Finance and Industry: Flurry in the chicken coop (1963)

The Finance and Industry Column from the October 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Flurry in the chicken coop

 “I had three conversations with Mr. Kennedy, and each time he brought up “the subject of poultry. Is he a President or is he a chicken farmer?”

Thus Dr. Adenauer, the German chancellor, rather scathingly, about the American preoccupation with chickens. So preoccupied, in fact, that the U.S. Government announced a few days afterwards that they were prepared, if necessary, to do economic battle with the whole of the Common Market to establish their right to continue exporting broilers to Germany.

Second thoughts have taken over since then and U.S. official remarks have become much less belligerent. Some unkind critics have remarked that the thaw set in immediately members of the Six began to point out that they imported three times as much from the U.S. as the U.S. imported from them and that if there was going to be a trade war it wouldn’t be the Six who would come out worst.

But why such a fuss in the first place over a cut in, of all things, chicken imports? A cut which in any case only amounted to about $46 million, 4 per cent. of total American broiler production, and a fleabite in total exports? As usual, a small upset is only the first symptom of much more serious trouble.

What the U.S. Government is really afraid of is that the restriction on broiler imports is but a prelude to bigger cuts later on. The Common Market countries in fact import about $1,200 million of agricultural products a year from the U.S., including S370 millions of cereals. “Where will the next cuts fall?” is the American worry.

The whole disturbance, of course, is yet a further reflection of the present crisis in agriculture affecting many parts of the world, the Common Market in particular. Among the Six, France is determined to make herself the chief food provider —at the expense of the United States. At the same time, Germany must come to terms sooner or later with its high cost farmers; it can’t go on protecting them with high tariff walls unless it is prepared to see retaliation against its industrial products. And the German capitalists see the red light and are already beginning to squeal.

Only a couple of months have passed since we said that we were going to hear a lot about agriculture in the months to come. It may be the poor relation of present-day capitalism, but it is going to cause lots of trouble to the better-off members of the family before they decide what to do with it. They may end up by palming it off with a regular allowance, small, of course; or marry it off into a richer circle and make it one of themselves, big and efficient. Many of them, of course, would probably like to have it put quietly away—quite an impossibility, however, since capitalists appreciate their food even more than most.

But, by the way things are going, they will need to make a decision one way or the other before very long.

Together again

When the Allies got to work on German industry after the war, they made a brave show of doing something about the Krupps, the Thyssens, and the other steel barons. Their huge empires were broken up as “politically dangerous concentrations of political power” : never again were they to come together to threaten the peace of Europe.

The table published elsewhere on this page shows how successful all these wonderful aspirations were.

At the same time in Japan the Americans were busy dismantling the huge Mitsubishi trust. Never again was this powerful economic empire to overshadow Japanese policy and help push the country into aggressive war.

Now the three units into which the original group was broken up have just been put together again into Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. The new company will become Japan’s biggest shipbuilder and one of the biggest producers of railway rolling stock, cars, industrial machinery, and aircraft. Only Hitachi, again mentioned in our “top twenty” table, will have a larger turnover. With 77,000 workers Mitsubishi will have the biggest labour force in Japan.

Yet another example of the intrinsic drive for capitalism’s units to get bigger and bigger in spite even of difficulties deliberately put in the way.

The top twenty

Earlier this year (in our February issue) we published details of the top twenty British firms. Now Fortune, the American finance magazine, has compiled a list in its August issue of the top two hundred firms in the whole of the world, excluding the U.S. itself.

It is obviously too much for us to reproduce the full list, but readers may be interested to see the names of the top twenty. The list relates order of precedence to sales; there would be some changes in the order if net assets or net profits had been taken as the criterion. But the main pattern is here, nevertheless.

             Company Nationality Total Sales $ million

1 Royal Dutch/Shell Neth’ds/Britain 6,022

2 Unilever Britain/Neth’ds 4,136

3 National Coal Board Britain 2.490

4 B.P. Britain 2,011

5 Nestlé Switzerland 1,829

6 I.C.I. Britain 1,621

7 Volkswagen Germany 1,596

8 Philips Netherlands 1,529

9 Siemens Germany 1,350

10 Fiat Italy 1,262

11 Daimler-Benz Germany 1,176

12 Krupp Germany 1,040

13 Thyssen-Hutte Germany 1,029

14 Bayer Germany 1,004

15 Rhone-Poulenc France 992

16 Hitachi Japan 955

17 Hawker-Siddley Britain 915

18 Mannesmann Germany 915

19 British American Tobacco Britain 882

20 British Motor Corp Britain 871

An analysis of all the two hundred firms shows that 54 of them were British or had British connections; 36 were German; 31 were Japanese; and 27 were French. More than anything else, perhaps, it shows how Japan has risen to the top rank of the modern capitalist powers.

