Glyn's economics and
socialist strategy
In the first issue of International,
we published a short review of
Andrew Glyn's Campaign Group pamphlet 'A Million Jobs a Year'. Our review welcomed the pamphlet as a riposte to the right-wing statements of the NEC, but only hinted at the differences which revolutionary Marxists would have with Glyn's approach. We continue the debate here with a contribution by JEANETTE FINDLAY. RECISTERED UNEMPLOYMENT in the UK is currentiy running at 3.2 million and is expected by most forccasters to be around 3 million for the next four years. This means that discounting any pre-election reflation which the Tories may try to engincer, any Labour government elected in the next few years will come into office with real unemployment figures of around four million and rising. Consequently, unemployment will be the single most important issue which a future Labour government will have to deal with and therefore it must begin now to prepare plans to bring down unemployment drastically within one term of office.
Unfortunately the present leadership has already abandoned any attempt to do this. Roy Hattersley, in a speech last year (Financial Times 26/9/95) announced that Labour would not be able to 'indulge' in a "dash for growth'. Far from 'indulging in a luxury' socialists should be emphasising that bringing down unemployment is an absolute necessity, and any failure to make a serious attempt to do so within the life of the next parliament will serve to deepen the apathy and mistrust felt by many unemployed people, especially youth, towards the Labour Party and could lead to greater social unrest of the type seen recently in Birmingham and London.
The statement by the NEC to the 1985 Labour Party conference contains Hattersley's proposed employment and industrial policy - which subsequent statements have begun to water down already. The measures outlined in the statement are quite simply insufficient to
Hattersley - architect of Labour's future economic policy? deal with the deep-seated crisis which the economy is now in, even if they were implemented fully. The proposals mark a clear shift away from a policy of large-scale nationalisation of major sectors of the economy — a move which has not gone unnoticed or unwelcomed by the capitalist press (cf Economist 28/9/85, FT 27/9/85) — and a move towards a policy of encouraging co-operatives and 'semi-private' small-scale manufacturing units as an example of real social ownership'.
The main feature of Hattersley's policy is the setting up of a National Investment Bank to provide long-term investment finance for industry. The NIB would be funded by the repatriation of funds currently invested Overdo and by requiring a certain proportion of all pension fund and insurance company investment portfolios to consist of NIB loan stock. The stock which would be used to force financial institutions to comply with these regulations would be the threat of withdrawal of fiscal privileges, i.e. tax concessions.
The investment funds created by such a scheme would be used to regenerate British
manufacturing industry and to rebuild our industrial base. This, of course, is fine as far as it goes, except that it is extremely unlikely that the financial institutions are going to allow themselves to be forced into the scheme. As the Economist (29/9/85) points out, technological advances in telecommunications mean that capital market flows are instantaneous and global, therefore if a general election were to be held this Thursday, most of the investment funds Mr Hattersely wants to reclaim would be registered in overseas funds as early as Friday night. The idea of all those dealers poised over their computer terminals waiting for Vincent Hanna to give them the word on election night may seem far-fetched, but it is precisely what would happen.
The current Labour leadership seem to have no answer to this, apart from saying that at least we will save on tax concessions. This would be small compensation for the drastic reduction in investment which would occur at a time when UK investment in manufacturing is already far below that of its main competitors - in fact the lowest of any OECD country.
Internannal Do amateur 10
The ma do menth: ilie ratee of the poured. hire worth scotties agained loose of the hardespe As nir site ass of me bored. i saling. Interest rates poshe up as the deme Cor funds went way dier competed for depositors.
Clearly, then, the defi has a esponsibility to corne Up with Sone it were Campaign Group-sponsore pomplice 3 Million Jobs a Year be Oxfond economist Andrew Glyn is a major step in this direction. This pamphlet should be read andd studied by all socialists, but it is just the beginning of the debate.
While there will probably be major agreement with many of the proposals contained in this pamphlet, there number of problems with it. For instance, in all the discussion of how jobs are going to be created there is very little spare given to the kinds of jobs and who is going to get them. By which I mean that socialists ase not simply concerned with repeating existing structure of employment and wealth on it larger scale. We should be trying n ensure that the fruits of any should be divided equally and that those who are presently disadvantaged in terms of jobs and pay should be given their fair share of any jobs created.
Converse;, an area in which I think (ilyn puts too much stress is in attempting to dispel worries about any expansion leading to a massive increase in inflation. outlines how we would engineer a noninflationary expansion asing price controls. While I am not against price: controls I think il would be better perhaps to look at the question from another angle. For too long both Labour and Tory governments have made the running in convincing workers that inflation is the most serious cconomic problem. However, there is almos! evidence to suggest that even very high levels of inflation are costly. If it affects the living standards of those on fixed incomes should index-link them; if i makes us uncompetitive comparced to on Wadig partrers, we should lower the exchange rate.
