Searching for an alternative to the Alternative Economic open debrate" Strategy'

Scan page 10

The want to

A new declaration from several trades councils and combine committees criticises the AES.

WHEN Michael Foot was speaking to a demonstration against unemployment in Cardiff a few

months ago, he spoke of the need to fight for the alternative economic policy. He then went on to outline an economic programme that could mean nothing other than throwing ourselves on the murderous mercies of the International Monetary Fund.

The more rigidly Thatcher devotes the government to Milton Friedman's monetarism the easier it is to present any kind of warmed-up Keynesianism as 'the alternative'.

Lessons Even if we disregard the interpretation of 'alternative' that would classify the last Labour government's economic policy as "alternative', and focus on the more left-wing versions of the Alternative Economic Strategy (AES), that still leaves enough varieties to bewilder Henry Heinz.

A year ago, four trades councils (Liverpool, N.

Tyneside, Newcastle, and Coventry) produced a detailed report on the last Li sour government's "State Intervention in Industry". Now the same group of trades councils (plus Burnley) have collaborated with several shop stewards' combine committees to produce a follow-up as "a contribution to the TUC/Labour Party plans for an Alternative Workers and sailors in Petrograd Economic Strategy"

This report lacks the close detail, the case studies, and the inside stories of the earlier report. It tries, however, to draw out. some of the lessons implicit in it.

In fart. it is both a polemic against the TUC/ Labour Party plans for an AES and a challenge to them. It says that the AES plans are nationalistic, and 1917 do not see things from a class standpoint. And a working-class policy must be more than a blue"'for now"

Both these criticisms, l think, are absolutely

Andrew Hornung reports.

correct. The TUC/Labour Party version of the AES stands on the very same ideological ground as our Tory enemies.

It assumes that there are 'national needs' and 'national interests' to be served • rather than class needs and ature making our policies clear to the electorate.

If elected, on many occasions we may have to break the whip, but we must stick to the basic political line.

What about accountability? We must make absolutely clear at selection conferences that we will stick to our principles, even if it means breaking the whip, and that we will be ready to resign if the branch that selects us demands that.

issues The ability of a council to deliver the goods - any goods at all! - depends entirely on its ability to fight the government. That must be said in the manifesto. Manifestos can contain an outline of the needs in our areas, but they must point out that the only way to satisfy these needs is to organise a war against the Tories.

No-one at the meeting thought that all the problems facing us had been covered, but we all agreed that the discussion had raised and clarified many important issues. A further meeting will be held. class interests. It assumes that any alternative would simply be the plan of an alternative government that the workers could vote for, rather than a policy workers could fight for and enforce through our own workers' government.

Searching

The report argues for a conception of social need, saying that we must fight for this to become "part of the economic commonsense of our age"

The basic weakness of the report, I feel, is in the programme for fighting back here and now. It has little to say other than that trade unions should involved the rank and file in drawing up workers' plans of production and that the building of combine committees is essential. It does not map out a policy for replacing the present capitalist state machine with real workers' power - though that, surely, is vital if we are to enforce an 'economics of social need' , against the power of the profit system.

The authors are trying to develop a policy for practical intervention in the struggle now that goes beyond reflex-action militancy and points to a different social order. But -it seems to me - they are still searching.

In a series of articles throughout the 1930s, Leon Trotsky tried to popularise the approach that the Third (Communist) International had been in the process of working out when Lenin died.

Confiscation

Trotsky argued for a •sliding scale of wages' , for instance, as a way of protecting the purchasing power of workers' wages.

But he also argued for a struggle to develop committees to monitor shifts in the working-class cost of living - committees that would unite rank-and-file workers with women stuck at home. The idea was that these committees' watchdog functions should develop to the point where they would be able to force the opening of the books of firms that were overpricing, and then demand new prices or confiscation.

This was no pipe-dream. Detailed legislation along these lines had been drawn up, for instance, in Germany in 1923.

The key to the whole process was class power -developing the fight for workers' control into the fight for workers' power.

Starting from that basic idea, the communists of the early 1920s, and, later, Trotsky and his comrades, summarised and codified the key demands of a 'Transitional Programme' for mobilising mass action against capitalist power. That programme, I think, shows the direction in which the ideas in this report could be developed into a real policy for Copies of the declaration:

20p plus postaae from Coventry Trades Council, Flat 2, 6 Norfolk St, Coventry.

RICHARD LEE, secretary of the Metal

Box Combine Committee, explained to Barry Turner what the authors hope to see come from the 'Popular Planning' document.

Popular planning for social need' came out of the work on state' intervention in industry carried out by a number of Trades Councils, and att-. empts to product alterna.. tive production plans by various combine com-. mittees.

It was clear that an alter-. native to monetarism was needed but there was dis-. satisfaction with the TUC's Alternative . Economic i rategy.

We think that the rank and file should have some say in producing the alternative strategy, and our report is an attempt to open up a debate in the labour movement. We wish that debate to produce a strategy that the grass-. roots understand and have participated in producing.

The failure of the last Labour government proves the need for such a strategy. We have no control over the multinationals and the trade union officials have led no discussion on how to deal with them.

We do not wish to repeat the failings of the National Enterprise Board and the abuses of public money carried out by private firms.

The report was drawn up by a wide range of workers, many with differing approaches to the strategy needed, but all agreed on the need for a wide-ranging debate to create. that strategy which would, think, form the first steps in a plan for socialist production.

As I emphasise, ou declaration is meant to open a debate, not answe all the questions. For my part in that debate, I would point to the need . for nat ionalisation ав pre condition for public mone!

being channelled intr firms.

We launched the declar ation at the TUC confer ence, and will be intervening with at the Lab.

Party conference.

30p plus postage from Socialist Organiser, 28 Middle Lane, London No.

THE

----- pull-quotes -----

print for some future Lab- our government, it must be