Last week the Tribune group of MPs put forward their proposals for economic policies to deal with the capitalist crisis. These centre on penal taxation of all incomes over £10,000 a year; no social expenditure cuts but a gaining of £2,000 million through defence and road building cuts and changes in corporation tax; a temporary price freeze on essential items of working class expenditure; an 'on average' maintenance of working class living standards over the next two years with an increase in living standards for the worst off; decreases in the level of wage settlements to be carried out only with the consent of the trade unions, selective import controls; planning agreements with the largest firms; a doubling of investment in manufacturing industry through oil bonds, recycling of pension funds, and control over banks and financial institutions pending their nationalisation through emergency legislation; and a central economic planning unit in which the whole labour movement, including the trade unions, would participate. As the latest policy of the Labour left on the economy these Tribune proposals are worth looking at in some detail.
Firstly it must be said that on one of these proposals, selective import controls, Tribune line themselves up with completely anti-working class forces. This demand is completely reactionary because what it implies is that we must stop the competition of foreign firms so that German or Pakistani workers are made unemployed instead of British ones. Furthermore these proposals are completely utopian as a way of saving jobs — it is the crisis of capitalism, not foreign competition' which is responsible for unemployment. Import controls by all countries - and why should these 'foreign competitors' not retal. iate? — would just lead to an even more rapid collapse of production.
DANGEROUSLY VAGUE
It would, however, be a gigantic slander to call the programme as a whole reactionary. On most points it is well intentioned - but dangerously vague and unworkable. improve the income of the worst off, but contains no proposal for the minimum guaranteed wage and income necessary to achieve it. But Tribune also says that real incomes should only be maintained 'on average. As the income of the lowest paid is supposed to go up does that mean, to maintain the average, that Tribune advocates wage cuts for the rest of the working class?
If we assume that Tribune is in fact opposed to wage cuts, how are real incomes to be maintained? The one policy which would guarantee this — monthly cost of living increases worked out on a working class cost of living index - doesn't figure in the Tribune statement. This is all the more serious as any application of the Tribune plan would produce massive inflation.
EXPENDITURE CUTS
'Tribune is of course right to oppose any cuts in social expenditure. But that is not enough. If expenditure is merely kept at the same level in money terms then with 25 per cent inflation massive real cuts will take place. In order to maintain the level of social expenditure - a vital part of working class living standards — it is necessary to have automatic increases to compensate for inflation, ie. a sliding scale of public expenditure.
Even worse, there are no serious proposals from Tribune to deal with unemployment. It is true that stopping expenditure cuts will do something to prevent unemployment from rising even more than it is at present. But do Tribune really think that the key question is whether we should have 1¾ million unemployed — which is what will develop on present projections -have with expenditure cuts? The real question is how to stop either 1¾ million or 2 million unemployed, but Tribune propose none of the policies an emergency programme of public works, work sharing with no loss of pay, nationalisation of all firms creating redundancy which are necessary really to get to grips with the crisis.
unenforceable by the means they propose.
For example, it includes a call to or maustry.
to supervise it.
Spared by the TUC.
against it - the TUC or the militant workers?
- rather than the 2 million we will carefully. taxation on incomes over £10,000 a year, and nationalisation of the financial institutions - there can be no disagreement. Others, partieularly the demand for a centralised planning organisation, contain the germ of a good idea which should be extended - in this case not so as to include 'participation' of the labour movement, but so that the whole process will be under the control of the working class organisations. But these best parts of the Tribune proposals are quite clearly Take first the nationalisation of the banks. In 1950-51 the ruling class showed in the case of steel that it willl resort to sabotage when it is opposed to nationalisation. The banks and finance system of the City of London are the most powerful in the entire capitalist world outside the United States. Any attempt to take over these institutions will be fought tooth and nail by the ruling class. But Tribune put forward none of the proposals for opening the books and for workers control which are necessary to break such capitalist resistance.
CAPITALIST SABOTAGE
Take also the question of planning agreements. This is itself a hopelessly confused demand - real planning of the economy can't be achieved without its nationalisation. But the experience of every country where there has been a 'left-wing' government, most obvious. ly in Chile and Portugal, shows that firms, far from participating in "planning agreements, systematically sabotage the economy. steps necessary to break that sabotage are again the opening of all the books of the capitalist firms and the establishment of workers control Without such radical measures Tribunes' planning agreements, let alone steps to a real planned economy, would simply melt like snow before the manoeuvres of the capitalist monopolies As for a price freeze, this would be easily evaded unless working class price committees — another form of workers control - existed But the one thing which really rules the Tribune proposals out of court is their complete silence on the Social Contract. To read their plan you would never imagine for one moment that at the present time wage-cutting proposals put forward by Jack Jones are being preWhat is Tribune's attitude to this scheme? Whom will they support if the AUEW, NUM or other workers go into struggle TRIBUNE'S CHOICE Tribune isn't going to be able to avoid a choice on this. Anyone supporting their proposals should think through the implications If the miners went on strike, for example, anyone supporting the Tribune plan but not taking a position against the Jones plan could well end up supporting wage cuts against the very group of workers who defeated Heath and put the Labour Government in
The power of the workers' movement - must be organised against Wilson and his policies crisis of world capitalism. The Labour Party brought in economic policies involving severe red weekly 3 july 1975 heffer interview = 3: