(Militant No. 255, 9 May 1975, p. 4-5)
The two elections in 1974 marked a decisive turning point in the post-war development of the Labour movement in Britain. In the preceding four years under the whip of Heath’s ‘counter-revolution’ against their rights and conditions the working class had been enormously radicalised. This was reflected in strikes and demonstrations which were the biggest for 50 years and also within the Labour movement in the shift towards the left within the trade unions and the Labour Party. Labour fought the elections on the most radical programme since 1945.
At the same time the elections revealed a big growth in the support for Tribune as the main ‘left’ tendency within the Parliamentary Labour Party. Approximately one quarter of the PLP – 83 MPs – now count themselves as Tribune supporters. This compares to the handful of Tribune MPs during the period of the Labour Government from 1964-70. Even during the Labour Government of 1929-31 in a period roughly similar to the present one so far as the Labour Government is concerned the left of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) only included in its ranks some 37 MPs.
The Bevanite left wing, formed out of the opposition to the introduction of health charges by the 1945-51 Labour Government, was in a similarly weakened position. Moreover its base was mainly in the Constituency Labour Parties. The union leaderships were in the grip of the right wing. But the election of Jack Jones in the Transport Union, Lawrence Daly in the Miners’ Union and Hugh Scanlon in the Engineering Union reflected the move to the left of the advanced workers in the union branches and shop stewards committees and meant that the leadership of the unions were now dominated by those who shared the stand point of Tribune.
Tribune are now in the majority in the leadership of the unions and within the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party remains the last preserve of the Gaitskellite right wing. And even in this rarified atmosphere the adherence of some unlikely ‘left’ converts to Tribune like John Silkin, shows that there is an increasing sensitivity to the mood amongst the rank and file.
But every thinking worker will ask … “will tribune be capable of succeeding where the right wing failed? Have they a programme able to assure victory in the coming battles?”
An examination of the pages of Tribune just over the past six months will show that they are found wanting, to say the least. The most striking feature of Tribune over this period is the lack of any understanding of the character of the period through which we are passing.
For almost three decades the British ruling class, on the basis of the world economic upswing, were enabled to grant sizeable concessions to the working class. But the inglorious decay of British capitalism over this period has meant that the capitalists can no longer afford the much vaunted ‘welfare state’. The emergence to power of Tory ‘Selsdon Man’ ready to hamstring the unions and ruthlessly slash living standards indicated this. Primitive ‘Selsdon Man’ was laid to rest but his spirit, like John Brown’s continues on. The causes which gave rise to the Heath Government remain; in fact they have been considerably aggravated since 1970.
Tony Benn indicated the price which working people have been forced to pay for the continuation of diseased British capitalism. During the period of 1970-74 160,000 jobs a year were lost in manufacturing through redundancy and only one in three of these jobs was replaced by the creation of a new job in manufacturing. If this trend continues, what Benn calls ‘de-industrialisation’ – then by 1980 nearly two million industrial workers will have been made redundant between 1970 and 1980 and 15% of the manufacturing industry will have been closed down!
In other words a future of mass unemployment faces the working class in Britain if capitalism continues! There are already more than 1 million unemployed. No wonder the writers for the Times, organ of Big Business, confidently predict … “The era of full employment is over.” A taste of what the capitalists have in store for the working class is shown by the redundancies already announced for the steel industry with predictions that 20,000 workers could be thrown on the scrap heap this year. How is the Labour movement to face up to this situation?
In the first issue of Tribune following the election victory in October in an editorial the statement of Tony Benn was approvingly quoted … “We said at our last Conference that the crisis we would inherit should be the occasion for making changes not the excuse for postponing it.” (18/10/74)
Yet Tribune flatly contradicts Tony Benn’s advice, and its own, to the Labour Government when it published an article by Jack Jones on 28th February. By tearing out of context a quote from Karl Marx, he attempted to justify the retreat of the Government on its election programme… “‘Men make their own history, but do not make it just as they please, they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves’ said Karl Marx. Certainly the mess left by the Conservative Government in 1974 was in no way our choice. And the violent inflationary forces which now play about us are scarcely the opportunity we sought to effect the major structural change in our society.”
