Nationalisation
THE
TASK of socialists has also been made more difficult by the association
in many people's minds of nationalisation with Socialism. Nationalised
or State capitalist industry is, in fact, just another way of operating
capitalism which leaves unchanged the exploited and subject position of
the workers
In Britain the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties (and the
'Left-wing' organisations) have all spread confusion by the pretence
that nationalisation is Socialism. Among businessmen there has been a
growing recognition of the realities of the situation as, for example,
an article, 'The Rise of State Capitalism', published by Management
Today (December 1976):
"Capitalism is mostly thought of as the
private owner¬ship of the means of production. The emphasis is on
'private'. In practice, however, the developed countries of the world
have seen an increasing move towards State ownership of the means of
production, or State capitalism".
For well over a century,
governments in Britain have from tune to time considered the
desirability of nationalising certain industries, but it was not until
the Labour Party was formed that nationalisation became a continuing
issue in party politics and elections. At first the Labour Party stood
for a comprehensive programme of nationalisation in the belief that it
would solve many of the problems of the workers and would earn votes
for Labour Party candidates. In 1945 when, for the first time, the
Labour Party held office with a parliamentary majority, the election
pledge to nationalise basic industries was at once put into effect and
a number of industries were nationalised, includ¬ing coal,
transport,
electricity, gas and the Bank of England. Later on there was talk of
nationalising additional industries such as insurance, chemicals and
the joint-stock banks, but by this time experience of nationalisation
had brought about some change in the attitude of electors and the
leaders of the Labour Party had clearly come to the conclusion that a
pledge to extend nationalisation would no longer be the vote-catcher
that it had been in earlier years.
Among the factors that had
made nationalisation less attractive with electors may be mentioned
successive increases of charges by the nationalised industries (coal,
railways, gas and electricity) and the fact that some nationalisation
schemes, notably the proposal to nationalise insurance and
distribution, caused difficulties between the Labour Party and the
co-operatives because the latter felt their financial interests might
be adversely affected. In addition the workers soon found — as the
Socialist Party of Great Britain had foretold — that nationalisation or
State capitalism does not differ from private capitalism as far as the
exploitation of the workers is concerned. They still needed their trade
unions, and the strike weapon, to protect themselves against their
employers.
The outcome of nationalised industries under Labour
government was such that many leaders of the Labour Party began to
express doubts about the political wisdom of introducing further
nationalisation measures. This led to a controversy within the Labour
Party between those in favour of more nationalisation and those against
it. In the end a typical compromise was reached. Gaitskell. the leader
at that time, was foiled in his bid to revise clause four of the
party's constitution which committed it to wholesale nationalisation,
but as an immediate demand nationalisation was tacitly dropped with the
vague statement that the Labour Party would consider taking over any
industry that in their view 'failed the nation'. By this they meant
what harmed the general interests of British capitalism either by
inefficiency or monopoly.
In reaching this conclusion the Labour
Party adopted an attitude much like that of the Liberal and Tory cartes
in the past. It was they who nationalised the postal, telegraph and
telephone services, and set up a number of public corporations such as
the Port of London Authority, in each instance in order to deal with
some particular problem as it arose. In general they resorted to
nationalisation when other methods of curbing a monopoly and of
securing an efficient and cheap privately-run service had failed.
Although the railways were not nationalised until 1946 the first Act of
Parliament authorising nationalisation was passed in 1844 under Peel's
Tory government. It was introduced by Gladstone, President of the Board
of Trade, who was at that time a Tory Free Trader, and was intended as
a threat to hold over the heads of the railway companies to force them
to reduce charges. It served that purpose and was not used to secure
nationalisation though it remained on the statute book.
A new
wave of nationalisation and government intervention began with the
trade depression that coincided with the return to power of Labour
Government in 1974. Unable to stand up to foreign competition, a number
of big companies and industries got into financial difficulties and the
issue presented itself in the form of government action to save 'lame
ducks'. The deciding factor was whether the government dared incur
unpopularity with the trade unions and the investors by allowing them
to go bankrupt. The issue had actually arisen when the Tory Government
came to power in 1970. At first the Tory Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, had
declared his intention to let 'lame ducks' sink; but under pressure
inside and outside his own Party he modified his attitude and, when
Rolls-Royce failed, he had to intervene to save part of it.
The
Labour Government went further and introduced new nationalisation
measures, for example, shipbuilding, and embarked on new forms of
intervention, including the British National Oil Corporation
controlling North Sea oil in collaboration with the Oil Companies. Also
the National Enterprise Board which holds shares on behalf of the
government in a number of companies including British Leyland,
Rolls-Royce, Alfred Herbert, Ferranti and Inter¬national Computers.
