25.07.2007

Debating programme

The task of redrafting the CPGB's Draft programme is continuing, with the debate on section 3, 'Immediate demands', well underway in London. Simon Wells reports

The task of redrafting the CPGB's Draft programme is continuing, with the debate on section 3, 'Immediate demands', well underway in London. We recently discussed sections 3.3 ('The unemployed') and 3.4 ('Nationalisation') and there was a good deal of criticism of some formulations in both sub-sections (the current draft can be viewed at www.cpgb.org.uk/documents/cpgb/draftprog.html).

The unemployed

Peter Manson introduced the debate and immediately focused on the second sentence of the first paragraph, which currently reads: "Full employment can only be a temporary phenomenon in a system which reduces people to the mere possessors of the commodity, labour-power - that is, objects of exploitation." He pointed out that workers are viewed by capital not only as "mere possessors of the commodity, labour-power": they are also viewed as consumers.

In the discussion the way the first part of the sentence is expressed also came in for criticism - rather than focusing on "full employment" (if it ever exists), we need to say why the level of unemployment always varies.

There was some debate over the extent to which the unemployed remain the "reserve army of labour". It was suggested that workers have attained a much higher level of skill than in the past, which may make their replacement more difficult by untrained members of a "reserve army"; and secondly the gains workers have won in terms of redundancy payments and social security benefits mean that unemployment is not necessarily such a devastating threat.

However, there was general consensus that the phrase should remain. The threats of unemployment and of using the unemployed to keep down working conditions and wages are real. More workers are trained, or can be trained comparatively quickly, to operate, say, computers - take the example of call centres being relocated to India. Similarly, while unemployed workers may no longer be reduced to a state of absolute desperation, the threat of losing your job can cast a huge shadow over workers trying to keep up mortgage payments and maintain their living standards.

It was suggested that the threat of unemployment should be regarded as just one way among many in which workers are turned against one another.

Nationalisation

Simon Wells opened the debate. Firstly he emphasised, as the current draft correctly points out, that nationalisation does not equal socialism - workers are still forced to sell their labour-power in a statised capitalist economy and are no nearer state power. In addition breaking up transnational units of production into their national parts might not be the best way to proceed.

However, we should certainly demand nationalisation under capitalism under specific circumstances - with the addition that the industry/sector concerned should be run and controlled democratically by the workers concerned. Comrade Wells gave as examples transport and healthcare, where moves to privatisation have demonstrated that the current chaotic and marketised system cannot satisfy the basic, immediate needs of our class. Privatisation has seen the intensification of cost-cutting, redundancies and worse working conditions, while the effects of the private finance initiative in the NHS have been disastrous. We need a cheap, efficient, nationally coordinated transport system and healthcare that is free to everyone at the point of need. Fragmented private capital cannot deliver on either score.

However, it was pointed out during the discussion that the current draft 'bends the stick' too far in attempting to combat the position of the 'official communists' and the former Militant Tendency, who regarded it as a matter of ideological principle that nationalisation is automatically socialistic, whereas in fact nationalisation can be advantageous to the bourgeoisie. The section was drafted before the Thatcherite privatisation assault was in full swing.

While the current draft concedes that it is correct to demand nationalisation under certain concrete circumstances, the only example it gives is where there is an imminent closure with the threat of redundancy. In such cases the state must be made to take responsibility.

There was general agreement that further examples need to be explicit. Apart from transport and healthcare, we should demand the nationalisation under capitalism of the banks and financial services sector, land, and utilities such as water, gas and electricity. These industries are natural monopolies and the idea that there is genuine 'competition' within them is a myth. They are also necessities of modern life and if any company goes bankrupt the taxpayer through the state will be forced to bail it out.

The discussion then moved on to try and locate the debate in the present stage of capitalism. As capitalism progresses, there appear more contradictions, through more organisation, and the objective of the state is to control the working class. If an industry is nationalised the working class is controlled through bureaucracy and if it is privatised it is through pseudo-markets, which are highly regulated and layered with state control over the workers. For example, the defence industry is not nationalised, but tanks and warplanes cannot be purchased freely on the market: it is the state that determines all transactions. On the other hand, the marketisation of education and healthcare does not mean that schools and hospitals will be closed if profit is not generated - the provision of those services is based on need.

The debate over our Draft programme is an ongoing process and in the coming weeks London Communist Forums will be discussing 'Trade unions' and 'Councils of action'. These meetings are open to anyone on the left and we would particularly welcome other comrades from the Campaign for a Marxist Party to join us in debating programmatic details.