working people. The French Socialist government has nationalised the majority of the banks in France. This has not prevented the collapse of industry etc. The justification for the proposal to nationalise the banks and the insurance companies is the failure of finance capital in Britain in the past to invest in industry, unlike their counterparts in Germany or Japan. This undoubtedly was one of the factors in the sorry record of British capitalism's failure to reinvest into manufacturing industry the surplus extracted from the labour of the working class. The banking chiefs and those at the head of the insurance companies preferred to invest in property, to invest abroadoverseas investment increased to a massive £10,000 million in 1981 after the Thatcher government lifted exchange controls. However, it was the prospect of massive and growing profits through investment in German industry
[page 11]
during the post-war boom which was the incentive for the banks to invest in industry. But with the collapse of the rate of profit of German capitalism-particularly in manufacturing industry-finance capital has become a lot more cautious. Moreover, the collaboration between finance capital and industrial capital in West Germany has not prevented the recent collapse of the eighth largest West German firm-the giant electronic monopoly AEG-Telefunken. Nevertheless, the Conference should be pressed to re-introduce into the programme the clause for the nationalisation of the banks as the minimum step which needs to be introduced by a Labour government. But such a proposal by itself, even if introduced, will not begin to solve the problems of the economy. The 1982 programme in relation to the nationalisation of industry does not go even as far as the 1973 programme. That programme proposed at least the partial nationalisation of the 25 leading companies and provoked a tremendous outcry by the ruling class in Britain. This programme in "We stand for its opening paragraphs states, the social control of the economy. We believe that large concentrations of economic power should be accountable to the community as a whole." And yet its proposals for the nationalistion of some industries does not even approach the realisation of this aim. The programme 'To plan effectively we shall need public ownership in electronics, pharmaceuticals and health equipment; the construction industry and building materials; the private road haulage industry; major ports, forestry and timber. We are committed to take a majority stake in all existing and future North Sea oil fields. Existing public enterprise, such as British Telecom must be entitled to diversify into new areas." In relation to nationalisation, the 1982 Programme does not go as far as the '73 Programme. To bring into public ownership a handful of industries will not allow a Labour government "to plan effectively."
The proposals to nationalise these industries must of course be welcomed. However, to bring these alone into public ownership will not allow a Labour government "to plan effectively". As Marxists have pointed out many times, where The experience of the working class internationally is that "a quarter" or even "a third of a revolution"partial nationalisation— while not satisfying the working class will push the bourgeoisie towards sabotaging and eventually bringing down radical and socialist governments.
the majority of industry, about 85%, is under the contorl of a handful of monopolies and a minority, about 15%, is under the control of the state, it will be the 85% that will dictate to the 15% and not vice versa. So long as the capitalists control and own a majority of industry the banks and insurance companies they will be in a position to dictate to a Labour government. Even if a Labour government led bv Tony Benn was to come to power ana nationalised big sections of industry including the 25 companies, this would not allow a Labour government to effectively organise and plan production. The Allende government in Chile nationalised 40% of industry. But because the capitalists had control of the levers of economic-and therefore ultimately of political-power they were able to mobilise the middle class by fuelling the fires of inflation and, when the time came, to overthrow in a bloody fashion the Allende government. The right-wing dominated Parliamentary Labour Party and shadow cabinet do not have the slightest intention of going anywhere near as far as the Allende government. In reality they hope to be able to ignore the more radical demands in this programme if they come to power in the next election. They will, however, be under colossal pressure, particularly in the first period, to carry out measures in the interests of the working class. It is for this reason that the right wing have pressurised Michael Foot to lead the campaign to delete even the proposal to nationalise the banks. If that was included in the manifesto and became official Labour Party policy, in the event of a Labour government coming to power, tremendous pressure would be exerted by the working class for the demand to be carried out. And the appetite increases with the eating. Other workers would then press for the nationalisation of their 10
[page 12]
—B80
AL. HELP
A nurse listens at the Health Service workers' meeting at Central Hall, Westminster, 19 July. It is the Monday ASLEF workers are supposted to return to work but some, like those in this meeting, stay out for another day in support of the NHS workers!
