The benchmarks of a Labour Party economic program are stated in the following terms: "The main objectives of planning . . . are then a steadily rising level of investment, and a sufficient volume of savings and risk-capital to match it; a volume of home demand which does not preempt goods away from export; a situation in the labour market which does not give rise to a wage-price spiral; and an increase in the proportion of the national income devoted to social expenditure—all these to be achieved against a background of growing social equality" (p. 502).
The little book issued by Socialist Union, Twentieth' Century Socialism, represents a point of view substantially similar to that of Crosland. It contains little economic analysis and is concerned mainly with three objectives: first, to persuade people of the continuing necessity for active campaigning for the ideals of socialism; second, to restate those ideals; third, to indicate certain basic approaches to their attainment. The emphasis throughout is upon harnessing the economic apparatus to the attainment of human values. ". . . how to bring economic power under social control . . . has always been at the root of socialist thought . . . what socialists have sought is a system, an organization of the economy, based on principles which would ensure that economic power was made to serve social ends" (pp. 119-20).
The principles of institutional organization are stated in undogmatic terms, ". . . socialist planning aims at achieving economic security, fair shares and an expanding economy" (p. 134). The principles to be followed are three: the balance of power, strategic participation, and social accountability. The balance of power principle is based upon presumptions not greatly different from those of J. K. Galbraith's "countervailing power." Business, labor and consumer interests will organize to exercise power, and government will intervene to establish an appropriate balance between these conflicting private interests.
The principle of strategic participation requires the government to take possession of economic power, not by wholesale nationalization but by intervention at strategic points. Fiscal control through the budget is the most important instrument of planning, especially in pursuit of stability and full employment. Equality can be promoted by taxation and by acquiring equity shares and a portion of other accumulations of property. Direct investment may be required in some key industries, either by full nationalization or by operation of individual publicly owned competitive firms.
The principle of public accountability is to be enforced by a variety of measures and sanctions for the protection of consumers and for elevating the status of workers in their productive environment. As will be seen from this catalogue, the thinking of Socialist Union runs along strongly reformist and interventionist lines, but stops far short of "socialism" in any of its traditional meanings.
Special interest attaches to the thinking of Mr. Gaitskill, the present head of the Labour Party. Gaitskill is an economist, an intellectual and a politician. These different roles necessarily create a certain ambivalence in his approach to problems of policy. At the same time, the combination of roles places his discussion of issues on a higher plane than would normally be expected of a political leader. As an economist he has a perfectly clear
understanding of what economic reforms can be accomplished under a private enterprise system and the limitations to Utopian hopes under socialism. As an intellectual, the issues are very clearly sorted out in his mind. As a political philosopher, he has a deep respect for individual freedom and devotion to democratic processes. As a political leader, he has to hold the reins over an unruly team of persons with diverse interests and aspirations, and to promulgate lines of policy designed to win elections.
As a socialist, he is the least dogmatic of men, willing to proceed pragmatically toward such goals of economic stability, justice and equality as are reasonably to be hoped for in the calculable future under democratic processes.
A British political leader in Gaitskill's position has to make his peace with the hard core of trade-union influences in the Labour Party. While many leaders and members of unions are no doubt socialists in principle, the basic unionist urge is toward some benefit in the here and now, not in some future socialist state. Consequently, any political leader, whatever his principles, is heavily committed to reformist policies consistent with the existing private enterprise basis of industrial life. This leaves a good deal of open territory for argument and maneuver, according to whether one thinks of reform as the goal or as a way station to some future socialist state. The difference of goals in view creates deep cleavages in the Labour Party, making it difficult to construct a platform on which to base its next electoral appeal. In this context, Gaitskill appears to lean to the reformist rather than the "subversive" side, placing him "at the right of the left." The broad outlines of his philosophical position are best stated in his pamphlet on Recent Developments in British Socialist Thinking. The acid test of British socialists is, however, their attitude toward further socialization of the means of production. Gaitskill faces this problem in Socialism and Nationalization and I shall limit my attention to that pamphlet. He states socialist ideals as follows: "In short, the society we wish to create is one in which there are no social classes, equal opportunity in the sense described above ['for the pursuit of happiness, however people decide they can best achieve this' , a high degree of economic equality, full employment, rapidly rising productivity, democracy in industry and a general spirit of co-operation between its members." He approaches the subject of nationalization pragmatically, as a possible means, to be judged on its merits, toward the attainment of these ends. The traditional linking of public ownership with the ideals of socialism was based on its supposed necessity because: (1) the existence of unearned income is wrong; (2) capitalism inevitably engenders unemployment, economic insecurity and waste; (3) private possession of capital inevitably confers undue power; (4) economic competition is fundamentally unethical and unchristian, and prevents a real spirit of cooperation. Gaitskill proceeds to reexamine this traditional linkage.