The
Government also provided millions of pounds to keep alive the
American-owned Chrysler motor concern in Britain. By 1975, 30 per cent
of all workers were employed in State concerns.
Nationalisation
has nothing to do with Socialism and involves no infringement of Ihe
fundamental features of capitalism. Apart from nationalisation carried
out for military purposes, it is usually concerned with the problem of
controlling powerful private monopolies or subsidising unprofitable but
vital branches of industry in the interests of the capitalist class as
a whole, and to prevent an increase of unemployment All private
capitalist enterprises are. and have long been, subject to some
controls, for instance their obligations under the Companies Acts,
Factory Acts, Minimum Wage Acts and Equal Pay Act. Some of them, as for
example, the railways, gas and water companies, were subject to
additional controls in respect of charges. The problem facing
governments in their administration of capitalism has therefore been
that of deciding which of the various forms of control best serve the
interests of capitalist industry and trade as a whole. In the early
days if a monopoly had to be brought under close control the model was
the Post Office in which the industry or service is run as a government
department, staffed by civil servants and with its finances, its policy
and day-to-day administra¬tion under control of a Minister. Later
on
both the Tories and the Labour Party tried out the form of organisation
in which administration and finance are controlled by a Board which the
Government appoints but with whose day-to-day activities the Government
does not normally interfere though having the ultimate power to do so.
Under these Boards, like the National Coal Board and British Rail, the
workers are not civil servants. By an ironic twist of history the Post
Office itself has now been re-organised as a Public Board.
From
the investors' point of view nationalisation usually means giving up an
investment which may pay high dividends (or none at all if the concern
fails to make a profit), and receiving in return a government-backed
security which pays a fixed rate of interest no matter what happens to
tbs nationalised industry; securities which they can always sefi if
they wish to invest again in private industry. From ths point of view
of capitalism the problem is to decide wioct is the best way to run it.
In
the United States, often held up as the model of a country of private
enterprise free from nationalisation, capitalist policy has taken a
somewhat different course from that favoured in Europe. Instead of
nationalising monopolies, American governments have claimed that they
effectively control them. The Sherman Anti-Trust Law of 1890
prohibited, under severe penalties, 'every contract, combination in the
form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations'. Under the
1890 Act and subsequent amending Acts, proceedings were taken in a
large number of cases, resulting periodically in spectacular court
decisions ordering the break-up of trusts such as Standard Oil and the
Tobacco trust or gaoling execu¬tives; but new violations of the law
are
constantly being alleged. Also legislation has in certain industries
specifically allowed combinations to be formed, including shipping,
marine insurance and railways. Although the predominant interests in
American capitalism may hold, as they do, that anti-trust laws are a
better solution of this capitalist problem than nationalisation would
be, the groups whose interests are damaged by the big combinations
continue to demand more effective action to restore competition.
Anti-monopoly
laws have also been passed in Britain but, despite the fuss surrounding
the abolition of resale price maintenance by the Tories, these have
been laxly enforced and have had little impact. Indeed, the policy of
the 1964-70 Labour government was to encourage monopoly, through the
Industrial Reorganisation Corporation they set up, especially in the
export and war-preparation industries. The Tories scrapped the I.R.C.
Neither
trust-busting in America nor partial or wholesale nationalisation in
Britain and Russia (whatever they may have achieved for the privileged
minority in each country) has solved the poverty problem of the working
class. Time alone will show, in the competitive struggle in world
markets, whether Russian wholesale nationalisation or American stress
on 'efficiency through internal competition', or British capitalism's
compromise between the two, will prove the most effective method of
organising capitalist production. There are in Russia influential
advocates of greater reliance on competition and the profit motive; but
no matter how the issue is decided it will leave the workers of all
three countries living restricted lives as wage-earners exploited for
the benefit of the privileged minority of the population. Whatever
happens it seems quite clear that some amount of nationalisation is
here to stay in all countries as long as capitalism lasts.
But
even without nationalisation the capitalists in all countries have
moved away from their nineteenth-century belief in the virtues of
unrestricted competition and hi the carrying on of production under
their own control without government interference. Now the capitalists,
in America as well as in Britain, accept the position that their
individual freedom of action will be limited through legal obligations
and governmental controls which they would have denounced half a
century ago.
But whether capitalism's policy is competition,
trust-busting, nationalisation or modified government controls, it is
still capitalism. And capitalism, whatever its form, offers no hope to
the working class. |
|
 |
|
