vicious, anti-working class measures.
Thus the 1929-31 Labour Government slashed unemployment pay, the 1945-51 Government used troops against a docks strike and imposed a wage freeze. The 196470 Wilson Government carried out just about every anti-working class measure, from incomes policy to anti-union proposals.
The other policy which has been urged to deal with the economic ensis 1sto go ahead more rapidly with socialist policies. It is pointed out that only workers' control and widespread nationalisation can take the cconomy out of the capitalists' Frip, and therefore provide a way out of the crisis.
At last year's Labour Party conference, the Industry Minister Wedgewood Benn, spoke precisely on these two different policies and declared he supported the sccond one. He said: "We are saying at this conference that the crisis wo inherit when we come to power will be the occasion for fundamental change and not an excuse for postponing it, that is what we are saying in this debate today.
Now, less than a yoar after that Labour Party conference and with the publication of Labour's White Paper on Industry, we can see just how far Benn has retreated from his own brave words.
THE LONG RETREAT The first proposals which started the nationalisation debate in the Labour Party were the National Executive proposals for the nationalisation of 25 leading companies. This really put the cat amongst the employen' pigeons, While this proposal did not go far enough towards socialism, there is no doubt that it was not a proposal in the interests of the ruling class.
The first retreat on the NEC position came at the 1973 conference, While Tribune carried the banner movement to the capitalist threats which such a crisis produces. The solution always followed by Labour Governments has been to use the economic crisis as a reason for slowing down or abandoning completely, any anti-capitalist economic measures. The Labour Government has tried to work the capitalist economic system and, as a result, has been forced to carry out headline: "We kept the Red Flag fying here, all the real teeth of the nationalisation proposals were taken out. At the time we said in Red Weekly: 'There is a differenceand not just one of numbersbetween Wilson's nationalisation proposals and the original proposal of the NEC to take over 25 top companies. The NEC proposals for nationalisation would, however inadequate and confused, he a definite blow against the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie. Wilson's proposals are qualitatively different: the machine tool and aircraft industries are bankrupt; nationalisation of North Sea oil and gas will only provide cheaper fuel for industrial capital: and land nationalisation will only affect property speculators and so on. Those words still remain true.
Benn's 'consultative" Green Paper brought a further retreat. Only indicative planning and a few nationalisations were proposed.
The now Government White Paper marks a further retreat. No key firms are proposed for nationalisation at all. As we pointed out at the time the proposals for planning" were completely unimplementable as they conrained no use of workers control to force employers to do things against their will. This circle has now been squared by the latest Labour proposals which suy that planning agreements will be entirely voluntary any way!
What this means is that the firms, it they are feeling generous, will simply write down what they intend to do anyway (which in general at the moment is raising prices and sacking people?. They will then forward these proposals to the Government. The Government will then collect together all these proposais. bind them in a book with a brightly coloured cover, and announce this as a plan.
Many increase in the living standards Wilson is following the same course. rous, or they intend to do something which even the tun of the mill capitalist can (stomach, then they will just refise to tell the Govern ment anyway.
The employers magazine The Ecoomi expressed very well how businessmen will react to this: a mountain of sub-editing has brought forth his [Benn's] White Paper acca mouse with only an apologetic leer. The famous "planning agreements"
although the Government hope that big firms will tell it what they intend to do over the next three yean ... [this| will certainly put a premium on the public relations hucksters who are most adept at conning even private investors and who will slightly change their style to accomplish the easier task of getting taxpayers money out of politicians... But for nost companies, the planning agreements will simply mean the passage of xeroxes of meaningless material from companies files to Whitehall files .. It is humourless to call this rabid socialism.
As for nationalisation, it is true Economist simply noted in its COLD If the firms are not feeling genebefore are not to be a statutory requirement, plans monopolics, the banks, and the firms flagrantly breuking even Labour's leeble price controls? All these are going to he allowed to go on as The Times was correct wben it crowed: Gone is all that stuff about making a "fundamental and irreversible shift in the halance of power" there are some definite proposals. development land, North Sea oil, shipbuilding, aircraft, road haulage, Party. potts and parts of construction.
Reference to machine tools, pharmaceuticals, banks and building societies, round of wages and anti-redundancy all of which were mentioned in Labour's election manifesto, have however, been dropped. All the nationalisations are to be welcomed, but they don't get any where near the heart of the problem of the 20% rate of intlation and the 800,0001 million unemployed which is going to develop over the next year What about the building trade which is going to lay off 100,000 muen by the autumo at a time when housebuilding is at its lowest for 14 years? What about the motor industry where lens of thousands are going to get the sack? What about the food They expect this real incone to fall [Che Labour Party| have changed their tune. The threats, the metaphors drawn from the manual of infantry tactics, the accusations of incompelence or irresponsibulity have been excised. Instead the talk is all of partnership, a desire to be of assistance, the collaborative achievements of a vigorous and profitable private Se is clear that militants can use the controversy of which Labour's White Paper is a part to put over real socialist solutions to the crisis. But the socialist way forward for dealing with the economic crisis is even less contained in the latest proposals than in the previous Labour The key thing now is the response of the trade unions. There will undoubtedly be a big round of wages and anti-redundancy struggles this winter. It is absolulely vital that these are won if the struggle is to go forward. But it is impossible to fight capitalism's attacks simply through trade union action. If you believe the trade unions are a weapon of strugge then you must see that they muse also become a poutical weapon, They anust abso impose their policy in the political arena. They must become the core of a political movement against the present leaders of the working class, It is necessary to organise politically inside and ourside the Labour Party. Three viral Casks flow from this in relation to the econonic crisis and the miserable industry proposals of the Labour PROPOSALS *Organise to win the coming struggles. Strike committoes, occupatiches, mass and flying pickets are the neceasary weapons of struggle. Dem ands for full granting of wage demands. for a sliding scale of wages, for a national minimum wage, for equal pay for women are the types of demands that must be won on the wages front.
*Any attempt to unpose an incomes policy should be met with a general strike.
*On redundancy, all closures und sackings should be met with occupatons and the demand that the firm be nationalised without compensa