workers are among the best organised in the world.
So what plans are the "leaders" of the trade union movement making for dealing with the crisis? What solutions do they propose? How do they plan to get them implemented? NO ANSWER The answer is that the trade union bureaucracy has no real solution to the crisis, and is doing nothing at all bout working out and implementing the sort of policies necessary to solve the crisis in the interests of the millons of trade unionists, and tens of lions of workers, in this country. This was made quite clear by TUC General Secretary Len Murray last when he said, It is easy to m up schemes of what other -in this case wage earnersald do to solve the nation's coon problemf-.lt might be more ositively helpful if the CBI would put forward a programme to get wir member companies to carry essential investments and to tect Jobs.."
Murtay, made this remark in agly to a proposal by the Confedeation of British Industry that the trade unions should bail industry not of the crisis through a "voluntary' ecomes policy. But it is important to note that the only alternative he an put forward to the CBP's capitEst scheme is another capitalist cheme —the bosses should work out a plan for more investment by capitalist industry.
This has been the message of the TUC in all the recent discussions about the state of the coonomy. and there is nothing new in this approach. Ever since its formation the TUC, and most of the unions it represents, have seen their job as simply defending the material welfare of their members through collective dealings with the employers. Questions of "political' policies have been trealed as matters on which the trade unions may have views, but must be left to the capitalist Mate, Parliament in particular, to deal with Thus the Einst coordinating body of the TUC was its Purliamentary Committee, whose job it was to keep an eye on developments in Parliament and to lobby the Government and political parties for the action it wanted from the state. After the Labour Parly had been created and won support from most trade unions the job of representing trade union interests in Parliament and handling political matters was left to the Labour MPs.
PROBLEM The problem with such an approach has always been that Government policy and the actions of the state have a very big effect on the material welfare of working people. So the TUC has never been able to ignore Government policy. But its ment acting directly to determin "affairs of state" bas left it in a position where it can only endorse or reject Government policy, but without ever having an alternative or any means of putting such alternatives Red Weekly 23 January 1975 Page 8 AS THE CAPITALIST crisis bites home around the world this coming year Britain will be one of the worst hit victims. Even 'optimistic" predictions are now talking about record breaking inflation of more than 20%6, coupled with mass unemployment worse than anything seen since the 30s.
At first glance the British working class would seem to be in a good position to do something about this crisis and the attempts of the capitalists to dump its burdens on the backs of working people. After all, with more than ten million members in a single trade union body -the TUC- British into practice.
It was this approach which led 1o a major defeat for the workers movement the last time a world economic crisis hit Britain with full Force in 1931, That crisis split the leadership of the Labour Party, with its leading figures -the Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald, and the main architects of its economic policy, the Chancellor Philip Snowden and J.H. Thomas- leaving the party to form a coalition "National Government" with the political representatives of the capitalists.
The TUC - planning for the future.
The cconomic policy of this Government involved wide ranging cuts in expenditure which hit brutally at working class living standards -particularly those of the unemployed. The TUC opposed these measures, but the whole outlook of its leadership made it impossible for them to do anything about it.
In September 1931 -one month alter the establishment of the National Goverament- the TUC met to discuss the situation. Badly shaken by its defeat, the TUC leadership moved a resolution pledging the TUC to "boldly advance the present tendency lowards a planned and regulated economy in our national life'. But, as one delegate pointed out, this was just a pious resolution which will make no difference to the real position', because it was not connected to any measures for actwally securing the implementation of a planned and regulated economy'.
As the same delegate pointed out, 'you cannot naturally plan in this country because you have not real power, and the problem which this Congress ought to face, If you are going to have national planning, is how hest you can get that real But this problem of power did not really worry the TUC leaders. because their idea of "planning" was Pugh explained, arguing against the proposal for a general strike in reply to the National Government, the British Trades Union Movement throughout the whole of the strupeles of the past century has been gradually building, building and building. On its political side it built until it was able to put a Labour Government in the House of Commons, In the same way it must build up industry. We must go into these economic and financial questions, we must have research and investigation, we must make our own plan.
In the years after the second world war, Government policy became a much more important factor .. of capitalism but the approach of the TUC did not change appreciabiv. Un until the early "60s, the only role that the TUC played in economic nateers was to either grant or refuse cooperation with Government pleas for wage restraint.