Sean Geraghty, Secretary, London Press Branch of the electricians' union (EETPU) leaving high court on 13 August after being fined
:350 and costs. Geraghty was found guilty of "contempt" after the Fleet Street electricians ignored a court order not to strike in support
of NHS workers and shut down the national newspapers for a day. This was in contrast to the EETPU leaders who rejected sympathy
action as "illegal". Later, an anonymous Fleet Street boss paid the fine.
11
PHOTO: Denis Doran/Militant
PHOTO: Andrew Wiard/Report
[page 13]
industries. However, the experience of the working class nationally and internationally is that "a quarter" or even "a third of a revolution" partial nationalisation-while not satisfying the working class will irritate the bourgeoisie and push it into preparing to sabotage and eventually bring down radical and socialist governments. The National Executive Committee is not prepared to draw the obvious conclusions from the crushing facts it supplies in relation to the 100 companies that dominate the economy. Why no proposal to nationalise at least 100 companies? This would at least begin to put the levers of power into the hands of a future Labour government. Militant would urge the labour movement in the forthcoming conference to go a lot further than that. The document itself is a clear indictment of the incapacity of capitalism to solve the problems of the economy or of the working people of Britain. We propose the nationalisation of the 200 monopolies which control 80%-85% of the economy. This would then allow a Labour government to begin to plan and organise a democratic socialist plan of production which could eliminate the unemployment, the mass poverty and deprivation so clearly detailed in this programme. It would allow the £70,000 million of unused capacity in Britain to be used immediately for the benefit of working people. This would give every man, woman and child in Britain an extra £25 a week on the basis of merely using up the so-called "excess capacity" which capitalism is incapable of using. With the use of modern technology an epoch of undreamed of plenty could be ushered in for the working class of Britain. Real democratic workers' control and management of the economy and the state could be implemented In its proposals on workers' participation and "industrial democracy" the NEC shows the vital necessity for working people to be involved in the organisation and the planning of the resources of Britain. However, it does not go far enough in outlining measures that would involve the real control and management which would need to be exercised if the resources of the economy were to be planned in a proper and organised fashion. Militant's programme for workers' control and management of the already existing nationalised indutries offers a clear way forward for the labour movement. We have proposed that one third of the positions on the boards of the nationalised industries should come from the unions within the industry, one third from the TUC representing the working class as a whole, and one third from the government. Moreover, the representatives on the boards should receive the average wage of a skilled worker and should be subject to recall at any time.
In its proposals on compensation for nationalisation the document goes further than previous statements when it states, 'Compensation would be paid for any newly acquired assets: but we have 12 learned the lessons of past mistakes and will not 'over-compensate'." But for these sentiments te become a reality, compensation should be paid on the basis of "proven need" and not the lavish overcompensation given to the ex-owners of the mines, railways etc., who had brought those industries to ruin before they were nationalised. The same principle should be applied to the re-nationalisation of nationalised industries which are now being sold off by the Tories.
The movement must be armed with a programme and perspective which have as their central idea the incapacity of capitalism to solve its problems and the vital and immediate need for a socialist plan of production.
The labour movement in Britain faces the most difficult challenge in the whole of its history. The savage attacks of this Tory government are merely an anticipation of the horrors which face working people on the basis of capitalism. Therefore the. movement must be armed with a programme and with a perspective which have as their central idea the incapacity of capitalism to solve its problems and the vital and immediate necessity for the introduction of the socialist plan of production in Britain. The document partially succeeds in the first of these intentions, in attacking and indicting British capitalism. But as we have shown, it has not sufficiently come to terms with the gravity of the crisis of British capitalism or the programme that can eliminate capitalism and put power in the hands of working people. Accordingly, at the forthcoming Labour conference the document should be praised for the advances that it makes in some fields, but its weaknesses must be brought out in the debate. Moreover, the march of events will teach the rank and file of the labour movement in Britain that this programme will have to be improved, will have to be filled out with a radical socialist content, if the labour movement in Britain is to be victorious in the struggle both against the Tory government and capitalism in the period which we are entering. O
[page 14]