Stan Hampson

Report from South Africa (1963)

Book Review from the October 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

I Will Still be Moved: reports from South Africa. Edited by Marion Friedman. (Arthur Baker, 24s.).

Dr Verwoerd claims that his policy of apartheid is aimed, not at subjugating the Negro and Coloured Peoples of the Republic (who constitute the vast majority of its population), but that the Bantustan developments he plans is for “separate but equal development along the lines most suited to them.” It is doubtful whether even he and his Ministers still believe this—if they ever did—with the glaring evidence to the contrary which comes to light every day. He himself, when Minister of Bantu Affairs, explaining his Government’s policy on African education said: “There is no place for him (the African) . . . above the level of certain forms of labour.”

The case histories in this book were chosen to show in how many different ways this glaring untruth is constantly being demonstrated.

The case of Nelson Langa gives a brief insight into the terrible conditions obtaining in farm jails, where “convicted” Negroes are “sold” to European farmers to work in conditions of abject slavery. The fact that, in the majority of cases, they have never been in front of a magistrate, much less convicted, has no relevance to the treatment they receive. In a rounding up of “unemployed Africans who were roaming the streets,” Nelson Langa was taken, in spite of the fact that at the time he was wearing the badge of the municipal authority which employed him as a street cleaner and was actually carrying his broom. On the other hand, he was not carrying his pass for which, on conviction, the maximum penalty is a £1 fine. However, the small formality of charging him was dispensed with and with many others he was put on a lorry and “sold” to a farmer in the Bethal district. After long enquiries, his brother found out what had happened and, with the aid of a lawyer, managed to get him released. There was, of course, no question of compensation yet Mr. Langa was “lucky” in having his freedom restored, in most cases family and friends never find out what has happened to their breadwinner or whether, in fact, he is still alive.

Patrick Duncan, a White editor, now a prohibited person and living in England, said in his address to the magistrate when charged with contravening the emergency regulations:

“. . . How else can one explain the cruel cancellation of the African school-feeding scheme, while White children continue to be fed by the State? How else can one explain the mean attempt to abridge and constrict, by administrative action, the pension scheme for non-Whites which this government inherited from its predecessors? How else can one explain the present intention of this government to institute family allowances—for Whites only?”

Later in his speech he enumerated some of the unjust legislation, which shows up any claims for “separate but equal developments” for what they are; the Group Areas Act, the Separate Amenities Act (separate and unequal facilities), Urban Areas Act which, with its “influx control” splits up families, the Land Act of 1913 under which 85 per cent. of the surface of the land in South Africa is closed to ownership to 66 per cent. of the population; the feudal pass law, under the misleading title of Abolition of Passes Act, the Job Reservation Law, Bantu Authorities Act, the Bantu Education Act.

The case of Nelson Mandela, the “Black Pimpernel” received quite a lot of publicity outside South Africa. It is from his speech in his own defence against a charge of “inciting people to strike”—it is illegal for African or Coloured workers to strike—as well as leaving the country without a valid travel document, that the title of this book is taken. He concluded with the words:

“. . . rest assured that, when my sentence has been completed, I will still be moved, as men are always moved by their consciences; I will still be moved by my dislike of the race discrimination against my people when I come out from serving my sentence, to take up again, as best I can, the struggle for the removal of those injustices, until they are finally abolished once and for all.”

As explained in the Acknowledgements, the editor’s comments and the introduction, the purpose of this book is twofold; to give voice to the voiceless in South Africa, and to raise funds to aid them in their fight. Although of course, the book is banned in South Africa, the hope is expressed that “one day (it will) be read where if most matters . . . and that this evidence of folly, injustice and irrationality will provoke action even from those who are not directly its victims.”

There is certainly plenty of evidence on all these indictments and many others. This small volume can, obviously, cover only a very few of the many cases of injustice and persecution over the last decade, and this review can only mention one or two of these. How one section of people can treat another in such inhuman ways, seems incredible at first sight. However, Chief Albert Luthuli, in his address when presented with the Nobel Peace Prize, put his finger on the explanation when he said:

“There is nothing new in South Africa’s apartheid ideas, but South Africa is unique in this: the ideas not only survive in our modern age, but are stubbornly defended, extended and bolstered by legislation at the time when, in the major part of the world they are now largely historical and are either being shamefacedly hidden behind concealing formulations, or are being steadily scrapped . . . These ideas survive in South Africa because those who sponsor them profit by them . . . They are the moral whitewash for the conditions which exist . . .” (our emphasis).

