The Labour Party has produced a pamphlet with the title “Industry and Society,” and a sub-title “Labour’s Policy on Future Public Ownership.” This pamphlet sets forth a change in the Labour policy which has been coming on gradually for a long time. The excuse for this change is that:—
“The structure of industry is rapidly changing. If we could accurately describe the private sector of 1918 it would certainly present a very different picture from the private sector of today." (Page 11.)
Is this so?. Let the pampbet answer the question:
"Nevertheless, the shareholders still retain the legal rights of ownership, and the financial rewards that accompany them. These are of major importance, for the capital gains arising in the large firm sector account for something like 80 per cent. of the total capital gains and a large share of the total company dividends arising in British industry. What is more, these gains accrue to a very small section of the population." (Page 56.)
In the earlier years State ownership—or nationalisation—was the central plank in the Labour Party’s policy. It was to be the means to achieve for the worker “the full product of his labour.” As J. R. Clynes put it, in his presidential address to the Labour Party Conference at Portsmouth in 1909:—
"The Trade Unionist asks for but a share of the wealth he creates, the Socialist tells him to claim the full product of his labour and call upon all who are able to do so to give their share of service for their share of wealth." (New Age, 4th February, 1909.)
In the Socialist Review for February 1908 Ramsay MacDonald wrote:—
"A Labour Party in the House of Commons can do as much for Socialism as a Socialist Party can do, because the former can use to the maximum every Socialist tendency of the present day." (Page 15.)
How does the present policy shape up to these two complementary statements? First of all “State Ownership” and "Nationalisation” have been exchanged for another phrase, "Public Ownership,” because it allows of a much wider interpretation that practically blots out the early interpretation. As they put it, after setting forth certain objectives:—
"The achievement of these aims was expected to be assisted by the extension of public ownership generally. As aims, however, they did not point to any particular form of organisation which public ownership should take, nor any particular order of priorities which should be followed. On these matters the Labour Patty has always been flexible." (Page 8.)
The aim of those who formed the Labour Party did point to a particular form of organisation. It was State Ownership, of the form represented by the Post Office, and Land Nationalisation. When they wanted to change their policy they discovered, in the words of Attlee, that the Post Office was "the outstanding example of collective capitalism.”
But let us quote again from Ramsay MacDonald's article:—
"Thus, the duty of the Socialist now is to select from the complexity of social movements those tending towards collective organisation and to marshall them for political' purposes; and this duty becomes more and more imperative and pressing as the propaganda of the Socialist idea becomes more and more successful."
Now turn to the pamphlet and compare what it says with the views of Clynes and Macdonald:—
"The Labour Party recognises that, under increasingly professional managements, large firms are, as a whole, serving the nation well. Moreover, we recognise that no organisation, public or private, can operate effectively if it is subjected to persistent and detailed interventions from above. We have, therefore, no intention of intervening in the management of any firm which is doing a good job. (Page 48.)
In fact so satisfied are they with the conduct of the large firms that they have decided to change their approach to "public ownership” or, as they put it, "adopt the forms of public ownership to meet the particular problems involved.” Thus:—
"There are a number of ways by which the community may become the owner of industrial shares. It can do so as a consequence of our National Superannuation proposals through which a fund is to be set up under the control of independent trustees, to take up the surplus of contributions over pension payments which will gradually build up. We have emphasised in our proposals that these trustees should be able to invest in whatever manner they consider will best safeguard die interests of contributors. They will not be precluded, any more than private insurance companies, from investing part of their funds in equity shares. At the same time, investments of the fund should be a powerful influence in helping to strengthen the gilt-edged market."There are also other matters and other agencies through which State participation in share ownership is possible. We would emphasise, however, that it is not our intention that the Government should indulge in a wildly inflationary scramble for shares; both the timing and occasion for acquiring shares will need careful consideration." (Page 40.)
Lest anybody thinks that the effect of all this will be the boasted “more equitable distribution of wealth,” we would call attention to the following:—
"It may be that public participation in a private firm can be secured through State investment in it. Where public ownership is extended, full and fair compensation will, of course be paid." (Page 47.)