Capitalism in Difficulty
Tribune is Janus headed. Jack Jones and Tony Benn cannot both be right. In reality Jack Jones’ reasoning is entirely false. Labour Governments have only come to power when capitalism is in difficulties. If capitalism can ‘deliver the goods’ then what appeal would a Labour Government or the call for socialist change have? Previous Labour Governments have come to power in periods of crisis and have then attempted a rescue operation for capitalism. The Labour movement then paid for this temporising with the return of Tory reaction.
Tony Benn more accurately reflects the demands of the rank and file of the Labour movement when he called for the present crisis to be the very reason for change.
But it is not sufficient to merely make abstract calls for ‘change’. What kind of changes are proposed and how are they to be effected?
The Tribune MPs in the ‘discussion’ documents The Crisis printed in Tribune of 31st January give their answer. Under a sub-heading ‘Social Democracy in Decline’ they quote from an article from Crosland one of the ‘theoreticians’ of the right wing of the Labour Party where he wrote … “Those ministers prepared to plan could do so effectively. If socialists want bolder planning they must have bolder Ministers.”
The Crisis dismisses this argument … “The claim that governments are strong enough to impose their will on either private or public enterprises now looks pathetic. Even in 1969 the Department of Economic Affairs was admitting in ‘After the Plan the Task Ahead’ that what happens in industry is not under the control of the government”. [our emphasis]
Demands of Monopolies
[misprinted text] Militant speakers have stressed that it was a lack of resolve by the Labour leaders which resulted in the retreats of the Labour Government between 1964-70.
But if the above statement means anything it is that if ‘private industry’ remains in the hands of the monopolies they will be the real power in society. As in 1964-70 the Government will be forced to bow the knee to the demands of the monopolies. This therefore naturally poses the necessity for the Labour Government to take over the monopolies. But Tribune rejects the logical conclusion of its own analysis.
And while it castigates Crosland for his sins, many issues of Tribune since last October have made precisely the same kind of errors. Thus ‘Denis the Menace’ was the headline over an article which dealt with Healey’s budget last November. As if the decision to give £1,600 million to the capitalists was Healey’s alone and not the collective responsibility of the Cabinet! Just before the last budget Brian Sedgemore a Tribune MP also wrote… “The Chancellor is a man of great intellect and therefore he must be the first one to see the error of his previous ways” (Tribune 11/4/75). Referring to the demands of the capitalists for further aid Brian Sedgemore also writes … “Surely the Chancellor will not fall for the sucker punch yet again?” The Crisis also declares that … “The Treasury has not helped with its economic illiteracy such as the Chancellors strange calls for a wages cut.”
The explanation for the Government’s retreat is reduced to the perverse prejudices of Healey, the ‘bad advice’ preferred by the capitalist financial ‘experts’ etc. Of course the advice of the Treasury ‘experts’ is ‘bad’ from the point of view of the working class who will bear the brunt of the measures which will result from this advice.
Profits
But from the standpoint of the capitalists it is entirely logical, indeed absolutely vital. Profits are the lifeblood of the capitalists. The tendency of the rate of profits to decline is built into the very foundations of capitalism. But in the past years there has been an actual decline in the rate of profits. According to the spokesman of the monopolies like Samuel Brittan of the Financial Times … “pre-tax profits, earned in the UK fell … from over 11 per cent in 1969 to 7 per cent in 1974” (24/4/75). Hence the constant wailing of the capitalists about the ‘crisis of profitability’. This is the reason also why the capitalists have been on an ‘investment strike’ as Hugh Scanlon put it. They prefer to plough their resources into property, antiques etc., where they are guaranteed a bigger return. Meanwhile Britain becomes more and more of a ‘derelict’ area.