It is quite obvious that, whether by peaceful means, or—as seems more likely now—through civil strife and violence— one day in the not too distant future, the vast Negro and Coloured majority will achieve their objects. But, although many of the inhuman and impossible conditions imposed on them, now will have disappeared, they will still be faced with the problems and troubles which beset workers in a capitalist society. When they have achieved a way of life on a par with that of their fellow workers, both White and Black throughout the world, they will be able to listen to and accept the case for Socialism and join with us in the struggle to establish it.

Eva Goodman 

TUC: Wages and planning (1963)

From the October 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the delegates at the TUC last month discussed wages and planning they managed to get into quite a deal of confusion.

They voted by a huge majority for a General Council report Economic Development & Planning though it contains references to wage restraint, but also voted (by a small majority) against “any form of wage restraint,” after the mover Mr. Ted Hill had indicated that it did not really mean what it said but only meant under a Tory government.

The confusion of some of the speeches is in fact even greater than the Press reports indicate. There was Mr. Hill who declared that his organisation, having had experience, ”cannot trust any Tory government with our wage packets”. Linked up with his declaration about not accepting any form of wage restraint, it presents the picture of Mr. Hill believing in two absurdities: firstly the absurdity of some non-Tory government which has as its aim supporting the workers against the employers on any wage claim they choose to make, and secondly, the equally absurd belief that provided a union rejects wage restraint it can get what it wants without restraint.

The truth is that all governments everywhere resist general upward ‘pressures for higher real wage levels, and when Mr. Hill makes an exception of a Labour Government he has it quite wrong. It just happens that in the post-war years under Labour Government, wage rates were falling behind the cost of living but since then they have moved ahead, a change in which increased willingness to strike has obviously played some part.

Mr. Richard Crossman, Labour M.P, frankly admitted, after the Labour Government had gone from office, that British workers could probably have got more if they had been as ready to strike as workers in America, and when Mr. Hill talks about no wage restraint what he really means is that trade unions must not give up the strike weapon. To that extent he is of course on sound ground, and it explains his reluctance and that of many other TUC delegates to accept the belief that planning by the National Economic Development Council can be a substitute for the strike weapon. But to put this in terms of being for or against “restraint” is quite beside the point, for if the Council’s plans in fact worked as they hope wage levels would be far less “restrained” than they have ever been.

The Council’s plan for expansion envisaged a rise of real wages of somewhere in the region of 3½ per cent a year. The Prime Minister speaking at Cardiff on April 5th put it in definite terms: “If we combine growth policy with incomes policy, the nation as a whole can have a 3½ per cent. growth in real income per head”.

No union, not Mr. Hill’s or any other, has been able to get a 3½ per cent, rise of real wages. (3½ per cent. a year above whatever is needed to cover increased prices), either under Tory or Labour Government: not 3½ per cent or anything like it. In the period since January 1956 average wage rates have gone up by 33 per cent but the retail price index has risen by 25 per cent, so that the rise in real terms has been about 6 per cent in seven and a half years, less than 1 per cent a year.

What then is really at issue for the workers is not whether the National Economic Development Council, or the Prime Minister, or the leader of the Labour Party holds out prospects of an annual 3½ per cent. rise of real wages they are all prepared to promise this—but whether they or anyone else are in a position to plan such a development into certain existence, and whether working class interest is served in that direction at all.

For, taking the last point first, there should be no doubt or ambiguity about what the TUC is accepting, whether with planning or without. They are accepting the world of capitalism and looking at the problem of the ability of British capitalism to survive and expand in a capitalist world.

The TUC report recognises for example the “frightening prospects of potential overproduction” in world markets, and of “competitive expenditure on armaments in the industrial countries where a quarter of the human race lives, and increasing misery for the other three quarter’s of the world’s population”. The Socialist’s reaction to this is to urge the replacement of world capitalism by world Socialism, ending both capitalism and class society; the TUC’s reaction is to consider how to regulate the trade and aid relationships between the countries of the capitalist world and at the same time secure a working arrangement for planning between the classes at home.

This latter idea is not new: always there have been people urging co-operation for increased production between employers and employed. But always the harsh realities of capitalism keep breaking in: markets getting overstocked and the employers who wanted more production now wanting to stop production; and passivity on the part of the workers being taken advantage of to increase exploitation and profits. No one—and this includes governments as well as employers can regulate world markets so that the normal expansions and contractions of capitalist industry and trade do not take place.

One last point that should be considered is the hope held out of a possible 4 per cent annual increase of production. By past standards this is a big increase, but in relation to the potentialities of Socialism it is insignificant.

