International Marxist Group Archive

Magazines, bulletins and booklets of the IMG and its forerunners, 1961–1984

Editorial Notes: Anti-Nationalisation arguments punctured

The Week Vol. 1, No. 26, 25 June 1964 · p. 3 of the scan · 328 words

The scan: The Week v1 no26.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: capitals heading; heuristic; title from the issue's contents list (match 0.84).

Three events this week have made nonsense of the flood-gates of anti-nationalisation propaganda being put out by the supporters of the Tory Party. The findinsS§S of the Restrictive Practices Court show conclusively that there is not a vestige of competition or 'private' enterprise in the steel industry. The arguments of Dr. Beeching on rail versus road transport give added weight to what Labour and trade union spokesmen have been saying for a long times namely that the reasons for the poor showing of British Ruilways. are because the dice is loaded, deliberately, against it, and in favour of privately owned road transport, The findings of the House of Commons Committee on Nationalised industries, which looked into the affairs of BOAC, showed that the Government has consistently favoured privately owned aircraft manufacturers against the state line. We shall go into these reports in detail in subsequent issues but a lesson can be drawn: given the necessary determination, a bold and vigorous campaign in defence of the principle of social ownership would pay electoral dividends, and the arguments that we must keep quiet about nationalisation just don't hold water,

What is wrong with nationalisation at present is not that ‘suppresses initiative, leads to bureaucracy, etc., (any of our readers in large _ privately owned enterprises will confirm similar tendencies exist) but that the worker in those industries do not consider the industry to be ‘their! concern. This is because the workers 'feel' (and know) that it is still a question of 'them' and 'us'. Quite apart from the form of nationalisation, the content of nationalisation is clearly wrong. This in itself is all a reflection of the fact that even in Labour's programme nationalised industries are subordinate to keeping the private sector going - the question of relative efficiency is not a real issue = and this implies certain forms and policies. A policy of nationalisation, under workers! control, of the decisive sections of British industry would be a vote-winner.

← 1,000 Civil Ri Mississippi.Hands off Zanzibar! →

Something wrong on this page?