Only variable inflation has been showa by academic rconomists to entail substantial costs by creating uncertainty and thereby discouraging private-sector investment. But we only have to look at current investment levels to set that we cannot rely on private sector mnvestment anyway. costs of inflation are the administrative costs of index-linking and the physical costs of changing prices in sepermarkets. In any case as Gilyn correctiy pomes out inflation is a phenomenon of koukenecks in supply, and with efficiently run nationalised industries and a public thesiment increase productively such bottiese doran lie eminated.
Another weak pome in kilyne malpis a in his apparent shymg away beem talleal nationalisation. Whils i natonalsing the banks and firear: borers. he seems contend to reson to impulse: planning agrerments' 10: industry will ens agree teng policed by thi
andro! if they failed to compir •gucer plans. 1: 1. bite s192 i banks successfully investment and expansion. The nuclear war we would soon see exchange controls, so it must be possible. are expansion He no Salvador Allende -- is Glyn's the Chilean road! carbange controls work is nor the situation :: luture Labour governmen would be facing. The situation we would be facing requires that workers in the finance and banking industry are organised and ready to prevent such a movement of capital when the time comes. rcason why it is so crucial that any plan to The only real expand the economy and create jobs must be seen to be in the interests of all workers, including black workers, women and youth, is because we need to organise these workers in defence of the plan. Only by solid labour mos ement mass action would ur be able do fend off the pe granne government would face. in Clyd's analis is his filur to address adequately thar which would to required de cans toongt 10: the kand of cooper poles percent lo wires luil Stepment canoded in even dr Kind of nated i turne would in tot toples a mayor dallenge d 11he politi ...pit.e
alastries modded only be taken into potitio with the This at least gNes aliention to the need to organis workras do This rank amplemen sard plans, boe it secans do one to leave too much poon for industrial capital to frustrate it ny Labou government committed to a programme of would Glyn dismisses the argument about capital being taken out of the country immediately thrnugh the use of dectronic transmission of money' on the basis that if there was a non- effective genuine Surely he can see that a situation where British capital has an interest in making the workers. on Newsnight position. the most Here we capitalist profit. big monopolies. workers' control. To come back to an carlier point, the sweeping kind of onslaught such i simply What appears do underly some ed the fans mobilisation of workers rado thent in Clone pamphlet positin
cristantee to soriade policies would foes fora its des: inception a massive attark by desposei an! international capital.
only confrontre bra mactise coobilisation of the working class 1o impose nationalisation, and to borik the resistance of the capitalises in every fickd. It
tropine sherping measures of workers control and supervision of industry and the banks to prevent sabotage, the closure of plant: and the massive political campaign which the ruling dass would wage.
The real character of the government would be tested in such a confrontation.
workers' government would mobilise the working class to impose its power on the capitalists. But a left reformist government, like the Allende government in Chile, would rely on the institutions of the capitalist state to break the mobilisation of
Maybe Andrew Glyn agrees with all this. But Tony Benn's reaction when interviewed
about the Glyn pamphle: exposed the ambiguity at the heart of Glyn's
Benn argued that the multinationals and the big monopolies could be forced to collaborate with the planning agreements. This is naïvery.
The British ruling class, backed by the United States and the EEC, would mount
furious resistance lo even compulsory planning agreements, let alone full-scale nationalisation. It is not a question of forcing the capitalists to collaborate but of mobilising the working class to break their power once and for all.
see a quite inevitable and inescapable logic imposing itself. Once you say 'A million jobs a year, then you say directing the investment of capital on the basis of human need and not on the basis of
Then you have to sas nationalisation of the financial sector and the
You also have to say i sliding scale of wages and benefits, and
In other words, you have to complete! override the functioning of the capitalise economy. And that leads you slap bang inte a confrontation between the classes, decisive test of strength between Capital and Labour. Once you say 'a', then you have to say 'b' and 'c'. all the way to the barricades.
Now I am all in favour of the project of proposing a plan for the next Labour government to get full employment. through
soicalist measures. Through fighting for such a socialist cconomic plan ve can begin to explain what it would reall take 1o ger people back to work, outside of a ncw capitalist boom. Bur Marxists cannot be content. like the Militant, to imply that
series of measures legislated through, Parliament would be enough. Only if bised on the dynamic of the struggle for workers control, which leads inevitably to a struggle with the capitalist state, cockt even legislated measures be imposed
The implication of this argument is that nothing purside of a determined attache ¡apitalion and its institations will start to sole de problem of enemploycame. Mr shade chant this logic. I i sadle cur
15
No room for