Wilson and Feather: their new package has nothing to say on how the working class can defend itself now against the present Tory attacks. paper began a long survey of the Government's proposed pay laws by stating what it considered to be a generally accepted truth: "The one thing absolutely clear about Phase 2 is that it will not stop prices rising." The only people for whom this truth is not "absolutely clear" are those inclined to believe what the Government writes. in its official document on pay policy, the White Paper issued on 17 January. For the White Paper begins by declaring that: "The Government's policies are directed towards attacking the rise in prices."
Nevertheless, by examining the document's subordinate clauses and more importantly, by examining what it does not say, we can even get some idea of the real policy of the Government through reading the White Paper. For example, the document states in passing that "some prices are beyond our control"-namely those of imported food and raw materials, and 50 per cent of all food in Britain is imported. Therefore, since the Government considers that nothing should be done about these price increases, they can be expected to go on rising. As for other prices, the White Paper states that, *the Government are determined to press home the attack on the domestic causes of rising prices". The document is quite explicit about what these "domestic causes" really mean: "Pay is the largest single element entering into prices which are under our own control or influence." The White Paper does make some mention of other "domestic" causes of price rises: for example rate increases, land speculation pushing up house prices, etc. But none of this is taken very seriously by the Government. At his press conference on 17 January Heath evaded a question as to whether he would introduce legislation on rate increases. The consequences of this were spelt out by the Guardian, whose main front page story on 27 January stated: "A massive rates increase throughout the country, now being put as high as 30% to 40%, will fall hardest on council house tenants and other people in lower-valued houses." To another question on whether he would introduce legislation against land speculation, Heath was also evasive, stating that he had been "working intensively"
on land speculation.
On pay, however, the Government's proposals are firm and clear cut, provided we remember whose pay the proposals are directed against.
At the press conference Heath was asked about "the type of agreement that many salaried employees have whereby their salaries go up by a predetermined amount over the next few years". He replied that, "where it is a proper incremental agreement.... then this continues".
Thus we see that if we cut through all the verbiage and legal jargon the Government's policy will not block price increases. Nor will it block all pay increases. It will attack wage increases.
These are to be held below £1 plus 4% increases per year for any group of workers involved in a pay claim. Various proposals are made allowing the lower paid to have slightly higher rates of increase than higher paid workers. But the Government's proposals mean holding down all wages well below what all sections of the working class have been demanding over the last year.
Meanwhile, of course, food prices will continue to rise as they have been during the last twomonths of the Freeze": since November food prices have gone up by a cool 6%. And as for fresh food prices, the Grocer magazine reports that in the first 11 weeks of the freeze they went up by no less than 10.2%.
FORCE OF LAW But the Government's measures must not simply be viewed from an economic point of view. The proposals are backed up by the force of law, In other words, any group of workers which tries to defend living standards by fighting the Government's proposals will be threatenedwith the violence of the state. As the White Paper puts it: "Striking or threatening to do so to force an employer to contravene a notice or order; refusing to supply information or supplying false information; all these offences are punishable..."
The draft Bill is even more explicit about what will be considered criminal:
*(a) calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike, or threatening to do so, or (b) organising, procuring or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or threatening to do so."
For those not used to legal jargon, the word "procuring" apparently means "advocating", presumably in a newspaper article, at a shop-stewards meeting etc.
Thus the Government's proposals also amount to an attack on the right to strike and an attack on freedoms of speech and of the press: it marks a further step from the Industrial Relations Act in attacking the 1 abour movement's rights. Already the working class is beginning to take action against the freeze and against the Tory Government which has produced it as part of its general attack on the labour movement to emasculate its organisations. ECONOMIC SITUATION But to work out what is really at stake in the fight against the freeze requires more than just reading the text of the White Paper. The real meaning of the Government's pay laws only becomes clear in the context of the economic and political positions of the different classes in Britain today.
The Government itself argues most strongly that it is not possible to look at the pay laws in isolation, but only in terms of the general state of the economy and British society. Echoing this sentiment, the Daily Mirror's front page declared: "THE ONLY WAY! explaining that although the measures were tough there was no other way of dealing with the economic crisis. The Mirror consequently urged trade unionists not to concern themselves with their own narrow interests (a "selfish attitude") but instead to do what is best from the point of view of society as a whole.
It is indeed essential to examine the real nature of the economic and social situation in Britain today, in order to work out a clear position on the pay laws. And what we find is that the main problem for the economy is the standard of living of the great mass of the population! If only the tens of millions of working class people took less of the national output then the economy would be in excellent shape! This is the Alice in Wonderland logic which says: "If you make things worse for the overwhelming majority, then you make things better for the "nation"". This is exactly true of the British economic system because it functions like any other capitalist system. The trick of course is to proclaim the interests of the capitalist class to be the interests of the "nation', and to speak about the needs of the 'economy" as though it meant the economic welfare of all classes in British society when it really means the economic needs of the capitalists.
OPPOSING INTERESTS In fact, what the Daily Mirror refuses to admit is that the economic needs of the capitalist class are diametrically opposed to those of the overwhelming mass of people.
Every capitalist survives by paying his workers much less than the value of the goods and services which the workers produce, and then realising his profits from this exploitation of the working class through selling the goods on the market against the competition of rival capitalists. Some of the extra value squeezed out of the workers labour by capital is then taken by the state in order to finance the social services and dole out starvation rations to those too old or sick for exploitation and those unable to find work. The rest of the profits stay in the hands of private capital.
In such a situation it is ridiculous to talk about pay laws being "fair" to everybody.
