content with working to smash the social contract on the wages front. For the burcaucracy can always reply *What do you propose, then, to do about the low-paid and pooriy organised? How do you propose to solve inflation and unemployment? What about education and housing/How can we get nationalisation?"
BADLY DISGUISED
In other words, militants must not stop short by saying that the social contract is an incomes policy badly disguised which can be effectively smashed with big wage claims. To do so is to play into the hands of the trade union bureaucrats and Labour leaders in their new "politIcal " role.
This danger arose classically at the recent conference of the National Union of Miners in Liandudno, The "lefts' at the conference- Scargill, McGahey and Co-failed to provide any other perspective in opposition to the social contract except wages militancy. Similarly, at the NUM special delegate conference last week on the NCB's productivity deal, the only aim put forward by the militants who correctly walked out of the conTerence was to defend the union from attacks on its all-round ability to fight militant and united wage strug gles, They did not propose an all-round programme for the mining industry, and on energy policy in general, which could become a programme of struggle not simply for the NUM, but the working class as a whole.
LABOUR FAKES
When the response to the social contract stops short at super wage militancy, the right wing of the bureaucracy can have a field day. Joe Gormiey, for example, could back the social contract against the lett in the NUM while accusing them of being only interested in the wage clain and not the 'struggle for socialism".
The Ford workers are giving a lead to all the working class, in not giving a fig for the sort of social contract Labfor the major and most profitable capitalist concerns, The entire Labour "left" has been lined up behind the social contract ing standards-all realisable, they clain, under capitalism.
of industry and finance from the hands of the capitalists.
omy instead of one dominated by capitalist profit sion of public ownership.
firms will there be the cash for a PROBLEM taken before by Labour Governments, but they have always paid compensation to the capitalists for the fall value of their factories and shares. terest.)
profits from capitalist employers Over the last year, the left wing of the Labour Party has become more vocal than ever ahout the need to progress towards socialism. Tony Benn said at the last Lahour Party conference in 1973: "The crisis that we inherit when we come to power will be the occasion for fundamental change and not the excuse for postponing it.
But despite all the strong language, The Government White Paper on Industry, so dreaded by the employers, contains no threat of nationalisation SOUPED UP In defending the social contract the "lefts' do not usually use the same ar guments as Wilson and Gormley. For the Wilsons and the Gormleys, social ism is just a souped up welfare state. with full employment and rising liv Foot, Benn and Heffer argue that socialism at least entails the removal They also argue that this needs a planned econThe lefts see their present support ment. "For abe Wiisons and the Gormileys, socialism is just a sauped up welfart cate with Full employment and rising living standards could hope to bring an immediate surplus that could pay for a social plan in the interests of the working class.
But that would demand the Labour lefts dropped all their present kowTowing before Parliament and the law The notion that, after paying off compensation, the nationalised indus iety. tries could eventually turn over a vast surplus to the social services doesn't wash either, Nationalised industries have so far rarely made an operating surplus at all because puhlic" industries rubsidise private industry for example, by producing low-price essential services or goods (coal, transport, clectricity) for capitalist busiThe only means of carrying through effective socialist measures is by rely- struggles. ing on the strength and organisation of the werking class. But by giving vethal support to the social contract the "lefts' boister up one of the most dangerous weapons designed to sap the strength of the workers moveLabour's actual proposals for nationalisation can guarantee far leas than even the Labour lefts' hope for. As more Court Lines and Ferranti's occur, the Labour Government proposes that the capitalists will he baled out time and again to keep them in business with huge dolleps of public anisations, could impose its plan on the ruling class and smash any attempts at capitalist sabotage. Such a system, linked to a Government which was based on and responsible to the org anisations of the working class would really open the road to a socialist soc COMING STRUGGLES In the coming moaths, thousands of workers are going to be invalved in the most vicious controntations with the bosses over wage claims and redundancies, The Labour Party, if it comes into Government, will wave the social contract and demand fair play from the working class. The union leaders will try to smash the most militant Militants should fight against the coming redundancies on the principle that the working class should take no Against the miserable prop osals of the Labour Party, the unions should advance a trade union plan for the nationalisation of industry under workers' control..
such a plan would need to be a programme for