In recent years, the concept of industrial policy has reappeared strongly at various levels. The organization that was the hammer of neoliberalism, the International Monetary Fund, today insists that markets have been pressured to allocate resources efficiently and solve these problems by governments to take a more active direction in their industrial policy due to pandemics, increases in geopolitical tensions and concerns arising from climate crises. Because of these problems, any current economic proposal, in order to be politically successful, must have these two words internalized. In the face of economic uncertainty, industrial policy has become a support.

Around the definition, there is one key agent: the government. They also insist on state participation in the economy in order to change its structure or direction. On these bases, academics internalize governance, that is, the active participation of more actors. In short, industrial policy aims to correct market failures and coordinate efforts in key sectors. It is aimed at improving productivity, innovation and competitiveness. And it has long-term goals, including sustainable development and social welfare.

In the Basque Country, we have certain industrial policies. On the one hand, those carried out by the autonomous governments (of the Basque Country and the Government of Navarre). In the Basque Country, on the other hand, the industry is governed by the general policies of France and New Aquitaine, without its own industrial strategy. Above them, the policies that are defined in the European Union are the guide. It is clear that there is no common policy at the Basque Country level, with the contradictions and duplications that this implies.

Returning to the definition, outlining the most common characteristics, if the objective is to overcome capitalism from the point of view of the working class, it is necessary to rethink the concept itself. Is the government (or state) protective of workers’ interests? Is it the responsibility of the State to act as an intermediary between work and capital? These are questions to be answered in depth, which stimulate debate. I will take the variant, clinging to the class autonomy of the working class and recovering the motto of the International: the emancipation of the workers must be their work.

The question is whether it is possible to create an industrial policy that responds to the interests of the working class, as well as a workers’ policy that promotes alternative industrial governance, with the aim of overcoming capitalism. This approach requires class independence as well as real autonomy for the government and the dominant economic powers. In this sense, the transformative social economies that are workers’ organizations and the work of trade union organizations are of vital importance.

In the case of trade union policy, you have the opportunity to advocate for the control and management of industrial workers. Of course, it would require that we abandon the syndicalism of the social agreement, without falling into the agreement that blurs its objectives.

This movement towards a more inclusive and democratic industrial policy faces many challenges, including the resistance of established interests and the need to develop a solid theoretical and practical framework to sustain this vision. At a time when industrial policies are expanding, developing this autonomous path is both a challenge and a necessity.