The British capitalist class is in an economic crisis; it cannot compete effectively with its rivals abroad and must therefore increase its exploitation of the working class. Workers have, over the last few years, been strongly resisting the various attempts of individual capitalists to step up their rate of exploitation. It has been fighting the Alice in Wonderland logic of rationalisation' factory by factory, refusing to give up the struggle for a living wage. Therefore the force of the state has to be called in to impose a cut in living standards through defeating the working class politically.
As far as the strongly organised sections of the working class are concerned, their resistance to the capitalist offensive in the last few years has been relatively successful in defending their living standards. But what about the less well organised workers -those in sectors of the economy which are not central; those who are unemployed; or too old or sick to work; women workers; those employees like civil servants, teachers and hospital workers who previously thought of themselves as different from other people who had to sell their labour power in order to survive; or groups that are not directly involved in capitalist production like the students? It has been these layers which have been hardest hit. The Tory Government, and the Labour Government before it, continually try to blame the strongly organised sections of the working class for the declining living standards of these weaker groups. But it is the capitalist class not the workers who are responsible for the ravages which are hitting these layers of the population. And the solution to their declining living standards is to struggle alongside the working class against a common exploitative and bankrupt enemy. A POLICY FOR THE WORKING CLASS AGAINST INFLATION But socialists will not defeat the freeze, let alone capitalism, simply by making propaganda to explain what the real problems of the mass of people are. It is necessary for socialist militants to offer practical solutions here and now to the problem of the rising cost of living as it affects not only industrial workers but all sections of society oppressed and exploited by capitalism.
In the first place, militants must fight the ridiculous idea that the people who benefit from rising consumer prices should be in charge of holding prices down, and organise a campaign of action against price rises by the people who suffer from them: working people must organise to fight price rises, particularly those on food. Trade union militants should work for the establishment of local action comm: ittees against food price rises, either on the initiative of Trades Councils via trade union branches or through the call of local shopstewards organisations. The demand should be raised for full information about price changes to be made available to such committees and all sections of the working population should be drawn into the struggle against the suppliers and retailers which raise prices. Efforts should be made to win over small traders to this campaign since they also suffer from the monopoly suppliers.
The trade unions must be won over to support for such actions and solidarity action should be organised among workers in the industries putting up prices. Such a campaign will be a thousand times quicker, more efficient and more thorough in bringing results than any policy which relies on action by the bureaucrats in Whitehall, never mind the empty gimmicks of Heath's phone-in pantomime.
Secondly, the principle that the capitalists must pay for price rises should be written into all wage settlements: wage agreements should include a clause giving automatic pay increases for any increase in the cost of living.
The cost of living increase should be worked out under workers control. Secondly, such cost of living increases cannot be a substitute for wage negotiations: they must be seen as additions.
Thirdly, the struggle for the lower paid cannot he left in the hands of the state. Full support should be given for across the board increases which reduce pay differentials: the trade union novement should organise a struggle for National Minimum wage for every person ir the country who currently falls below this national minimum. The fight for equal pay for women should be taken up in every industry. Claims by higher paid groups of workers should include demands for social benefits -shorter hours, free transport, company subsidised nursery facilities. Such benefits are gains for the whole work force and cannot be eroded by price rises.
POLITICAL SITUATION For many militants, however, it would seem much more important to get rid of the Tory Government than simply to hold down prices. Such a programme would seem to be simply economic - acceptable, but secondary to the decisive task of throwing out the Government. This would be quite true if the programm of demands is put forward as an alternative to the fight against the Government, instead of using it as a means of developing the fight to bring down the Tories. But to see how this fight can be developed we must analyse the political situation in Britain.
The Tories have suffered a whole series of political defeats at the hands of the working class over the last year. 1972 was planned by government strategists as being the year of decisive victories on the road to electoral triumph on an openly union-bashing ticket. Instead it turned out to be the year of bitter defeats for the Tories, forcing them to scrap their previous tactics and plan of campaign. As we wrote just after the freeing of the five: a period of stalemate in the class struggle. When the freeze was introduced Heath regained the tactical initiative: largely because there was no force within the working class movement which was able to exploit the previous victories that the class had gained. Heath had gained the initiative only by retreating and manoeuvring with the TUC General Council. However since that time in November, the course of events has once again very rapidly started to slip out of the Government's control. Frist, the economic situation has turned sharply for the worse.
Secondly, the freeze itself has mobilised new and wider layers against the government -a whole backlog of pay claims by previously weakly organised sections of workers like the hospital workers, civil servants, gas workers, etc., has brought these new layers into active opposition to the Government.
Thirdly, the Government's own demagogy -absolutely necessary in order to effect the regaining of the initiative through playing games with the TUC - began rapidly to backfire: all the talk about the need to effectively stamp out rising prices has been shown to millions to be nothing but hot air.
Fourthly, the Government is now faced with claims from some of the heavy battalions of the working class.
The government therefore faces an acute contradiction: a much more urgent need than ever for strong action to revive the capitalist class's economic fortunes through cracking down on the working class. And at the same time, an urgent need to avoid another confrontation with an outcome like that of the miners' strike, while the working class's militancy and awareness of what the Tory Government's policies represent have actually deepened since the miners' victory.
POLITICAL STRATEGY But this acute problem for the Tories is a problem of how to decisively defeat the working class's ability to engage in defensive struggles to safeguard its living standards.
And the fact that the Tories have had difficulty attacking the working class does not mean that the working class is politically strong enough easily to get rid of the Tories In fact the reverse is the case. The one great advantage of the Government is that the working class has no political strategy and or