Nationalisation has always figured prominently in the plans which Labour Party theorists formulate from time to time for the administration of British capitalism. Labour politicians out of office are full of schemes for the betterment of society, but when, as now, they have had ample time to put their ideas to the test they have to try to explain what went wrong. A good example of this stock-taking mood is a recent publication of the Parliamentary Socialist Christian Group entitled, “‘Dirty Coal' and Socialism,” which purports to be a statement on the true meaning of nationalisation.
Fifty-nine Labour M.P.s give their general support to the argument of this pamphlet. They are quite safe in so doing, since at no point does it touch, even lightly, upon issues which are of any concern to the working class. After some sanctimonious claptrap about the will of God, and men being by nature selfish there is a sort of recapitulation of capitalism over the last century or so, with special reference to the widespread acceptance, in his time, of Disraeli’s "two nations.”
“To-day, the march of events, in which we may reverently discern the hand of God, has made such acceptance obsolete.We therefore affirm that it is now a major task for Christians to find out how to reawaken in most people a sense of satisfaction and of responsibility in their duly work, without the loss of production which the breaking-up of industry into small units would mean." (p. 7)
How very anxious these Labourites are to convince us that every objection to capitalism, now its responsibility is theirs, is obsolete. Marx's ideas, according to them, are obsolete, poverty has been abolished, hunger is unknown, and now, apparently, the class division in society has been ushered out of existence by the helping hand of God.
The Christian task of reawakening satisfaction and responsibility, in a system that breeds their opposites, is really nothing new. How to reconcile the workers to their exploitation and to gain their support for its continuation have long been the aims of capitalist propagandists, and have given rise, among other things, to the gentle art (hardly science) of industrial psychology.
In order to obtain any sort of conscious support for a particular group to run capitalism it must first be shown that the proposed methods are different from, and superior to, those of rivals, past and present. The signatories of the pamphlet are of the opinion "that most Conservative industrialists would welcome consultation for negative reasons—as a trouble-shooting device, an insurance against unrest.” (p. 10). This implies that the Christian Socialists want consultation for a positive reason, which turns out to be the taking by all of some share of the responsibility for working out the policy of industry.
Let us try to understand what is meant by this much-publicised democracy in industry and how it affects the workers. We may take as an example the question of pay for a certain type of job. The workers say it is too low, and in a gentlemanly way their representatives sit round a table with those of the boss, the managers. The boss is not prepared to pay higher wages, and to support his decision he quotes die Government to the effect that increased wages lead to increased prices and the workers are then no better off. The latter won’t have this—they want a larger share of the cake they produce, but what choice have they? What fresh arguments can they produce to alter the decision, and what pressure can they bring to bear to back up their demands, except the threat or action of withdrawing their labour? There can be no advantage to them in relinquishing the right to strike, and thereby helping to make the “responsible” decision of rejecting their own wage demands.
It is true that many employers are willing to pay a little more for the services of reasonably contented workers in industries which require skilled and relatively permanent labour. This is done, not out of any abstract sense of fairness, but merely in order that the greatest profit may be realized from the use of expensive plant and machinery.
If workers were willing to work for a decreased real wage then no offer would be made by their employers to pay more. The standard of living of the working class is maintained or increased only as a result of their own efforts against the employing class whose interest is to buy the maximum energies of the workers as cheaply as possible.
So much for consultation in industry in general. We now come to the main theme of the pamphlet under discussion—the nationalisation of “our” basic industries. Having been flattered by the use of the first person—somewhat in the style of the valet asking his master "Which suit shall we be wearing to-day?”— we learn that
“Nationalisation is a long and ugly word. We prefer to speak of public or common ownership, which can include other forms of ownership than national ownership and administration through public corporations. Nor do we refer, as some do, to the 'socialised' industries: it seems to us that such a usage may cause confusion in the minds of those who already think, vaguely, that nationalisation is Socialism, instead of merely a necessary part of the machine or framework within which people can begin to learn the Socialist way of life.” (p. 11).
It is difficult to appreciate in what way the word “nationalisation” is ugly. "Demobilisation” is only one letter shorter, yet no stigma attaches to it on that account. The unpopularity of nationalisation lies not in the length of the word but in the reality to which it refers. We have always pointed out that nationalisation is not socialism, and we have also pointed out it has no connection with learning the socialist way of life either.
This notion of giving people a little taste of socialism, so that they will come back for more if they like it, is a typically reformist one. It always turns out that these dainty tit-bits contain the same old capitalist ingredients, and leave the same bad taste in the workers' mouths.
There is ample evidence to show that nationalisation is merely a particular form of capitalism. It is true that sections of the capitalist class oppose it when it threatens to reduce their income from the industries taken over by die state. However their show of resistance must in most cases be interpreted as an effort to obtain greater compensation. The groaning and grunting of the "dispossessed” capitalists in industries in the process of being nationalised is comparable to that of all-in wrestlers who are keen to show the customers how much punishment they are supposed to be taking from their opponents.
The group of fifty-nine who call themselves Christian Socialists also play down the angle of material prosperity, for the workers at any rate.
“Common ownership of the major industries does not lead us all at once to the good life by Act of Parliament; but it is a prerequisite of that end.” (p. 14).
An attempt is made to show in what way such “common” ownership (nationalisation) is a prerequisite of the good life. We are told that the most important point is that the public interest should determine industrial policy.
We must be forgiven if we are a little sceptical about the significance of this statement. To our knowledge no government has ever admitted to acting against the public interest. Our own benevolent Labour government is resolutely facing a cut in our standard of living only because it will, they say, hurt the wage-earners less than unrestrained inflation, and is consequently “in the public interest.”
Lord Bruce of Melbourne, chairman of the Finance Corporation for Industry, had this to say on nationalisation:—
“The Socialists have blindly pursued the dogmatic theory of national ownership. Others have made almost a fetish of private enterprise. The result is that the nation is divided politically, as if this was a great fundamental issue. This is, of course, pure nonsense. Neither public ownership nor private enterprise is the sovereign remedy. Some industries may be suitable for public ownership. The overwhelming majority are not—the iron and steel is an outstanding example of this latter class."(Manchester Guardian, 22.9.50).
We are not concerned with discussing the relative merits of state or private ownership in any particular industry, or in general. The basic features of capitalism remain the same in either case—the. relation of buyer of labour power to seller, with the propertyless and poverty condition of the latter.
Those workers who expected a better deal from the state than from private employers have been, and are being sadly disillusioned. In rejecting claims for pay increases for railway workers Mr. W. P. Allen, for the Railway Executive, recently told a Court of Inquiry “It is possible that far too many of those in our employ expect far too much from nationalisation far too quickly.” (The Star, 8.1.51).
As time goes by it is becoming increasingly clear that the interests of the majority of people cannot be served by any group of leaders who profess to be ‘‘on their side” any better than those who avowedly rule them. As Gordon Rattray Taylor puts it, "workers in nationalised industries are slowly waking up to the fact that they have only changed one kind of master for another.” (“Are Workers Human?” p. 18).
To those who voted Labour last time in the belief that state ownership holds out a solution, or even a step towards it, of their problems we say—profit from your mistake. The only prerequisite to a good life is your understanding its highest expression—a socialist world.
S. R. Parker
No comments:
Post a Comment