Brown? On incomes he says: 'We must accept social justice in wages bargaining'

SPEAKING in Birmingham last Sunday, Mr. George Brown declared to the organised workers of this country that their wages would have to be held down. He tried to disguise this wage-freeze (the 'incomes policy') with fine words .. we have got to accept social justice and planning in the field of wages and salaries bargaining?

Brown explained that strongly organised and well-paid workers must forgo increases to leave more in the kitty for the poorly paid. This shows how shameless and cynical the Labour government is.

After all, the pensioners are the ones least able to exert any organised pressure to improve their incomes, and yet it was they who were deprived of the niggardly 12s. 6d. increase all through the winter.

Tory Act In point of fact, Brown is going to try and clamp down on all wage increases. After the recent agreement for a wage increase in the Scottish plumbing trades, he ordered an inquiry, because he fears the effect on wages throughout the building industry. A Tory Chancellor did exactly the same thing in the same industry only two years ago!

The Trades Union Congress General Council this week announced the reasons why it had agreed to accept the working of the National Prices and Incomes Review Board.

This body, under the rule of Tory Aubrey Jones, specially chosen by George Brown, will have the task of actually implementing the 'incomes ' policy'. Woodcock and the TUC leaders try to make out a case for the Despite this rationalisation, or because of it, German capitalism could not satisfy its appetites for new markets and fields for investment in a peaceful manner.

The 1929 crisis, plus the intolerable situation created by the Versailles Treaty, impelled the German ruling class to utilize fascism to regiment the working class, smash all opposition, militarize the economy and restore the rapidly declining profit rate by a massive and bloody expansion of German capital.

Arnold's explanation of French events though correct in parts is just as facile-if not more dangerous from a methodological point of view.

"The French bourgeoisie,' he writes, 'remained completely unable to carry out any (my emphasis) of the renewal of industrial plant necessary since 1918'!

Indeed? Didn't Marx devote a whole volume of 'Capital' to prove that such a thing was absolutely impossible under conditions of expanded reproduction, the basis of capitalist accumulation?

Are we to conclude from this then that French capitalism has been suffering from a realisation crisis since 1918?

The intensity and scope of replacement of fixed capital in industry, as well as new investment, will vary from nation to nation, and from industry to industry, but it would be extremely dangerous for us to conclude that such a process does not take place.

That is why I think Arnold's comparisons between France and Britain are false and invidious.

In Britain, too, the development and modernisation of industry varies from one sector of the economy to another.

While traditional industries like textiles and shipbuilding are declining, the more profitable sectors such as radio, electronics, automobiles, chemicals and plastics have witnessed a revolution in technology and an influx possibility of increased living standards all round as a result of this 'co-operation' between employers, workers and the government. But they make a very poor job of it.

Like Brown, Woodcock says that the incomes policy will enable 'planning' to take place. Together with 'increased productivity' this will make possible an eventual rise in incomes. So every worker must work much harder, must not take action to increase his wages, and wait until the powers that be decide that an increase is possible.

This is what happens to labour and trade union leaders who abandon socialism and the working class.

Opposite All their experience in spouting about 'social justice, 'planning', and 'the interests of the community' turns into its opposite, and is used to impose the requirements of capital upon the working class, meanwhile leaving intact the wealth of the exploiters.

Thus, in the same week as starting his campaign to sell the incomes policy, Brown makes it very clear that his. brand of socialism intends to leave the vast majority of industry in private hands.

What the incomes policy means for the workers' wages is made very clear by the figures given in the TUC memorandum:

'Since the end of the war wage and salary incomes have risen at an annual average rate of 6t per cent, but prices have risen by nearly 4f per cent each year. Real wages and salaries have therefore only been rising at a little more than 2 per cent a year. Most of the money increase has been lost because productivity has risen by no more than 2} per cent a year.' Now Brown is asking that of new investment.

This, of course, does not mean that British capitalism is buoyant and stable, but it does show that the decline of capitalism is not a uniform and straight-line process.

For this reason, too, I must take exception to the bald statement of Arnold that France and Britain are 'on the verge of total bankruptcy.

Britain is faced with a perennial balance of payments problem which gets worse every year -and every month.

To cover this deficit, the Bank of England negotiated one of the biggest loan operations in Britain's history.

This operation has failed to achieve the desired results and the government is preparing to negotiate another loan from the International Monetary Fund. Whether the IMF grant this loan or not, what faces capitalist Britain is not "total bankruptcy', but the devaluation of the pound with all the consequences it would entail for the dollar and the franc-and for the British working class.

Certainly such a move would put an end to sterling as a reserve currency.

France's problems are not exactly the same. She is fighting a life and death struggle against U.S. and West German economic and military domination in Europe.

In order to counter the economic offensive of the USA, France took the initiative in forming the Common Market, which is a protectionist association for the benefit of West German and French monopolists.

This policy was clearly adumbrated by the financial commission of the French National Assembly in November 1964:

Is there not some reason to believe that, with the existing level of technology and productivity in Europe, the American giant will shortly absorb everything in its path, even despite the harmonised tariffs?

Should not Europe be first consolidated?' (Journal Officiel, Assemblée Nationale, p. 5321)

French Communist Students' Congress Three A gress of the French the • annual conril Pabloite 'Unified Secretariat' because they stood by their

standards the City of London.

In order to maintain profits the employers are having to strike.

Despite the actions of the tion (i.e., government measures) adding • seriously to costs, the employers can demand a revision of the agreement.

The unions for their part can ask for a further wage claim within the three year period of the deal 'if there is an increase of five points or more in the Index of Retail Prices during the period of 12 months from January 4, 1965, and if this increase is maintained for three consecutive months in either of the succeeding 12-month periods'.

In relation to this, the follow-