In other words, the former shareholders, like those of the railways, mines and banks, will receive bonds that will ensure them and their successors a secure and labour free life indefinitely. This is the abolition of private ownership by perpetuation!
The pamphlet contains many arguments to show that the Labour policy has produced valuable results. But then we are told that opposite policies have produced the same results!
For example. On page 21 we are told that a considerable amount of self-financing during the 1949-1953 period can to some extent “be attributed to the political and fiscal barriers which the Labour Government erected between profits and dividend distribution.” The next paragraph has this to say:—
"Government policy, however, is not the only influence at work. In the United States, where no restraints have been placed upon dividends, the postwar picture of company finance is broadly similar to our own."
Again, on page 8, we are told:—
."At the same time [during the Labour Government] the nationalisation programme was designed to make a real contribution to the broader aims of Socialism—to social justice, economic security and a new spirit in industry. These expectations, as the developments separately reviewed in the policy statement Public Enterprise show, have been substantially realised." (Page 8.)
How "substantially” they have been realised we are told later in the pamphlet. For example:—
"Indeed, the slow progress of tax policies—both progressive taxation and death duties—in reducing significantly inequalities in private wealth, must in large part be attributed to the special character of equity shares and their ownership by the rich. Increases in industrial production will sooner or later in a private enterprise system be reflected in higher equity values. The quicker the pace of industrial expansion (and the pace has quickened under full employment), the faster share values are likely to rise. It follows, therefore, that egalitarian policies which rely on high progressive taxation and high progressive death duties can be in part or in whole counteracted by private capital gains." (Page 33.)"In an era of unprecedented high taxation, the waiting lists of our Public Schools are longer than ever before and conspicuous consumption continues unchecked." (Page 51.)
A great deal of the pamphlet is taken up with the argument that the capitalist no longer owns or controls the principal industrial units; that, as shareholders, they have no power in the huge companies. On page 28 they quote Berle’s statement as a neat summary of the position:—
“The capital is there and so is Capitalism,The waning factor is the Capitalist."
They follow it with this gem:—
"All that remains is the claim of the capitalist, as legal owner, on the income and wealth which these great corporations continue to generate."
Yes, that’s all!! Poor old Ellerman, Wolfson, Onassis, Nuffield, Clore, and Fraser. Lest anybody has an exaggerated idea of the total number of shareholders in the country and the distribution of shares, the pamphlet points out:—
“If the distribution of share ownership in the U.K. is similar to that in the U.S.A., then something like 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of total capital gains will accrue to the wealthiest 5 per cent. of shareholders. Since shareholders themselves account for no more than 6 per cent. of the adult population, roughly 0.3 per cent. of the population will enjoy at least 50 per cent. of the capital gains. (Page 34.)
That, in their own words, is the result of over 50 years of Labourism, during which the Labour Party has three times held office; the last time for five years.
They put forward more proposals, but very tentative ones, for controls and the taxation of capital gains, but kill the ideas with such statements as:—
“It is therefore clear that the purpose of controls is both to prevent and to encourage economic activity, according to the nation's requirements. Negative controls are, it is true, easier to operate. Controls which aim to encourage rather than to impede action are necessarily more uncertain." (Page 44.)"Although much useful spade work has been done many of the facts upon which judgment must be based are simply not available to an Opposition Party; and an additional complication in a period of great Industrial development—the facts themselves can rapidly change." (Page 46.)
Before concluding, we must call attention to another change in the Labour Party's outlook. It used to boost the Co-operative movement as a valuable partner in the stealthily evolutionary movement that would gradually abolish the private ownership of the means of production. Now they tell us:—
“But in spite of its past success, the share of total capital resources controlled by the Co-operative Movement is in fact small. Taking full account of its future possibilities, the Co-operative Movement cannot be expected by itself to make an adequate contribution to the diffusion of private wealth." (Page 35.)
On the whole, this pamphlet clearly illustrates how bankrupt the Labour Party is on every ground except one —the defence of the capitalist social system.
Gilmac.
No comments:
Post a Comment