So long as Denis Healey and the Labour Cabinet as a whole have opted for working within the framework of capitalism so they must bow to the remorseless demands of the system. Profits come from the unpaid labour of the working class. In the final analysis there is only one way to increase the profits of the capitalists, by cutting the share of the wealth, created by the labour of the working class, which goes to them. This can be done by direct cuts in wages, by holding down wages while prices rise, or by cuts in the so-called ‘social wage’ i.e. expenditure on the social services, education etc., or by a combination of these measures.
At the present time Healey is threatening the working class with a drastic reduction in public expenditure, unless they tamely accept wage increases which do not compensate for price rises – in other words unless they are prepared to swallow wage cuts. In reality the ‘social wage’ is already being pruned with terrible results for working people. And the colossal deficit of £9,000 million on state expenditure, even after the vicious cuts announced in the budget, is a guarantee of more intensified cuts.
The recent budget measures are merely the first instalment – a ‘payment on account’ so to speak. The Stock Market and the millionaire tycoons are greedily anticipating more direct handouts from the Government in another budget expected shortly after the Common Market referendum.
Wilson, Healey, Crosland, Jenkins, the right wing in the Cabinet, accept the logic of the system. They are preparing to throw overboard the solemn promises made little more than 6 months ago in the manifesto in the interests of reviving ailing British capitalism. Their programme can be summed up as ‘reformism without reforms’. In the words of the cynical capitalist commentators they have been “re-educated by reality.” Michael Foot has also it seems undergone a similar transformation in outlook as is evidenced by his public defence of the budget measures.
But every Tribune MP, of a Tribune dominated Cabinet who occupied Healey’s position would be forced into the same position if they operated within the framework of capitalism. And Tribune proposed no measures which go beyond this framework. Their ‘short term’ economic measures are moreover completely utopian. For instance The Crisis suggests ‘import controls.’ It even ‘answers’ the objections to this proposal in advance… “Import controls are an emotive subject. They are always criticised as involving ‘beggar thy neighbour’ attitudes. Yet the simple fact is that they involve ‘beggar thy neighbour’ attitudes no more, no less, than deflation, devaluation or floating exchange rates.” What the authors conveniently forget here is that it was precisely Tribune which suggested devaluation as a cure for Britain’s economic ills before 1967.
But the Militant pointed out – in advance – that devaluation was a capitalist measure, that it offered no solution to diseased British capitalism and moreover the working class would pay with increased prices. When this was shown to be the case following Callaghan’s devaluation in 1967 this proposal was dropped by Tribune.
But Healey is entirely correct when he echoes the arguments of the drastic import controls would lead to reprisals. So would systematic competitive devaluations. In that sense there is devaluations. [?] This in turn would lead to closures and hence aggravate unemployment. In that sense there is nothing to choose between import controls and devaluation. Both are measures to help capitalism. An indication of the scramble for trade between the capitalist powers is the recent threat of a ‘cheese war’ between American capitalism and the Common Market countries! Limited import control would not solve the problems of the British economy as the import deposit scheme introduced by the Wilson Government in 1968 demonstrated. Import controls are mere palliatives and sometimes not even that. Measures of this kind even if introduced would not solve the problems facing the working class.
A Labour Government dominated by tribune supports would face shipwreck unless it was prepared to face up to the inevitable sabotage of the capitalists. This will not be done by wagging a reproving finger. The capitalists are deaf to all appeals to ‘social’ or ‘moral’ responsibilities. Like Shakespeare’s Shylock their motto is… “There is no power in the tongue of man to alter me – I stay here on my bond.” They are concerned with increasing their profits and nothing else.
The Crisis shows in graphic detail the crushing power of the monopolies … “We live in a society dominated by less than 100 leaders or potential leaders in terms of prices, investment, innovation, job creation, trade and so on. In 1970 the top 100 manufacturing firms controlled over 50% of manufacturing output … In food retailing a mere six firms control over half the market power and the consumers choice is steadily diminishing. In 20 of the 22 main industrial service sectors, six firms or fewer control half the assets, with the average number amounting to four.”
The directors of these firms are the real power in British society. According to Tony Benn they held a shotgun at the head of the incoming Labour Government soon after the October election. The above facts listed in The Crisis could serve to make an unanswerable case for the nationalisation of these monopolies and the other 250 which have a stranglehold on the economy.