The union bureaucrats readily went along with the Labour Government from 1947-50 when it called for a wage freeze, thus compelling the working class to subsidise the process of rebuilding refused similar cooperation with Tory Goveraments for more than a decade after the defeat of Labour in 1951.
Eventually, the Tories had to impose a partial wage freeze -the "pay pause' of 196l. This forced the union bareaucrats lo recognise that they couldn't ignore economic questions, and the following year saw a major shift in the TUCs approach to economic policy. In exchange for an end to the 'pay pause' the TUC agreed to sit on the newlycreated National Economic Devel opment Council (NEDC) along with represcatatives of Government and policy a thoroughly capitalist one. As Arthur allow the General Council to formComic plans.
REALITY in shaping the state of the economy.
the deal.
STORMS post-war capitalism, but it steadfastly industry. This body would be chargod with drawing up comprehensive economic plans to guide Government In September the TUC voted to ulate its own wages policy for the movement as a whole -an authority it needed if it were to make comm itments on behalf of the trade unions in the preparation of econIn reality this was the application of Pugh's policy in a situation better suited to its success. The TUC now did all the things Pugh hud dreamed of -it carried out its own 'research and investigation, and examined economic and financial questions'. But. as in Pugh's scheme, this continued to be separated from any means of carrying out TUC economic policies except, that is, through reliance on the mechanisms set up by the capitalist state. Thus the TUC worked out its economic policy totally within the framework of capitalism: its "planning was simply a debate on how best to boost capitalism (Build up indDAVI ustry", as Pugh put it). In the proo ess it also had to take on a share of responsibility for implementing that policy - which is, of course, what the capitalists wanted out of This arrangement continues to the present day. but it has inevitably had some stormy periods, and far rougher ones lie ahead. The assumption lying behind the TUCS participacion in the coonomic planning mischinery of the capitalist state is that capitalism can continue to meet the essential needs of borh the working class and the capstalists. The only debate is over who gets what. Thus the TUC participates in bodies like the NEDC to try and bargain for a bigger slice of the national cake for trade unionists.
Given thie power of the organised working ciass, they have had some success in the past. And one thing the union bureaucrats have Icarnt la that if they are unable to come to an agreement they can always thwart Goverment policies by ref ising to cooperate in their application. Thus in 1969, for example, atter the unions bad a disaareement perts". with the Labour Chancelior, they decided to give a freer reign to wage claims, which increased workens pay packets and their cemand for goods, this giving the coonomy the boost whith the Government had refused to deliver.
Plebs' apt cartoon during the General Strike perfectly summed up the weaknesses of the TUC's policy Basically this is what the union -especially the 'left variety like Jones, Scanlon and Jenkins- are threatening to do now In effect they are saying to Healey either you pump moley into the cconomy to prevent unemployment or we'll do the job for you by letting wages rip:
The trouble with such a threat is that it remains based on the old assumption that the economy is able to meet the noeds of both classes. Only under those conditions can the unions successfully squecze oul extra cash without upsetting the whole applecart.
Even in 1969 their wage drive delivered a big shock to British capitalism. At the present time, when protit margins have virtually been wom to the hone and soaring inflation is making it difficult for ever very big firms to make ends micer on a day-to-day basis, such a move would simply provoke a rash of bankrupicies and factory closures.
The answer, of course, is not the "sage restraint" which the cap italiste and the Labour Government have been calling for. As they are now admitting, this involves a cut in the living standards of the work ing class in order to perpetuate bankrupt capitalism out of the workers pockets. But neither de the policies of the union bureaucrats —left or right- topresent a The only real answer is the des traction of capitalism and ib supp lanting by a socialist economy. This requiros a different kind of plan from the trade unions -not the bureaucrats" plan for the better running of capitarism to be carried out by the capilalists and their state machinery, but a workers plan for socialisa, to be put into action by the millions of trade unionists and their organisations.
In the coming months a myriad of struggles will be launched by wor kers in their own factories, firms and industries to combat the effects of the crisis. It is bere that militants ned, socialist solation to the crisis —and not in the bureaucrats' hob knobbing with the employers' representatives and capitalist ex-
----- pull-quotes -----
Chris Balfour looks at the TUC's economic policy
should be looking for the raw mat- crials with which to develop a plan