[page 4]
"In order to carry out socialist capitalism you policies, first need healthy This was the blunt message delivered to the British Labour Party conference by Prime Minister Jim Callaghan. And just in case his meaning was mistaken, he spelt it out: "What Industry needs now is a healthy surplus. And by surplus, and we must be perfectly frank, we mean profits."
It was left to Dennis Healey to set the seal on this message when securing conference approval for a further gigantic foreign loan to prop up the ailing pound. Stability, he said, could only be obtained by cuts in social spending, incomes restrictions, and acceptance of pre-war unemployment levels.
The problem, of course, is that as things stand, British Industry is just not profitable. In order for the bosses to make profits, someone must make sacrifices. What Jim Callaghan was saying to the Labour Party conference was that it was working people who had to foot the bill, Everything the conference was asked to approve by the goverment was a cut in some aspect of workers living standards.
Simple-minded folk might be excused for asking what this has to do with socialism. With only eight years to go until 1984, it seems as if Callaghan is bent on bringing into being the novelist George Orwell's
nightmare vision of a mad society of Newspeak and Doublethink in which everything is turned into its opposite.
But it is sadly all too common for anti-working class policies to masquerade as socialist, Callaghan has simply taken things to their logical conclusion. Ever since the days of Ramsay McDonald, the Labour leaders have used the mantle of socialism to cloak their betrayals. Without this cover-up, it would be just that bit too hard to persuade the party, the unions and their members to swallow the government pill.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the most acute discomfort at the conference was suffered by those gallant defenders of the faith and free false teeth, the labour left. A government which is sabotaging everything socialism stands for puts them in an awkward spot. Do they continue to stand for its treachery, or do they, heaven forbid, risk its downfall?
The party conference was dominated by the pound, the cuts, and devolution. It was on devolution that their dilemma was highlighted most dramatically. As Scottish Labour Party MP Jim Sillars pointed out at his press conference, a referendum would be a manoevre. With Westminster asking the questions, and a stark choice between the present miserable devolution bill, independence and union, it would afford no real freedom of choice. The Assembly elections themselves will express the feelings
of the Scottish people far better than a referendum. And it would be a gross infringement of democracy to conduct the referendum in the rest of the UK, as is proposed by some antidevolutionists.
Yet the only practical policy change extracted from the government was a garbled commitment to a referendum!
The labour left have been the most powertul torce behind opposition to devolution. The leading lignts or the anti-devolution campaign are Bolsover MP Dennis Skinner and Liverpool MP Eric Heffer, both well-known left wingers. Why are the lefts taking such a position?
They have put up no resistance on the cuts; the rank and file of the party are angry and rightly feel that there has been a betrayal of socialist ideals by So the lefts put up a pseudosocialist smokescreen to cover their own nakedness. Heffer even calls himself a Luxemburgist. Rosa Luxem burg would not have called herself a Hefferite!
The lefts say that socialists should be against devolution because they should be internationalists, and therefore against nationalism. They say the SNP is growing because the Labour Party is giving in to nationalism.
In fact it is deeply antisocialist to oppose democratic rights and above all the right of nations to determine their own future. And the reasons for the SP's success are not to be found in a capitulation to nationalism but in the Labour party's failure to meet the
[page 5]
social needs of the working class and its refusal for years to offer or even consider a democratic answer to the national aspirations of Scottish working people Pee about Panted n confidence of hundreds thousands of Scottish voters because it simply hasn't delivered the goods.
And worse still by trying to present "left" appearance to the angry Labour Party rank and File, the lefts play into the hands of English nationalism and encourage the division of English from Scottish workers. In the name of unity they disunite the workers' movement.
The other debates of the conference rather overshadowed by collapse of the pound. The large foreign holdings in sterling which result from its role as a reserve currency make it particularly liable to rapid fluctuations as distant financiers speculators overeact to minor political events in Britain. This makes it very easy for the Bank of England to express its distaste for anything unfavourable to the interests of capital by simply withdrawing its support for the pound. In fact one of the most disconcerting results of being a Labour left MP in 1976 must be to have the pound drop three cents every time you bleat on the conference floor.
In the end, although the lefts captured party treasurership and sang the Red Flag with their usual gusto, the net result has been virtually no change in government policy. This despite the fact that conference accepted a left wing motion calling for the nationalisation of the banks. This would immedi ately bring foreign exchange under tight control; it is a vital socialist But Callaghan made this motion's fate very plain. He personally canvassed the union delegations over lunch before the vote to gather a large body of abstentions. Then he announced that the motion was an "electoral albatross". Since conference decisions are in no way binding on the government, this obviously means he the slightest intention of carrying it out.
Of course, the government would not be able to continue this cynical disregard of its supporters and party for a moment if the lefts put up any all even to
conference decisions. But the Tribunites remain in the cabinet. The left MPs continue to troop meekly through the lobbies in support of the cuts.
They argue that they must not bring down the government - as the government steadily but surely guarantees its own downfall. In practice they accept the authority of the government and not of the Labour Party
ranks. This is why their fine resolution will not be implemented. It will remain - a fine resolution.
Their opposition to the cuts, if it same level, will also lead nowhere. Action is needed, not words. The most positive step taken by the conference was to pass a resolution opposing the cuts and calling for a united campaign of the labour movement against them with support for councils refusing to implement cut- If the left MPs have any respect for their principles at all, their entire energies should be put behind such a campaign. If they want to promote socialist policies and build real unity between English and Scottish workers, they should start by throwing their weight behind the Highland cleaners
strike described elsewhere in this issue, behind the students and teachers fighting education cuts and, indeed, behind each and every fight against the cutbacks in social spending.
This would make a real change from their record in Westminster where the only votes against the cuts have come from the MPs of the Scottish Labour Party. It would make a change from their record in Scotland where they have stood on the sidelines of every major struggle for working class living standards and rights.
But then, isn't that too much like making a real fight instead of a sham one? Wouldn't it be a bit too risky for the pound? Wouldn't it be a bit too close to real socialism for comfort?
ALAN FREEMAN