Oil: a commanding height

Pamphiet Review from Tony Topham "oil: the New Commanding Height" by Peter Odell (Fabian Research 251, 2/6d) The policy advocated in this new Fabian pamphlet belongs firmly in the Crosland-Bray-George Brown (Pairfield) tradition. It seeks a progranme for rationalising one of the wajor areas of international capitalism, as it operates inside the British economy. Rejecting social ownership, ir. Odell ends up with a scheme which “would ensure, for the companies, en opportunity ‘to -~ sell oil in a market which is not only expanding mpidly, but which, by virtvw of state direction, would be reasonably profitable and entirely riskiess." (My emphasis). What this has to do with socialism is rather beyond ms. Mr. Odell's "socialist" policy section begins by rejecting nationalisation; (a) because it is impractical: the big companies are interrational, and we could hot pick out the purely British capital; (b) because oil companies have shown, in such countries as Japan and France (splendidly socialist exauples 9) that they are willing to work under state direction; and (c) because it would be too expeasive, with compensation costing £1,000 million. ih rejecting that, any socialist can agree with lir. Odell. His policy for state directim includes: 1) Government control over imports of crude oil, with maximum prices and designation of the sources of supply; 2) a national refining and distrib ution system, operated .. by companies which accepted the state directives and which would receive, in return, a guaranteed slmre of warkets; 3) the suall cut-throat competitive companies would be “gently squeezed out", and logically “bought up by one of the designated companies; 4) price control by the state over consumer prices, such as to guarantee a 6 to 7 per cent profit margin on investmait. “Success in doing the job more efficiently with a lesser use of capital and labour would lead to a higher return ani thus give an incentive to the achievement of higher productivity." In other words, an exemplification of the rationale of wage-restraint, speed-up, and the weakening of shop floor control, in a context of state protected profit making. If the state and the companies do, in fact, move in the direction of Much a programme, socialists must work clearly and rapidly for a positive socialist alternative to be injected into the whole debate. As a start, we might sugecst: a) that a survey of the corporate incomes, inter-related oligarchic manecement and directive systems, and the penetration of the state itself, of and by the large oil companies, be undertaken by the Centre for Socialist ~~ Educsion. b) that a similar piece of work be carried out on the internaticns1 imperisiist role of the oil companies. c) that the demand be raisal by minsrs, electricity and gas workers, for a workers' commission, to combine with shop stersrus and trade union representatives from the oil industry, to draw up a soc.21ist counter=plan to the Government's White Paper on Fuel policy. d) tras all proposals for “Fawley-type" productivity deals which may be presern’.< +o workers in the oil indwtry, be met with the demand for the opening ox the books of the companies, ani with firm refusals to hand over shop stews:d controls in exchange for cash. e) that steps should be taken to contect workers in the oil industries in Burope, Africa, the Middle Hast, and América, North and South, so that the internationalism of the’ companies’ strategy may be met with workers' international co-operation. Elsewhere, the pamphlet correctly draws attention to the glaring weakness of present Governuent policy and concludes that the section on Oil in the re@nt White Paper on Puel Policy could equally well have been presented by a Conservative Minister of Power. However, Mr. Odell is clearly pro-0il. He favours a ruthless paring of the British coal indwtry (Wales and Scotland would close down), but suggests a levy on oil sales to finance new industries in the coalfields.