[page 6]
Hattersley and the right wing are set to repeat the disastrous policies of the Callaghan ple like Tiny Rowlands? Rowlands 'earns' £323,000 from the Lonrho company, but his 45 million shares (worth about I76m) in the company netted him well over £4 millions in dividends. The richest 10 per cent of the population are increasing their proportion of the country's wealth, whereas the real take home pay of the poorest single workers fell by nearly 6 per cent in the three years to April 1982. In 1982 the richest 10 per cent held 47 per cent of the total personal wealth, up from 46 per cent the previous year and 45 per cent in 1980. Capitalism breeds inequality. It is based upon the exploitation of the labour of the workers by the capitalist class.
from the unpaid labour of working people, extracted from them by the banks and monopolies. The class interests of the workers and the capitalists are ab- Despite the clear lessons of 17 years of post war Labour Government. the document repeatedly states that only through partnership will we 'find solutions to our problems. Unemployment, trade, inflation and income distribution must all be tackled on this basis'! Our leaders are living in a dream world and are totally blind to the class nature of society.
Capitalist 'economic realities'
What are the 'radical' policies proposed for a future Labour government? Firstly, a national economic summit made up of government, employers and unions will be convened to work out a planned agreement on the allocation of scarce resources!. According to Roy Hattersley, the Shadow Chancellor, who gets his advice from academic and big business circles, a future government cannot isolation from the laws of 'Any 'planned agree ment' must take economic realities into account. What is this, if not the Tory idea that if capitalism in crisis cannot afford reforms then 'realistic,'
sacrifices and wait for better times. The point now is that the economic crisis is 100 times more catastrophic than when Labour last came to power in 1974. A trade surplus in manufactured goods of $2,500 million in 1982 was turned into a trade deficit of £4,000 million last year. This is the first time since the industrial revolution that this has happened! The same is true in the new industries. In information technologies, Britain trade deficit has reached £2,300 million. Not one British company is in the top ten world producers and imports now take 58 per cent of the British market. The idea of 'jam tomorrow' has been the argument of all right-wing Labour governments since the war. It has always led to disillusionment and to Hattersley-reflecting the ideas of the CBI-lets the cat out of the bag when he says 'profits are an essential feature of a successful socialist economy What he means is capitalist economy. But how is this 'high profit economy' to be created? With an 'agreement on incomes' says Hattersley. He sees the need to cut the share of the national income going to wages to increase the profits of the monopolies. By such measures he hopes to boost investment and overcome the crisis. He wants a return to the old failed policies of wage restraint —of the 'Social Contract'.
got to be a (wage) norm' he maintains, out it must be voluntary!
But what is the difference with the 'voluntary' social contract between 1974 and 1979? None whatsoever. Despite increased profits for big business, these were not invested in manufacturing industry, but put overseas or in the banks where a larger return was achieved. Will the TUC police its implementation? "I don't think there is going to be policing in the old way!" states Hattersley. So what is going to be different? He warns the trade unions-holding a pistol to their heads-"It may be that we can't get agreement and therefore we can't reduce unemployment as fast as we want"
• So for the right wing it will be those fighting for decent wages that will be the scape-goat for continuing mass unemployment, not the capitalist system of course. In Neil Kinnock's categorical view, 'it is not a question of whether the Labour government will have an (incomes) policy. It goes with government, no more, no less.'
(Financial Times, 4 May 1985) Photo: Militant But what does the Liason document say? "The last Labour government made progress in co-operation with trade unions. Inevitably there were weaknesses in some areas of action (sic), which provide lessons for the There are, however, none so blind as those who do not want to see. One clear lesson was the disastrous 'weakness' of introducing an antiworking class 'voluntary' incomes policy. Such capitalist policies have been tried under the 1945-51, 1964-70 and 1974-79 Labour governments and, as was their real intention, have boosted profits at the expense of workers' wages. After phase 1 and phase 2 of the 'Social Contract' under Wilson and Callaghan, real wages were at least 10 per cent lower than at the close of 1974. That was the biggest fall in real wages in Britain in any comparable period for over 100 years! Yet despite these sacrifices from the working class unemployment rocketed under the Labour government from 600,000 to nearly 1½ million. 'Miracle cures'?