Banks and Insurance
Yet The Crisis restricts itself to calling for the nationalisation of the banks and insurance companies. This measure would have the enthusiastic support of the ranks of the movement. We also support this demand of Tribune.
But what is being done to secure its implementation by the Labour Government? Verbal radicalism, Parliamentary speeches are not enough. If the Tribune MPs were serious about this call they would be stumping the country in a systematic campaign explaining its importance and mobilising the ranks of the trade unions and Labour Party to put pressure on the Labour Government.
But even if the Labour Government submitted to this pressure and agreed to nationalise the banks and insurance companies it would still not fundamentally alter the situation.
The document itself admits that this proposal… “was carried out in France, we note some 30 years ago.” Precisely! So long as the majority of industry remains in the hands of the capitalists, state industry remains a handmaiden of the monopolies. This is borne out by the experience of the nationalised industries both in Britain and the state owned banking and insurance industries in France.
But in reality the capitalists would put up the most furious resistance to the nationalisation of the banks and insurance companies in Britain. They even jib at the prospect of the nationalisation of the ruined industries such as aircraft and shipbuilding despite the lavish over-compensation which is being paid out to the owners and big shareholders. This is because they fear that further takeovers of bankrupt industries would be used as a springboard for the demand for nationalisation of the profitable industries.
This is particularly the case in a period of mounting unemployment and massive short time working with the prospect of sit-in strikes, occupations looming and the call from workers to the Labour Government to take over individual firms, and indeed whole industries.
They could not see any alternative but the capitalists even look with a jaundiced eye on the takeover of the British Leyland car combine. They now fear an escalation of demands from other car workers for the nationalisation of their firms and the establishment of one car industry.
The capitalists would therefore mount a ferocious attacks if there was any intention to nationalise the banks and insurance companies. The frenzied reaction of the capitalists and their Tory spokesmen in the House of Commons to the introduction of the Capital Transfer Tax was just a glimpse of how they would respond. This tax proposed the elimination of some of the ways to evade Estate Duty. Yet as a result of the baying and howling of the capitalists 700 amendments were introduced into the House of Commons. The Government even tabled 160 amendments to its own Bill and introduced amendments on its own amendments!
A similar campaign has been organised against the National Enterprise Board. The idea behind the NEB is that the re-tooling of British industry can only be undertaken by a state agency like the NEB. The Tribune MPs in The Crisis say … “Over the next decade British industry is going to need an extra £20,000 million investment or so if there is to be the prospect of achieving substantially higher living standards.” They reason – entirely correctly – that despite the lavish handouts from the state the capitalists have refused to invest.
But Bateman the President of the CBI recently pointed to the reasons for this when he said … “I cannot accept that industry should invest regardless of whether it can reasonably expect to earn a satisfactory return.” (reported in the Financial Times 15/4/75). In other words – no profits no investment!
The authors of The Crisis then say that the NEB should aim to step in where the capitalists fear to tread … “Our analysis makes it clear that the greater part of the investment in British industry will come about only if it is direct investment in British industry by the Government probably of the order of £1,000 million per year.”
Tony Benn has suggested that an additional investment of £3,000 million per year in manufacturing industry is needed by 1985. This would entail more than a doubling of the present miserable rate of investment. But where is the cash to come from for this massive increase? Benn has suggested that it should come partly from taxation and partly from compelling insurance and pension funds to grant loans to the NEB.
But additional taxation can be garnered either from the pockets of the capitalists or the working class. If it comes from the working class it will mean a cut in their share of the wealth. This is admitted in the ‘confidential’ document published in the Sunday Times 27/4/75 … “Part of this expenditure will have to be financed through taxation at the expense of consumption and living standards.” Thus the working class is to be asked to undertake further sacrifice to put ailing British capitalism back on its feet. The benefits from this scheme – if ever implemented – would go to the capitalists. This is the inescapable conclusion of Tribune’s and Tony Benn’s position.
