attacks on workers' living standards?
Britain's ills. under the microscope.
The AES is not new. Although presented as a "radical alternative", it was concocted in the early 70s and served as the basis of the 1974 Wilson government. Now, as then, its central weakness is simply that it views the problems facing the British economy in isolation.
But what we are faced with today is not a crisis unique to Britain but a world period of "boom", the world market crisis of over-production. As atter any has become saturated and this has sparked off fierce competition between rival In this increasingly cut-throat world, the weaker firms go to the wall and mass unemployment is the result. Undoubtedly Britain - with its old and unproductive industry - feels such competition most sharply.
But the crisis we face is not a British one but a world one in which the jobless queues are growing in all countries -from the United States to West Germany The OECD Report forecasts 21 million unemployed in the capitalist West by 1984.
STRATEGY Failing to grasp this point, the main thrust of the AES is therefore to come up with proposals to help ailing British capital against its foreign rivals. Far from seeing capitalism as the problem, it seeks to strengthen British industry in the cut-throat market.
Workers are encouraged to see the solution to their problems not in fighting against a system that - world-wide -throws millions on the scrap-heap. are encouraged to identify with it and to But, while militant in words, what policies does Heffer - and other Labour leaders - have to tackle the current crisis? What programme have they the TUC and Labour NEC. The AES is being flaunted as a real answer to But is it? Below, Terry Viney (Ravensbourne CLP) puts it get it working again.
This comes out clearly in the three basic proposals that the AES makes: reflating the economy, setting up import controls and creating a prices and incomes policy. All these proposals will hit -and not help - working people.
DEMAND A major factor behind "reflating the economy" is to create greater demand. Increased demand will, it is hoped, provide a market for British goods and cut back unemployment.
In order to ensure that British firms benefit from such demand however and not foreign competitors - the AES places great stress on "selective import controls". Foreign goods will be barred entry to bolster up uncompetitive firms. Such a view not only seeks to maintain British jobs at the expense of workers in other countries - hardly an internationalist viewpoint. It is also counterproductive.
TRADE WAR In a period of recession, when the world market is shrinking, any attempt to keep out cheap imports can only lead to retaliatory measures abroad. in the USA for example, there is mass pressure building up in the auto unions to keep out foreign cars.
Once anv government began to introduce import controls to protect its own industry, other governments would be forced to follow suit. British goods would be excluded from their markets. The result would be a repeat of the They thirties. A trade was would develop in which millions of workers' jobs - in Britain and other capitalist countries -would rapidly be lost.
BAILING OUT ive amounts of state funds into them. This was the position of the previous Callaghan government which set up the National Enterprise Board.
over these firms - but merely propping them up at tax-payers' expense — it is difficult to see how this will contribute to "rebuilding... industry on socialist lines". It is even more difficult to see how this will protect jobs.
Already over £50 million was sunk into Chrysler in 1976, didn't the company use it to streamline production at the expense of 10,000 workers' jobs!
WAGES Workers occupying Gardners (Manchester) show way to fight job loss.
Sure.
The second plank in the AES to protect ailing British firms is to project massSince the AES does not call for taking DANGERS Pouring money into firms to "rationalise" them will, on the contrary, lead to a massive job loss. Isn't this the experience of the last Labour government? When facing working people.
The third major plank of the AES to bail out British industry is to introduce a flexible prices and incomes policy. PeggREALITY ment attacks. Rather than calling for workers to take • over the economy, it suggests that iney should identify with the problems of their given firms.
Finally - and most important - the AES offers no way forward for workers fighting today against the Tory governWhat can it say to workers in the car industry fighting for jobs? That they should unite with Michael Edwardes to keep out foreign cars!
What does it say to workers fighting Thatcher's wage freeze in the public sector of 6%? That they should be willing to accept a wages policy (even though inflation is raging at 15%)?
What is needed - if jobs and living • standards are to be protected - is a fighting programme based on the needs of working people and not on the needs of ailing private enterprise. Socialists should start from the premise that working peop le did not create the present crisis - and shouldn't be made to pay for it.
If jobs are threatened, the demand should be made for work-sharing with no loss of pay: For the 35-Hour week! If management refuses to concede the de mand, workers should call for access to the secret acounts: Open the books! If it is proved that the firm cannot guarantee full employment, it should be nationalised under workers control.
For those workers already on the dole, Labour councils should campaign for an increase — not decrease - in social expenditure to soak up the dole queues.
With inflation raging at 15%, workers should refuse any form of incomes policy. They should campaign around the demand for inbuilt cost-of-living clauses to safeguard their wage packets.
If the labour movement rallied around these demands - fighting demands -then the Tories could be rapidly defeated.
They would, moreover, create a Stag programme for an incoming Labour gor. ernment and ensure it operated in the interests of workers and not bosses.
----- pull-quotes -----
the next Labour government to begin "rebuilding British industry on soc- ialist lines". Heffer's militant speach reflects the anger of millions of work- ing people faced with mounting dole queues and social service cuts.
got to ensure, when re-elected, they can deal with the rise in jobless and The answer is, of course, the Alternative Economic Strategy backed by
ing wages, it is argued, would be a ration- the well-being of the present system. The al way of planning investment for the fut- idea of industrial democracy - i.e. work.