It was the rejection of wage restraint by the TUC in 1977 and 1978 and the disillusionment created with the attempt by Callaghan to impose a Phase 3 and 4 that led to Labour's defeat in 1979.
At this year's COHSE conference, Kinnock stated that there were 'no miracle cures, there can be no mirage or fantasy! 'We are not promising miracle cures... people want realistic answers to real problems.'
Sunday Times, 31 March 1985) But, ironically, the only people looking for miracles are those attempting to give answers on the basis of a diseased crisis-ridden capitalist system. What is needed are real solu-
[page 7]
MIR Autumn 1985: Labour government
tions to the real problems confronting working people: namely mass unemployment, poverty, slum housing, devastated social services, etc.
However, the 'real' solutions offered by the Labour leadership, have been tried and found wanting. While Militant supporters have consistently demanded increased spending on housing, edication, hospitals, etc-the £5 billion reilațion package is entirely inadequate and will not solve the terrible social problems which have arisen out of the present catastrophic position of British capitalism. No amount of patching up and tinkering with the system: selective import controls, a National Investment Bank, the strengthening of NEDC, planning agreements, government grants, or worker participation, will provide real solutions to real problems.' Given the near collapse of manufacturing industry, and with a new world slump on the horizon, such a programme-which has been tried by Labour governments in the past in one form or anotherwhich leaves the economic levers of power in the hands of the major monopolies, is profoundly inadequate and will not succeed.
Jobs-a 'foolish pledge'?
Even the Labour leaders themselves in reality recognise this to be true. Kinnock in 1979, as the Shadow Education secretary, stated that Labour could not make easy promises to restore the cuts made by the Thatcher government. The retreat on policy commitments was on. In early 1984 he stated that we would be 'hard pushed' to reduce unemployment to below 2 million! All mention of 'socialist policies' has been abandoned, leaving Kinnock to openly praise the economic policies of the Reagan administration! "They relinquished monetary targets, cut interest rates, expanded public spending and held taxes, says Kinnock. Leaving aside Reagan's vicious attacks on the American working class, this 'realistic model' has collapsed with economic growth falling drastically and serious currency problems emerging.
The US 'boom' of 1984 was fueled by massive military spending, overseas borrowing and a colossal budget deficit. The core of the economy, manufacturing, has been practically stagnant. Such a situation could not last indefinitely. Now the chickens are coming home to roost as the US moves into recession and threatens to drag the world economy down with it.
Even the Party's longstanding commitment to 'full employment' has been challenged. In an attack on Benn, Kinnock stated 'that there was nothing unsocialist about.... facing economic
realities. Most workers had to face economic realities every day.' But these are precisely the economic realities of the capitalist system that we are trying to do away with. By accepting these capitalist realities or, in other words, capitalism's limitations, the Labour leaders have had to invent a 'new concept of full employ. ment.... not the full employment of the 1950s, 1960s or even the early 1970s—we know its not coming back in that form. We want a policy for full employment which takes account of the realities of present and future technology,, economic and cultural change....
(Neil Kinnock, Times 25 June 1985)
The commitment is now dramatically altered by edged qualifications and limitations. Kinnock and Hattersley are intending not to change the capitalist system but to work within its confines. 'We are going to some extent to have to plan with the (capitalist-RS) market, rather than against the market. This is the fact of the matter.... says Kinnock pragmatically.
Marxism has always laid great stress on studying past events. Those who do not learn from the mistakes in history will be doomed to repeat them. However, different trends of opinion can draw opposite erroneous conclusions. In relation to the previous Labour government, right-winger Joel Barnett, former chief secretary to the Treasury, for instance, in his book, 'Inside the Treasury' states, "The Labour government of 1974-79 had a financial task rendered impossible by pledges foolishly made without any serious thought as to where the money would come from.... you name it, we were pledged to increase it.'