Capitalism, irrespective of the political hue of the government, cannot seriously tackle the job of increasing the production of useful things sufficiently to meet all human needs. It cannot escape the consequences of its own class and competitive nature, shewing themselves in armaments, wars, class conflict, strikes and so on.

Yet workers who have tried to weigh up the arguments at the TUC about wages and planning should consider the Socialist proposition. What really stands in the way of a classless, warless world in which production is directly and solely for the use of all, except the reluctance of most workers to think it out? Certainly no-one who looks back over a century and a half of looking for wages policies can argue that Socialism is unnecessary because things are in a very good shape as they are. All the evidence points the other way.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Passing Show: H.M.S. Hampshire (1963)

The Passing Show Column from the October 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

H.M.S. Hampshire

The beginning of September and H.M.S. Hampshire, guided missile destroyer, lies at anchor just off Torquay. A day or two later, she is joined by several more warships of the home fleet. If you like, you can have a boat trio around the grey monsters and view—at a distance, of course—their wicked death dealing paraphernalia.

These ships have just finished exercises off the South West Coast. They are a timely reminder of the constant development under capitalism of more and more horrifying weapons; for these are just about the last word in modern fighting craft, although they will probably be out of date in a few years’ time. Capitalist politicians may prattle about efforts for peace, disarmament, test ban treaties and the like, but sincerity has never been their strong point. Anyway, sincerity will not remove the conflicting interests of private property which make armaments necessary. So Lord Hailsham signs a treaty in Moscow, and almost in the same breath, the government announces that another warship is to be built—this time an aircraft carrier costing around £50 millions,

Militant Bank Managers

Whatever next! There were enough disdainfully raised eyebrows and tongue cluckings when the teachers struck for one day last year. But now the bank managers, of all people! The Daily Herald of September 7th tells us of the first of a series of weekend strikes by these men and their staffs, employed by the Manchester and Salford Trustee Savings Bank. Apparently it’s a very gentlemanly affair with courteous picketing outside the branches by none other than the managers themselves.

But strip away the niceties of etiquette and what is the strike over? Why, the same old thing, of course—pay and conditions. The bank staffs are pressing for “proper negotiating machinery” and have reached the end of their tether waiting for a move from their employers. “…. even gentlemen get their backs up occasionally,” commented one bank man, bitterly.

It is certainly interesting, this show of militancy among “professional” workers. And at the risk of being called priggish, it does go to support something we have always said. Arbitration courts and joint councils may be all very well up to a point, but it is the strike (or the positive threat of it) which gingers up the negotiations. In fact, it is the only weapon which workers have in their struggle with the employers, although it cannot be used indiscriminately, of course. This hard truth has begun to dawn on some of the bank employees, and they are a living denial of the claim sometimes heard nowadays that the strike weapon is out of date. It will never be out of date as long as we have capitalism.

Auto-intoxication

Roaring and stinking its way merrily across the length and breadth of the land goes the motor car. It pours from the production lines to swell the enormous tide of tinplate on the already overcrowded roads. In attempts to cope with its insatiable appetite, workers’ backyards are sliced in half as motorways are pushed through with ruthless urgency. And up, up, up, mounts the toll of death and injury in its wake. No wonder Dr. Bergen Evans wrote a long and bitter denunciation of it eight years ago in The Spoor of Spooks.

But it is not only Dr. Evans who is concerned at the encroachment of the motor car. Brickbats have been thrown at Transport Minister Marples over his plan for “pedestrian control” experiments in selected areas. “The Marples Matchsticks” it was contemptuously labelled by the Daily Mail, after the illuminated robot who will show you how to walk across the road when the way is clear. Failure to observe the rules may cost you a £20 fine and the Mail is very piqued at the whittling away of pedestrians’ rights which this will involve.

Now the motor car is no longer a luxury. Indeed, it is an essential to many workers in holding down their jobs. More than eight million are on the roads and the number is expected to go on increasing. So the car manufacturers have done nicely out of it, although no one will expect British Railways to be very pleased. Neither will some of the shop owners, who will no doubt echo the Mail’s sentiments, because growing pressure against pedestrians might well discourage sales. This has in fact happened in some of the streets recently restricted to one-way traffic.

There is nothing very straightforward about the traffic problem, because it is surrounded by all sorts of interests tugging all ways, a familiar enough feature under capitalism. It exists, too, against the background of speed and yet more speed. For as any Socialist knows, the time factor is all important in capitalist production and colours all our outlook And when looked at from this angle, Socialism would be worth establishing: only just to let us slow down and take a breather.

Eddie Critchfield