In occasional quiet interludes between the heated sessions of Party polemic across the floor of the House of Commons, the members of the present opposition -"left" and right" alike - can often be caught in poses of virtuous contental.
It is on such occasions that they indulge themselves in pleasant daydreams of the great common purpose that unites them all - Socialism. The dream of Socialism has, since the foundation of the Party, been the cement which binds it together.
Unfortunately, cach time a Labour Government has mounted the steps of power, the dream has turned into a nightmare, and the Party has started to come apart at the seams. But never let it be said that the Labour Party has leaders who are weak of heart: once more they have their paste-pots to the ready and are busy putting the Party back into shape for the great electoral battles ahead:
The latest version of the perennial dream is Labour': Programme for Britain, published as a supplement to Labour Weekly two weeks ago. Let us listen to the dream spinners: We aim to bring about a society based on co-operation instead of competition; where production is for people's needs, not for private profit; where community care is available for all, where the personal relationships are based on oquality, and international relationships on mutual res pect. Our basic Socialist principles are today more relevant than ever.' Very admirable. But when buying a product as well-used as the Labour Party's Socialism, It is best to read the fine print of the contract very closely. It is widely acoepted that the British economy is in a very deep crisis. This is a fact of which the authors of the Labour Programme are well aware: 1. the British economy is so risen with deep structural faults that it is becoming increasingly difficult to manage it at all - especially to combine full employment and a reasonable rate of growth, with either a healthy balance of payments or acceptable levels of inflation.' Faced with such an immense problem, modesty is clearly the order of the day. Time and again we read such phrases as We do not claim that the measures we propose could solve easily the economic problems which have baffled governments of both parties for many years. We claim only that they will provide the necessary basis for removing the obstacles to sustained economic growth: they will not themselves remove these obstacles."
It's the old case of trying to lead a horse to water, but having a nagging doubt that he wont businesses. be thirsty even if you get him there, Or, as our modest politicians put it:
We do not claim that we will bring about a sudden acceleration in the rate of coonomic growin. We claim only that our policies, taken as a whole, should enable the next Labour government to allow the economy to expand in line with the growth of productive potential -thus maintaining a general level of full employment.* INVESTMENT The problem, however, isjust this rate of growth of productive potential. Putting the unemployed to work may provide an initial immediate, practical assistance. For this reason, spurt of economic growth, but it cannot maintain the type of continuous expansion necessary to finance all of Labour's pluns. That will require growing productivity of those at work. This, in turn, can be obtained in two ways: by sweating the existing work force more intensely. The whole aim of this new apparatus is to give or through new capital investment. If we give Labour the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are not planning on introducing a form of Socialism based on slave-labour, then they must PRESS But this has its problems, as they also acknow. ledge elsewhere: In the financing of investment from ploughed-back profits, it is the con sumer who pays for this investment through higher prices... The problem, of course, i that this investment provides the very sinews of the nation's industrial strength. And until we can devise some alternative source of finance for investment, we cannot afford to choke it off FAR REACHING MEASURES In order to tackle this crucial problem of economic growth a series of far reaching measures are proposed to lay the basis for economic planning These include a now Industry Act, which would give the government extensive powers to obtain information from companies, issue directives on major policy questions, and acquire partial or total ownership of particular Also proposed is a Planning Agreement System, which would require the largest manufacturing companies to furnish regular information to government planning authorities, and to agree to tailor their policies to meet specific aims laid down by these aut borities. In exchange these companies would be eligible to receive investment granta from the government, although major grants would involve state acquisition of a stake in the company.
Finally, various moves are proposed to exten public ownership, both by the nationalisation of certain industrial sectors which are heavily dependent on government financial aid (sbiphuilding, docks, and aircraft), and by the establishment of a National Enterprise Board which will embark on a programme of buying up controlling interests in a number of the major manufacturing companses.
the government sufficient power to decisively affect decision making by private capital. The National Enterprise Board, for example, 15 seen as being in a position to frighten its The most striking feature of this set of policies is that they aim to carry out completely contradictory aima. We bave the absurd idea that the vast sums required for Labour's social plans must be obtained through economic growth which can only be developed through. vast sums of state expenditure!
Similarly, the National Enterprise Bound is designed to stimulate investment through the companies it controls, but it is to be got off the ground through a big public loan issue - which will, of course, have the effect of drying up uncommitted capiral available for investment, thua driving interest rates upwards, In fact, this National Enterprise Board is to be a most wonderful animal. It is to manage companies that can expand rapidly through profits, take a "socially responsible' attitude towards their employees, set up shop in the less efficient "development areas', and at the same time strike terror into the heart of every old fashion ed capitalist business by threatening to undersell them in the marker The balance of payments and exchange dif ficulties of the British economy are treated in the same way: 'Labour has never regarded devaluation or floating of the pound as a cure for all ills. Any drop in the international exchange rate of our currency inevitably causes the costs of vital unports of food, fuel and raw materials to rise... But we must be ready to act on the exchange rate in either direction when the occasion demands, In particular, ow exports must not be allowed to become un competitive against those of our leading competitors.
But the two aims of keeping the prices of imports and exports down require opposite move ments in the exchange rate. Labour appears lo be pledging itself to nove the pound in both directions at once!
Labour's cconomic plans only make sense if we assume that they can work a miracle on the British coonomy that will outdo Christ's littie exercise with the fishes and loaves. If we doubt the divine powers of Wilson and Co., then we must call into question the whole economic scheme of the Labour Programme, and with it all of the other fine pledges, The Labour Party simply cannot face up the fact that the British capilalist system is un a crisis too deep to be solved by the type of mild referns in which social-democracy specialises.
The economic problems we face ate a result of the low rate of profit on investment in the British economy. This produces a situation in which busjnesics are very reluctant to embark on new investment programintes, and in which the actual volume of cash availabic for new investrent is very cow anyway This situation has a ruthless amplicity — the problems of the British econumy can only be resolved, within a capitalist framework, by increasing the rate of profit. This requites a massive redistribution of the national income from the working ciass to the capilalist class. This may be carried out through the direct action of the bosses, who will increase the exploitation of the workforce by keeping wage increases lower than prioe and productivity increases combined. And it can be carried out with the help of the state: by such measures as investment incentives to business financed out of taxes on the working class.