Roy Hattersley, Labour's Shadow Chancellor sees the answer to this 'foolishness'-don't pledge anything! That's where the Socialist government went wrong in France...it offered unredeemable promises to the electorate! At the 1984 Party conference he described two of his nightmares: The first was losing the election and the second was 'we win, and within two years appear to have failed to carry out the promises we made to the electorate, in part because we made promises which were not within the bounds of possibilty
"I don't want to follow the French experience. I don't want to see the next Labour government start with two years of unreality and end with two years of deflation and despair for our members."!
The 'unreality' that Hattersley talks about was the period of welfare reform by the Mitterand government: the extension of nationalisation, increased national minimum wages, increased
8
social security benefits, a wealth tax, a reflation programme, etc. However with the growing economic crisis, a series of counter-reforms were troduced including devaluations and cuts in public expenditure. The nationalised industries were 'rationalised' resulting in wide-spread redundancies and plant closures. By mid-1985 unemployment was 750,000 higher than when the socialists came power. Not because they promised too much, but because they left the power of the monopolies intact, they were forced to do the bidding of big business and introduce 'monetarist' policies. From reforms to counterreforms was the inevitable outcome on this road. What would be different in Britain with a third less industry and a third less wealth? Such a programme would be an absolute disaster.
The Marxists are accused of being utopian while the right wing are portrayed as realists. But the complete reverse is true. Such is the economic decline of British capitalism the material basis for lasting reforms has collapsed. The ruling class is demanding austerity. Out of fear of an explosion of inflation they abandoned Keynesianism
and adopted monetarism. Callaghan, as early as the 1976 Labour Party conference, stated that keynesianism was dead
However, the continuing crisis since has demonstrated that neither monetarism nor keynesianism offers a solution. The experience of the Socialist governments of France, Greece and Spain has underlined the point.
974-crisis now a
100 times worse
Only by the taking over of the 'commanding heights of the economy', the 200 major monopolies, banks and insurance companies-Clause 4 Part 4 can all the reforms passed by conference be implemented in a lasting fashion.
Theat, deience if the controls and.
'incentives' you can't plan what you don't control and you don't control what you don't own.
To remain on the basis of capitalism will be a horrific nightmare for working people. A future Labour Government will be pressured and blackmailed by Big business into dropping its reformist programme as was the case in 1964 and 1974. They will be threatened with a 'strike of capital' until Tory measures are adopted to pacify the ruling class.
It is an absolute law under capitalism that while 80% of the economy is in private hands and only 20% state owned, the majority private
[page 8]
Billy becomes a
sector will dictate to not vice-versa.
Let us remember that it was the Labour government of 1974-79, that introduced a watered-down ''Thatcherism" or monetarism.
Despite the 1974 manifesto commitment to "bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families" , the Government moved from reforms to counter-reforms. The rush to the IMF for a loan in 1976 resulted in cuts being imposed of £3 billion in public expenditure. A further £5 billion was slashed from the 1977-78 expenditure by cash limits. Such measures— demanded by the capitalist class— attempted to shift resources from private and public consumption towards private industry. This attempt to encourage investment was doomed to fail as it resulted in a drastic reduction in the market, which in turn was a disincentive for the capitalists to invest. These attacks led to demoralisation amongst Labour supporters and laid the path for the Thatcher victory of 1979.
It was the failure to break with capitalism that resulted in counterreforms against working people. This did not emanate from a lack of sincerity on the part of the Labour leadership. As Lenin once explained, we don't possess a sincerometer and can't judge an individual's sincerity. But once a Labour government remains within the confines of capitalism, then it has to inevitably operate under its laws. No matter how 'sincere' ', honest or strong-willed a reformist leadership is, it is the laws of capitalism that decide in the end.
In this period of acute economic crisis for capitalism in Britain and internationally, measures will be demanded by the ruling class for the burden to be placed fully on the shoulders of the working class. Profit is the sole driving force of the system. To increase profitability is paramount for the capitalists who own the economy. They will through a thousand and one channels-directly and indirectly -sabotage any government that resists such plans.
