Friday 31 July 2009

For A Vestas Co-op

The immediate task of socialists, in relation to the dispute, at the Vestas Wind Turbine plant, on the Isle of Wight, where workers have occupied against the proposed closure, is to provide the maximum support and solidarity. The Labour Movement has rallied to give support to the workers, which demonstrates a renewed confidence within the working class. But, the task of Marxists is to do more than just provide such immediate practical support. It is also to provide answers and solutions to workers problems. The reality is that, marvellous and heroic as the workers action is, wonderful as the support of other workers is, at the end of the day the plant’s owners could simply decide to walk away, with or without a Court Order to evict the occupation. The Occupation has to be seen as a necessary start, tactic, and not an end in itself.

It appears that Vestas who supply from this factory land based wind turbines for the US, have discovered that they are unable to compete with US based suppliers. As I have said elsewhere, in the US, there is taking place a big reallocation of Capital, away from old unprofitable areas such as car production, where the US’s high wage economy cannot compete with production in low wage economies in Asia and elsewhere, and into high-value production such as alternative energy, where the high skill and technology requirement gives the US a comparative advantage. It is not surprising then that Vestas is finding it difficult to compete in this market. At the same time it says, that it cannot find a sufficient market in the UK, where much wind power is located off-shore, and where planning objections from locals have frustrated the majority of attempts to establish on shore windfarms.

At the rally in support of the workers last week, speakers such as Bob Crow, in giving their support to the workers proclaimed that there was in fact a huge market for windmills in Britain, and the potential, therefore, of making large profits. The Government, has also said that it is investing huge sums into wind production – though again most of that appears to be for off-shore production. But, if that is the case then why argue for Vestas to continue production? Surely, if the market for these wind turbines is as large and as profitable as Bob Crow suggests then the sensible thing would be for the RMT and other unions and sections of the Labour Movement, to move as quickly as possible from the current occupation of the factory to beginning that production under workers control! Surely, it would be sensible for the Trade Unions and the Labour and Co-operative Movement, to enable the Vestas workers to buy up the plant and run it as a Workers Co-operative, reaping these profits for themselves rather than handing them over to the Vestas capitalists!

Its necessary to look at the issues, and facts. Either there is a market for these windmills or there is not. If as Bob Crow says there is such a lucrative market then the above course of action is the obvious solution, and simply limiting demands to the continued exploitation of the workers by Vestas would be a reactionary demand. After all, the whole basis of the socialist revolution is to end the exploitation of workers by Capital whether it be in the hands of private Capitalists or the Capitalist State, and instead to transfer the means of production into the hands of the workers themselves. Alternatively, the Vestas capitalist may be telling the truth, and there is no market for these turbines. If that is the case then there are a number of issues that socialists have to address. Firstly, the Marxist criticism of Capitalism is that by separating production from consumption by the intermediary of the market, Capitalism wastes resources, because it is unable to accurately match production to society’s needs, and this misallocation of Capital is periodically corrected through crises, which result in even further waste and destruction, as well as a temporary impoverishment of workers. Furthermore, in taking on board the arguments of Environmentalism, Marxists, are opposed to the needless waste of the planet’s finite resources, and the unnecessary production of carbon emissions via unwanted production.

From, a Marxist perspective then, if there truly is no market for these turbines, there can be no principled basis on which to demand their continued production! It would mean that societies resources were being used to produce things that society does not want, and was thereby wasting resources that could have been used to produce things that society DOES want. Worse, it would mean unnecessarily wasting the earth’s resources, and unnecessarily producing carbon emissions. The only purpose served would be to keep workers employed. But, that was precisely what led to the collapse of economies such as the USSR. It has nothing to do with socialism or Marxism. If this latter case is true, then Marxists have to look at what the workers here COULD be producing instead – such as offshore windmills for which there is demand.

The traditional response of the Left of simply advocating more militancy is not sufficient, because as stated above ultimately, the owners could simply cut their losses and walk away. Nor is the other knee-jerk response of the Lassallean, statist Left adequate either – demanding the nationalisation of the plant by the Capitalist state. If there is a demand for these turbines then as stated above demanding that the workers be exploited by the Capitalist state is a reactionary demand compared with enabling the workers themselves to end their exploitation and take over the means of production for themselves. If there is not, then there is no more reason for the capitalist state to take over the production than there is for the Vestas capitalists to continue production. Still less is there reason for the Capitalist state to grant any kind of Workers Control over its newly acquired property!

The Marxist position in such cases is clear we are for a solution provided neither by the private Capitalists nor the capitalist state, but by the workers themselves. We are for the workers taking over the plant for themselves and running it as a co-operative either producing turbines if that can be done profitably, or producing some other product that can be done profitably. There are two clear statements by Engels, which set out this position.

