WORLD AFFAIRS: THAT IS CAPITALISM FOR YOU

Grey River Argus, 25 February 1949, Page 7

WORLD AFFAIRS: THAT IS CAPITALISM FOR YOU

By

“Criticus”

| Published by arrangement with “The Standard”! “Famine conditions threatening the world again,” “Hunger stalks China, India, South Africa,” “Can we survive' on present food production?” Such were the headlines we read barely two years ago. The situation, indeed, appeared grim. World population during the war had increased by not far from 100 millions. The following is a table compiled from United Nations records:— WORLD POPULATION 1939 and 1946 U.S.A, and Canada: 1939, 142 millions; 1946, 154 millions; increase, 12 millions. South and Central America: 1939. 112; 1946, 141; increase 29. U.S.S.R. (old territory): 1939, 170; 1946, 193; increase 23. India and China: 1939: 833; 1946, 865; increase 32. Europe (excluding U.S.S.R.): 1938, 4071; 1946, 399; decrease 8. i- 1938. While the number of hungry mouths had thus grown, the barbaric devastations of the Nazis in Eastern Europe had laid waste some of the most important granaries of the world. All food producing countries strained their last effort to help starving mankind. Sir John Boyd Orr’s great Food and Agricultural Organisation. of United Nations put amongst its objects the following considerations:

“In the United States it was calculated in 1939 that adequate nutrition for all the people would require about 40,000,000 more acres for raising food than were then in cultiva-| tion. There would have had to be an increase of about 25 per cent, in the production of vegetables and fruit, about 39 per cent, increase in milk products and about 23 per cent, increase in eggs. In some of the less developed countries the increase would have to be very much greater. For instance, in India food production would need to be increased by 5Q per cent.' to 300 per cent, varying for different kinds of foodstuffs. If world production of cereals is raised by about 15 per cent, to 20 per cent, hunger might be satisfied.” Thus the battle for production began. This was production for use, not for profit. The first post-war year was most disappointing; droughts everywhere reduced harvests far below average level. But even so, preparatory work went on, and now the third year of post-war is drawing to a close, we read of success: LONDON, Jan. 22.

“The United States, Canada and Australia will have an export surplus of wheat in the future of 500 million bushels. Russia has had wheat agreements with various countries for the export of 125 million bushels a year and Argentina has had agreements for 85 million bushels rising to 140 million bushels if its crop is good”.

WORLD’S WHEAT At the same time wo hear of Australia offering Britain cheaper wheat and of Russia participating for the first time in one of the international food bodies, the International Wheat Conference. The Soviets, in fact, were reported to have offered to supply 20 per cent, of the wheat sought by importers under an International Wheat Agreement.

International co-operation finally coming to fruition? Are we turning the corner towards the world of plenty? If we read the report of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations on world production we would almost think so:

NEW YORK, Feb. 5

“An improvement in the world economic situation was reported to-night in a survey by the Economic Council of U.N. The Council said that food production had increased sharply in 1948, more industrial goods ’ were turned out and international trade was better. There also are signs that inflationary prices are beginning to drop in some countries. The report said that expansion of production in Russia was one of the chief factors of the increased world production in 1948. Russia and some other countries which did not receive Marshall Plan aid showed even a greater increase in production than some of the Western European countries.”

Thus the economic methods of ihutual assistance in the Western countries as well as the methods employed in the Soviet sphere are pointing towards success.

Everything seems lovely in the garden. But let us look at another column in the paper:

NEW YORK, Jan. 22

“Unemployment is rising in many parts of the United States, but business leaders see few signs of any substantial drop from last year’s high level of industrial activity. Labour economists take a somewhat gloomier view than most industrialists. They estimate that about 750,000 have lost jobs in the last three months and that the total unemployment may reach 3,500.000.” What is the reason for the sudden decline in economic activity? WASHINGTON, Feb. 5.

“Stocks dropped more than one billion dollars in value on the New York Stock ’Exchange to-day, under heavy selling attributed to weakness in grains and cottons, general price declines and reports of rising unemployment . . . There was growing opposition to high prices both in America and abroad. Pennsylvania Railroad announced that it would lay-off about 2'500 maintenance workers as a result of more than seasonal decline in traffic.” V/HY THE PANIC?

Why this panic when prices fall and abundance makes itself felt? Because falling prices under capitalism are not the expression of abundance but the expression of lack of purchasing power. Too much has gone into the pockets of the profiteers, too little into those of working men. Mr Leon Keyserling, vice-chairman of President Truman’s Council of economic advisers gave an explanation in his statement:

“Possibly fully half of the families in the lower income groups are at present spending more than they earn or barely breaking even.” We only hear of capitalists’ prosperity; but we do not hear how capitalistic prosperity affects the workers. The above quotation gives a little inside knowledge which is not usually widely published. But are we down-hearted? No, we are not downhearted! “Increasing unemployment, slipping retail prices and a sudden dip in stock markets throughout the nation have produced a string of ‘no need to be alarmed’ statements from official spokesmen.” Why need we not be alarmed? Here it is: It is true we cannot get rid of our wheat and corn and consumers’ good —but— WASHINGTON, Feb. 6. “United States rearmament and the European and other foreign aid programmes were mentioned by economic authorities in Washington today as a means of preventing the current fall in prices and employment from producing a major slump.” Need one be surprised if U.S. administrators have no time for dis-

armament? But if a foreign policy based on armaments and internal economic expediences for armament programmes coincide will not suspicions about the absolute necessity of armed policy arise?