Such blackmail was described by Harold Wilson in his book The Labour Government, 1964-70, when in November 1964, the Governor of the Bank of England, Lord Cromer demanded "all-round cuts in expenditure regardless of social or even economic priorities, and fundamental changes in some of the Chancellor's economic announcements.
"Not for the first time, I said that we had now reached the situation where a newly elected government with a mandate from the people was
the minority
walking ad
UNEMPLOYED Billy Pickersgill is taking his search for a job on to the streets of Liverpool.
From today the 29-year-old Kirkby man will become a familiar figure to city centre workers as he makes his own "Gizza job" plea.
Billy, trom Tower Hill, is so fed up with the lack of work being offered at the Job centres he has decided to become a walking advert for himself.
And he intends to carry around his placard proclaiming "Please give me a job" every rush hour until someone takes him up on his offer.
"I've got to do some thing. I just cannot sit around aron said Billy ane father of a two-and-ahalf year-old daughter Natalie.
Chance
"People give me some funny looks but I don't care. Hopefully someone will notice me and give me a chance.
By Val Woan
Billy has been unem-
loyed for two years and
lis last job was an auxiliary nurse at Walton Hospital. Before that he was in the Army.
"I really will do anything, ," he added. "Some people are quite happy to laze around and collect their supplementary benefit, but not me. I have got a wife and a baby and I want to work to give them the standard of living they deserve."
Liverpool Echo, Monday, March 11, 1985
Will a "new concept of employment' being told, not so much by the Governor of the Bank of England but by international speculators (as well as British big business-RS), that the policies on which we had fought the election could not be implemented; that the government was to be forced into the adoption of Tory policies to which it was fundamentally opposed. The Governor confirmed that this was, in fact, the case.
A government of crisis
I asked him if this meant that it was impossible for any government, whatever its party label, whatever its manifesto or the policies on which it fought an election, to continue, unless it immediately reverted to full-scale Tory policies. He had to admit that that was what his argument meant, because of the sheer compulsion of the economic dictation of those who exercised decisive economic power...
"To accept his argument would mean that the Queen's First Minister was being asked to ring down the curtain on parliamentary democracy, by accepting the doctrine that an election in Britain was a farce, that the British people could not make a choice between policies...
"In these circumstances, I concluded, there was nothing left for me to do except to appeal to the democracy I was being asked to repudiate, to go back to the electorate for a mandate giving me full powers to handle this crisis.
'The Governor recognised my constitutional right to do this. Not unfairly, he warned me that if I did so-and the process would occupy some four weeks-the run on sterling would continue and indeed intensify; that our
PLEASE
GiVE
ME
TA DI
the misery of the jobless?
reserves, which had already fallen considerably, would have run out long before polling day, long before I had any mandate for any other action. I told him that I recognised the force of his arguments.
The Wilson government gave in to the pressure. Nobody in the labour movement heard a word about this conspiracy until after the defeat of the government in 1970. It graphically indicates where real power lies in Britain: not with Parliament, the Cabinet or even the Prime Minister, but the unelected boardrooms of the major monopolies and banks. That is the reality of present day life. That is the lesson of all Labour governments: 1924, 1929-31, 1945-51, 1964-1970 and 1974-1979.
The reformist idea that gradually and slowly-bit by bit salami fashion-capitalism can be changed into socialism is clearly not the case. After 17 years of post war Labour government we are now further away then when we started! As RH Tawney ("'the greatest of all Labour teachers' according to Kinnock) once explained, "You can peel an onion leaf by leaf, but you can't skin a live tiger claw by claw."
A Labour government is always elected in times of crisis, when the desire for change is at its highest. Under these conditions the next Labour government too will be a government of crisis. It will be subject to pressure not only from the capitalist class but from the working class as well. Under the deepening economic crisis there will be no alternative for the ranks of the trade unions and labour organisations but to attempt to force the government to act as its representative. Militant supporters
[page 9]