He wrote,

“My suggestion requires the entry of the cooperatives into the existing production. One should give them land which otherwise would be exploited by capitalist means: as demanded by the Paris Commune, the workers should operate the factories shut down by the factory-owners on a cooperative basis. That is the great difference. And Marx and I never doubted that in the transition to the full communist economy we will have to use the cooperative system as an intermediate stage on a large scale. It must only be so organised that society, initially the state, retains the ownership of the means of production so that the private interests of the cooperative vis-a-vis society as a whole cannot establish themselves.”
See: Second Letter .
And damning the idea of Marxists demanding nationalisation by the Capitalist state he wrote,
““Fourthly, as its one and only social demand, the programme puts forward -- Lassallean state aid in its starkest form, as stolen by Lassalle from Buchez. [10] And this, after Bracke has so ably demonstrated the sheer futility of that demand; after almost all if not all, of our party speakers have, in their struggle against the Lassalleans, been compelled to make a stand against this "state aid"! Our party could hardly demean itself further. Internationalism sunk to the level of Amand Goegg, socialism to that of the bourgeois republican Buchez, who confronted the socialists with this demand in order to supplant them!”
See: Engels to Bebel
And,
“The German workers' party strives to abolish wage labour and hence class distinctions by introducing co-operative production into industry and agriculture, and on a national scale; it is in favour of any measure calculated to attain that end!”
The labour Movement should do all it can to support the Vestas workers here and now, but the solution to their problems lies in their own hands by bringing back the means of production into their own ownership. The Labour Movement should do all it can to assist them in that goal by providing what finance, and technical support is required to establish a Workers Co-op at the factory. The Government has offered financial support to the private Capitalists to assist in ensuring continued production, the Labour Movement should demand it provides no less financial support to the workers Co-op.

4 comments:

JayJ said...

“From, a Marxist perspective then, if there truly is no market for these turbines, there can be no principled basis on which to demand their continued production!”

Boffy regarding your comment above, do you believe that the market accurately reflects social need? Could it be that even if no market existed there could still be a social need for something?

Isn’t the criticism of capitalism that not only does it waste resources but it doesn’t even attempt to address many needs?

How do you view the difference between need and want?

JASeconomy said...

A US report ...

Vestas Wind Turbine factory occupation ends

Two weeks ago recently sacked workers on the Isle of Wight, off the British coast, occupied their plant to protest the loss of 600 skilled jobs. The Danish owned transnational Vestas Turbines closed the manufacturing plant and the accompanying research facility claiming that it was unprofitable. This was the only wind turbine manufacturer in Britain.

The factory was producing small land-based wind turbines many of which were being shipped to the United States. And in fact, the owners began moving production to the US last year when they opened a new factory in Colorado.

Britain’s extensive alternative energy program called for larger offshore turbines. These turbines could not be produced at this facility and are imported.

The issues here are complex and
. . .
(edited)

But does it follow that the call for nationalization made sense?

What if the demand was that the factory be transformed into a workers co-op, with both the workers and the larger community of the Isle of Wight as joint members of the co-op? Besides the manufacturing section of the facility there is a research and development unit and there lies a possible future for the operation.

I see this approach as a ground up industrial policy. A real need met by a locally controlled enterprise. We can fantasize that the larger co-op associations in the UK, the retail grocery stores, the housing developments and the agricultural co-ops could take the lead and provide additional support by purchasing turbines to provide clean energy for their operations. Here would be a model of uniting various sectors and polities in a comprehensive economic plan to address jobs, energy needs, climate change, and local re-industrialization.

Bernard Marszalek
August 7, 2009
ztangi@gmail.com

Boffy said...

Jay,

You are correct that the market does not accurately reflect social needs. This is part of the argument for socialism. But, we have to deal with the reality as it is not how we would like it to be - the truth is always cocnrete as Lenin reminds us.

If there are no buyers under current conditions for these turbines then the time and resources used in their production would be wasted. We may wish that the Capitalist State would come to the rescue by creating such a market for them, but at the present it is not, and unless and until workers achieve sufficient power in society to force a Government to do their bidding - which means really a Workers Government udner conditions of dual power - there is no way we can force them to do so!

So all such demands and schemas are reminiscent of the schemas put forward by the petit-bouregois socialists in the 19th century criticised by Marx, or those proposed by the Naqrodniks based on similar utopian pleas to the Capitalist state criticised by Lenin.

Workers have to relinquish all such dreams of being able to call on the bouregois state to come to their rescue, and take existing reality by the scruff of the neck, and forge their own solutions here and now, solutions they can implement. For now that involves having to accept some of the realities of the Capitalist Market, but as the Canadian comrades point out, were socialists to develop Co-operative production, then a "market" for such output could be developed by linking the social needs of workers formulated in their housing and other Co-operatives, with a Co-operative producing such alternative energy, and the Co-operative relations bvetween them could drive this process on the basis not of short-term profit maximisation, but the efficient meeeting of social needs.

Boffy said...

To Bernard,

Thank you for your comments comrade. I have also received your e-mail detailing the complete article. I will respond by e-mail as soon as I can given my current constraints.