tax cuts, and increased social expenditure; and to gain a large increase in investment through widecause an initial spurt in production, and then the state intervention will ensure the increased invest1948 The fatal flaw'in these economic policies is that they do not allow real control over production and investment. The State can exercise more or less direct control over the public sector, but in Britain this only accounts for around a quarter of investment. As long as the central 'commanding heights' of the economy remain in private hands and the Bennite" policies reject the nationalisations and workers control necessary to end this then production in this dominant ector of the economy will be detersed by profit and not by the need to icular road. it in with any "Bennite' scheme for the cream expansion or myestment CONTRADICTIONS The actual implementation of radical Bennite' proposals would lead to insuperable contradictions because of their inability really to control production and'investment. Both the transfer of resources to the working class, which could lead to a fall in the rate of profit, and a situation of State control and threat of nationalisations not to mention conscious sabotage by the capitalists - would lead to cuts in production and investment.
The inevitable outcome of a combination of cutting back production and investment together with a policy of pumping funds into the economy to create a spurt in output would be to create gigantic inflation. Such inflation would lead either to the collapse of the government implementing such measures, or to a situation in which the economic policies had to be put into reverse and mass unemployment would develop.
RULING CLASS It is quite clear that 'Bennite' economic policies provide no real solution to the problems facing the working class. These policies also fail to challenge the historic interests of the ruling class - the defence of the capitalist economy, and the defence of the capitalist state. Nevertheless it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that Bennite' policies do not involve a real clash of interests with particular sections of the ruling class or with the immediate interests of the ruling class as a whole. There are at least five clear economic reasons for this. •Firstly, 'Bennite' policies are not at all the same thing as the mass unempl oyment supported by Thatcher and Keith Joseph or the incomes policy advocated by Heath, Thorpe and wide sections of the Laur leadership. Both the unemployment and the incomes policy proposals would mean As we showed in the last issue of Red Weekly the basic line of 'Bennite' economic policies is to increase demand for goods in the economy through the transfer of resources to the working class, an immediate and severe cut in the living standard of the working class. Radical Bennite policies, no matter what their long term effects, would mean a short term increase in living standards and a drop in unemployment. Hence the immediate effect of such measures would clearly be contrary to what the ruling class at present requires. Undoubtedly Benn's present proposals are not a very radical form even of "Bennite' policies, but the ruling class has nevertheless no interest in allowing even one step down this part• Secondly, a radical 'Bennite' policy would involve a definite programme of nationalisations - something in general clearly against the interests of those capitalists threatened with • Thirdly, a radical 'Bennite' line would run into conflict with the enormously powerful finance-based bourgeoisie. class would, under Benn's proposals, have its funds directed for it into particular industries and would find its foreign operations enormously cut back.
•Fourthly, the development of plan+ ning agreements, State financing and control over investment would involve real clashes of interest with the capitalists, as the State would interfere in their production, attempt to direct investment to areas which were not considered the most profitable, and would possibly threaten them with • Fifthly, the raging inflation and transfer of resources to the working class could lead to a precipitate decline in production and profit.
For all these economic reasons there is no doubt that any radical 'Bennite' policies would go clearly against the immediate economic interests of the ruling class.
run counter to even the short term for the continual witch-hunting of mainly in economics.
through very radical economic reorganisation stepping on not a tew ample, de Gaulle in France carried came to office in 1958. The real political.
DETONATOR
be carried out? That is the question the bourgeoisie asks. It is one thing re-organisation of the economy after the working class has been defeated -as in France in 1958 - and quite another to attempt to carry it out in a situation in which not only has the struggles are actually advancing.
purely from an economic viewpoint, Allende's programme of nationalisatirrational from the point of view of certain sections of the ruling class. alisation, while whole sections of indThis section of the ruling ustry threatened to fall under workers to believe that Benn is as radical as Allende, but nevertheless they are ing to be carried out.
ting to carry through an economic But while 'Bennite' policies clearly interests of the ruling class, the reasons Benn by the capitalist press do not lie There have been occasions when capitalism has carried corns within the ruling class - for exthrough such a re-organisation after he decisive question is not economic but Under what relation of class forces and under what political situation will such a re-organisation of the economy to attempt to carry through a massive working class not been defeated but its The classic illustration of this point is again the case of Chile. Considered U
----- pull-quotes -----
spread state intervention in the economy. The idea is that the increase in demand for goods will ment necessary to lay the basis for a long term growth of the economy.