Should Bmc Be Nationalized? Asks Jack Jones

from a CSE Correspondent Speaking on 'A Socialist Policy for the Car Industry' at a crowded meeting called by the newly established Coventry Centre for Socialist Education Jack Jones, Assistant Executive Secretary of the T & GWU, made an smporte ant and thought-provoking analysis of the condition of the motor industry. Over a hundred shop stewards and members of the University of Warwick met in the Municipal Staff Canteen, at this inaugural public meeting of the recently formed Coventry Centre. A series of lively questions and contributions were generated by Mr. Jones's lecture. The themeof Mr. Jones's address was that the planlessness of the motor industry in the economy at large had to be tackled by trade wmion members: thus the structure of the industry was a legitimate and necessary area of trade union concern. Again and again the speakers returned to the problem of workers' control in the industry andthe need for some form of nationalisation. Although it might be argued that the Government has no mandate to take over motors, he said, no-one could deny that the Government was committed to take over "industries which are failing the nation." BMC in particular was a strong candidate for such treatment. If the powers of the Industrial Development Corporation were not sufficient to encompass this purpose, then it should be done by other means, he said. Emphasising that nationalisation of major car firms was perfectly practicable, Mr. Jones did not avoid any of the complex problems which arise in planning where nationalised industries are forced to exist in a basically unplanned economy. While there is no doubt that we can operate a nationalised car industry, with extensive areas of workers' participation in management, he argued, it was also necessary to move on to full and real economic planning. In this connection he lucidly demonstrated the inadequacies of the Government's "National Plan" of last year, now a dead letter, which was completely wrong about the car industry. Mr. Jones drew attention to the increasingly grave penetration of American capital into the British mot“r industry. At the same time, he strenuously argued against the tendency to assume their entry into the Common Market would solve the industry's problems. On the contrary, Mr. Jones pointed out, these problems may be intensified by the open access of Volkswagen, Fiat and Renault onto British markets. | The meal problem was one of finding access to wider world markets, particularly to create markets in the third world countries of Africa and Asia, who were struggling to industrialize themselves. Answering questions on the form and extent of "workers' participation", Jack Jones was very precise on the need to preserve trade union independence and strength at all times. He did not believe that unions should "train people to become managers". Rather, they should train trade unionists to act as trade unionists and take over powers and decisions from management disposition. Asked about German and other forms of co-partnership, he said that while all these examples should be carefully studied, he did not think of this example as his model for trade wnion action to control management's scope. Summing up, Mr. Jones insisted that the power in the movement was at the roots, and that the working people must tell the leaders what their views were. "Study, study and study again, but apply the study to action” he concluded, saying that in pusuance of this objective, the establishment of Centres like this could only be welcomed.