Investment from workers’ pockets
If on the other hand the extra investment is to come from taxation of the capitalists it will mean further erosion of their profits leading to a drop in their investment and therefore the closure of plants and an increase in unemployment.
The proposal to compel the insurance and pension funds to give funds to the NEB is completely utopian. So is the proposal to allow the NEB to compulsory but into ‘profitable industries’ with the possibility of a majority Government stake.
Brian Sedgemore stated in Tribune … “We know that there is nothing to stop the NEB from buying into banks and insurance companies and getting controlling interest.” This is perfectly true if you leave out just one little detail – the capitalists would fight tooth and claw to defeat such a measure! Does Tribune expect them to roll over and play dead like a playful cat? The nationalisation of ruined industries is one thing. But let the state attempt to takeover a profitable industry and the capitalists would organise a campaign of sabotage that would put in the shade any campaign organised so far. Inside and outside Parliament they would organise to bring the Government down. And in this they would have the support of the right wing in the PLP.
But in reality the monopolies have been able to rely on the Government to set up a bill without really ‘dangerous’ powers. Thus a Tribune amendment in the committee stage of the bill in the House of Commons which endeavoured to give the NEB power to “compulsory acquire property, securities or a share in any enterprise” was defeated with the Government relying on the votes of the Tories to get a majority. This prompted Tribune spokesman Brian Sedgemore to declare … “that the multi-national companies in Britain would never let themselves be taken over by agreement.” (speech reported in Financial Times 26/3/75).
We entirely agree with Brian Sedgemore. But has he and the rest of the Tribune group of MPs pondered on the significance of these words? By implication the whole strategy of Tribune – of piecemeal measures – is condemned. The capitalist will never voluntarily cede their ownership of industry to the working class. Either the Labour movement must face up to the task of eliminating the power of the monopolies or it must tamely submit to their sabotage and black mail postponing indefinitely the implementation of Labour’s programme and the socialist transformation of society.
Bold socialist measures and an audacious leadership capable of mobilising the Labour movement for their implementation is required. Experience has demonstrated that Labour Governments face inevitable shipwreck unless they are prepared to take over the real levers of economic power – the 250 monopolies which dominate 85% of the economy. Nationalise the 250 monopolies through an enabling bill with minimum compensation on the basis of proven need and organise a real socialist plan of production involving the committees of shop stewards, housewives and small businessmen. This programme would have the enthusiastic support of the politically advanced workers in the unions and the Labour Party and through them the mass of the working people. Armed with this programme the Labour movement would be invincible. The capitalists would be incapable of relying on any substantial sections of the population to organise resistance to these measures.
The 40% of the male workers who the Daily Mirror informed us during the October election campaign got less than £22 basic, weekly wage, the two million condemned to live in accommodation “unfit for human habitation” – all the layers of the population kept in the dirt by capitalism – would respond if the Labour movement offered them a way out. A continuation of capitalism offers them no hope of a decent living wage, reasonable accommodation and education for them and their families. Mobilised in action on a programme linking the demands for a living wage, a million houses a year and a massive increase in expenditure on the social services etc. to the idea of the socialist transformation of society these layers would become a mighty reservoir of the Labour movement.
We will support all steps towards the left within the Labour movement. But we also criticise the flabbiness of the Tribune tendency, the inconsistencies in its programme, the lack of any clear perspective for the future developments and their empirical reaction to events. It is not excluded and indeed is likely that the Tribune or a section of it under the hammer blow of events could embrace some of the ideas presently advanced by Militant. But the experience of the pre-war ‘lefts’ like John Strachey or the ILP, much further to the left than the present Tribune tendency, demonstrates that mere verbal radicalism is not sufficient.
It is necessary to link the programme of Marxism to action, to use it as a lever to mobilise the mighty resources of the Labour movement to end the rule of capital. It is only if the Labour movement is won to and thoroughly imbued with the programme and perspective of Marxism will it be guaranteed victory in the gigantic struggles which impend in Britain.
By Peter Taaffe
Schreibe einen Kommentar