me Published occasionally, available only on subscription of £1 for 10 issues The first numbers include: How We Can Win Workers! Control by Louis de Broukere The Miners’ Next Step by Noah Ablett revolutionary Unionism by EJ B Allen vwnat Happened at Leeds by The Heyald 4A Plan for the Mines by The South Wales Socialist Society
ana rene SERN NepcirrmEresannaienrtnte en. -yuiratneinracetentinseemanntinn pseu ahmed nin arene
f .
me ae 4
ee ee Se ere is - necessity for employers to be able to predict labour costs, in cntext of long range planning, because of : a FB “idity of technological advance (b) Consequent rapid rate at wricr cacit zal equipment is becoming obsolete (c) Huge cost of technological esearch and replacement of capital equipment. Tre fast growth of international competition is squeezing British profit margins. “re rapid rate of growth in Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., is to some extent gue to the fact that Labour movements are weaker than in Britain, and growth can be accomplished with less regard to the workers. tre British balance of payments problem is caused by : (a) The maintenance of the £. (b) Large outflow of private capital (c) Vast arms expenditure, ‘With the need for neo-capitalist plarming, there is a necessary growth of State involvement in the economy. The State is the biggest employer. Realities of Profits, Dividends and Wages in a capitalist economy profits cannot be controlled without stagnation because they provide the whole motive power and dynamic of the system. The control of dividends is not the same as the control of profits (the _ major proportion of profits is taken up by capital investment) wages under capitalism are won by good organisation and struggle. If high wages are held back, low wage earners will not benefit - quite the contrary. “ilitant, highly organised, highly paid workers are the vanguard of the woring class advance as a whole, both by example, and because lower paid workers fight to keep up. The Incomes Policy is not an incomes policy at all, but a WAGES Policy. There are two types of wage bargaining :- national T.U. bargaining fixes basic minimum; shop-floor bargaining establishes actual wages, piece rates etc, At least in the vanguard sections of the working class, the shop-floor struggles predominate. ~ne Trade Unions and Shop Stewards
There is an increasing division between T.U. official macninery and tne rank and file, because of : (a) The increasing State “involverent in the economy has tended to intigrate T.U.s into the machinery of actual government. (b) The growth in the number of full time pcid I.U. officials. (c) The geographical basis of T.U. branches. “whereas the shop stewards are closely involved in «ne day-to-day struggle on the factory floor. These are the ones “no lead thre workers! strugsles tosay - so the Incomes Policy, Frices and uneomes weg~sla tion, and the
4@ anti-working class drive is now dir
s
Ss
ected nrimerily asainst tne shop
-rrcsicion to tne Incomes Policy and anti-T.U. legislation is crucial to “4 working class. Pris is the class struggle at the moment, and in the
2 ran tre fight for workers! control will be led by the shop stewards.
The main task now is the building up of the shp stewards’! movemen local and national level, and the politicisation of the moverent present fragmented and narrowly based. A start has been made with London Industrial Shop Stenerds Defence Committee.
ct
Opposition to the Incomes Policy Despite agreed opposition to this particular Incomes Policy, the Seminar <is:layed considerable disagreement over tactics. (a) Either complete rejection of any Incomes Policy under capitalism, and militant opposition to it on both theoretical level (i.e, Cliff Barker's Book), and by practical unrestrained shop floor militance, (o) Or "socialisation" of Incomes Policy, in form of demands for dividend limitation, price control, state planning of key investments etc. Some felt that negative opposition, even if successful, would leave us where we were in terms of the fignt for workers' control and socialism, and thought we should demand more state intervention in the interests of the working class, (c) Those opposing this line of thought believed that advances in workers' consciousness and organisation, arising directly out of fight against Incomes Policy, anti-T.U. legislation, etc., were in themselves positive gains. Also thought that "state intervention in interests of working class" a contradiction in terms, since the state in question is a capitalist one. (d) Question of “opening the books" brought up. agreed that as one of the opposing demands: it represented good Béneral tactics. Opinions were equally divided on the question of Trade Unions : (a) Most felt that, with bureaucraticasion of Unions, and since Government's policies in fact attacked rank and file workers, the main struggle, at least in the most advanced sections of working class, had switched from unions to building up rank and file organisations, and shop floor struggles. (bo) Most, however, were agreed that Trade Union action and participation was still very important. We should co-operate as far as possible. In many fields the main struggle was still that of unionisation. We Should not make a fetish of unofficial action by shop stewards. Conclusions No unified, coherent attitude to Incomes Policy, etc. was produced by Seminar. It was generally felt to be very useful, but merely scratched the surface. There had been no economic analysis of Government's arguments in favour of the Incomes Policy as a factor leading to economic growth, There is much work still to be done.