Industricide
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
" IPENESS is all " used to be the watchword of the Socialists in the clays when they thought that
the principle of nationalization would carry all before it. They envisaged a perpetual high summer when one industry after another would becomeripe for taking over until the whole harvest was gathered in. The Socialists have discarded the horticultural metaphore, like a good many other things. They retain the idea of a test by which suitability for nationalization can be judged.
The latest Labour party pamphlet, —The Future Labour Offers You," states that if, after full and careful inquiry, industries are found to be "failing the nation," the Socialists, provided the electorate give them the chance, will " not hesitate to use whatever remedies, including „further public ownership, are shown to be most effective." Exactly what is meant by failing the nation is not clear, but neither is it clear what the Federation of British Industries mean in their pamphlet, " Nationalization," when they say that "among individual industries there are exceptional cases where some measure of public ownership or control may have been a reasonable choice."
There seems some agreement on both sides that nationalization is desirable in certain circumstances., Neither side seems prepared at present to say what those circumstances are or to name the industries to which they apply. .
It is reasonably clear why some industries have been thought suitable for taking over in the past. There may be a complete and natural monopoly, as with the Post Office and perhaps the Atomic Energy Authority. Some services, such as gas and electricity, have always and inevitably yielded to the partial nationalization of municipal control or ownership. The coal mines and the railways may have been taken over because, although they were regarded as essential, they could apparently not be run economically.
A New Shopping List Needed
Perhaps none of these factors justify nationalization, but they are certainly points in its favour. They fit in with the idea that an industry may be ripe, or even 'over-ripe, for taking over by the State. If the Socialists were prepared to make a fresh shopping list in accordance with one or other of the factors, it would at any rate be more difficult to argue against such a list than against one that includes iron and steel, and long-distance road haulage.
The Socialists would find difficulty in getting any names for their list. They therefore have to. change the rules to suit themselves. Public ownership of road haulage, they say in their pamphlet, is needed to enable the British Transport Commission to develop a fully integrated transport service by both road and rail. They have long forgotten, if they ever really knew, why " integration is necessary. Perhaps the sole surviving reason is that it can be achieved, if at all, only by nationalization.
They are possibly not prepared to admit the existence of factors that make State ownership desirable. This does not mean that there cannot be such factors, any more than it is impossible for a nationalized industry to "fail the nation "—and what, one wonders, would the Socialists do if that happened? The F.B.I. might agree with the statement that an industry should not be taken over if it is very much concerned with the country's export trade.
Surely another non-nationalization law in a democracy is that an industry ought not to be taken over if it is destroyed in the process. Other countries with other forms of government may not recognize the law. They will without scruple gel rid of any section of the community they. do not want. In Britain. none of the main political parties believes in taking such _action. _
Nevertheless, nationalization of long distance road haulage is no different in kind from the liquidation of the farmers in a Communist country. ' It is a .form of industricide. The road haulage industry as we know it would no longer exist. There would still he vehicles, premises, drivers, and for a short time the owners and managers. But the vital essence of the industry would have disappeared.
There may be room to argue whether British Road Services or independent hauliers do the better job, but it is hardly possible to mistake one for the other. The transfer of ownership that took place in 1947 was not painless and almost imperceptible, as in the case of the railways. It was abrupt and violent.
No Worse—No Better
In some circumstances it is possible to transplant an independent business so that it will flourish on nationalized soil. A good example is provided by the bus companies that went over with the railways. They have been allowed to continue very much as before. They seem no worse for the experience—and no better either. Much the same is true of the other comparatively small fry swept with the big fish into the net of the B.T.C.
To the haulier under free enterprise, nationalization was the kiss of death. 1-le recognized it as such, and therefore put up fiercer resistance than anybody else. He had built up his business very largely round himself. Its shape, its purpose and its functions were determined by him in response to the needs of his customers. As usual in such circumstances, the business also played its part in shaping the personality of the owner. When it was taken over, he may have stayed on as caretaker, and he may ultimately have accepted an area or divisional job in B.R.S. But there was no longer any trace of what was once a living business, and the owner had to adapt himself to a completely new environment. In a few cases, he did so successfully; for the most part, he disliked the change,. and 'eagerly took the chance of freedom that the Conservatives offered him.
It was not too late. In spite of the permit system, some operators had contrived to maintain an interest in longdistance work throughout the period between nationalization and disposal. The exiled operators were able to pick up the threads and start again. Their old businesses, however, had gone for ever. What they now embarked upon was something completely new, except that within B.R.S. a few favoured individuals had somehow contrived to keep their personal network of services going.
Last time the Socialists paid compensation equivalent to "goodwill," and it was right that they should, for undoubtedly the hauliers had this valuable but intangible asset. But the goodwill was like a gift from the 'fairies. It disappeared as soon as B.R.S. laid hands on it, Next time, the Socialists say, they will only buy the tangible assets. They will not pay twice for goodwill. They must b.e aware of the contradiction, for the goodwill is just as much in evidence as it was in 1947. If the Socialists renationalize road haulage; they will again he committing the political crime of industricide, however much they try to pretend otherwise.