"Miners Right, Government Wrong', The headline of a left-wing newspaper? No, the slogan comes from the December issue of Spearhead, paper of the fascist National Front.
*The claim of the miners for more pay is in fact a thoroughly just one in the light of galloping inflation and of the harsh conditions of work that are inherent in the industry, says Spearhead.
This attitude is not an aberration on the part of the editors. The National Front b changing its image, It does not condemn trade unionists as such as subversive of the capitalist systern it supports only the 'politically: motivated troublemakers and communist elements'. Support for the miners is part of a new effort by the NF to become known and treated as a "working-class organisation"
SPEARHEADING ACTION
In the same issue of Spearhead, we read: 'Widespread Industrial Action urged to Back Sugar Workers. Below, the news is revealed that the NF in Newham, East London, supports: the efforts of local sugar refinery workers to resist redundancies brouglur about by EEC preference for beet sugar production.
Te's not just passive support either: "Realising that the present wave of sugir workers protests Front generai public. are likely to be ineffectual, we are planning to aid the sugar workers by laying the foundations for a second line of defence. We are now produc ing a leuflet entitled "Sweel Talk-But Notling Else", which is intended for trade unionists in other local industries, and for member of the 'The NF in Newhame is convinced that both public understanding and inter-industrial sundario are necessary to make the sugar (Black burn).
workers" fight effective... (and) are making through the docks asking dockworkers to "black" all European cargoes if Parliament insists upon hetraying British cane-sugar refinery workers.
The appeal for solidarity action is coupled with warnings to the sugar workers not to trust their employers, Tate & Lyle. The employers. warns the Front, will almost certainly sell-out their workers to Brussels: "We suspect the emtheir workforce... Already they are seeking to find out if any of their drivers are willing to drive in Europe.
'NATION-CLASS
How does this call for trade union action fit into the Front's political outlook? "Newham National Front contends that British workers will only defend their rational-clasy interests by joint intustrial and political action.' The term 'nation-class" is found in many reactionary philosophies. It attempts to combine nationalist sentiment with the apparent immediate interests ol a proup of workers in struggle, The sugar workers find themselves opposing LEC policies, and NF patriotism applauds their action, The same encouragement, however, would greet färmers or small businessmen resispaper for the Urdu speaking population in London, ran a special article on Newham North-East this week, asking immigrant workers to cast their vote for IMG candidate John Ross. This followed a statement signed by Z.D.Butt, Barrister at Law and President of Taltrik-1Istiqial (Britain); M.A. Jananager, President of Pakistan Peoples' Front; M.Arif, convenor of Pakistan Socialist Society (London); and G.D.Alued, President of PakBangladesh Friendship Society a special point of issuing the "Sweet Talk" leafler or combatting internal subversion' ployers of making contingency plans to abandon The 'anti-capitalist" radicalism of fascist moveon of capital concentration,
Britain's introdoction to the Teng crisis" came in the wake of the bast Arab-lerseli war. Since then it has become a well established feature of our daily life, making an almost ritualistic appearance in the headlines Whatever its effects may have been on most of us, for Tory politicians it has been a veritable godsend. Every embarrassing problem that has dogged them during the present election campaign-from the 3-day week in whole or in part, blamed on the escalating price of international oil.
The popular press-long adept at covering over the crimes of western imperialism-has gleefully seized on the opportunity to paint a heart-rending picture of the helpless industrial nations being held to ransom by the rapacious oil sheiks" of Arabia.
"Sheik bashing" has become prac tically the last symbol of "national unity, being taken up by both the ers alike.
THE MONOPOLIES But one of the actors in the real-life version of the energy crisis is curiously absent from the entertaining scenarios drawn up by the pressthe international oil monopolies. It is these companies who are respons ible for producing, shipping, procesthat we now find ourselves so short of.
Seven top companies have more than 75 percent of world oil production sown up between them. The biggest of them all, Exxon-known in the UK as Esso-is the largest industrial corporation in the United States, while another four are among the top ten US firms, The remaining two are right on our own froat door step: Royal Dutch Shell (he hepot comperation outside the US) and British Petroleum.
As we shall see, these giants of world capitalism have their oily fingers planted far deeper in the energy crisis" than the tales of the popular press would suggest.
Our introduction to the energy crisis came through the decision of the Arab ol-producing countries to cut back on world oil supplies in order to apply political pressure in Tavour O a favourable settlement of to the massive trade deficit-has been, the Arab-Israeli war. It was this action which made it possible for the Arab sheiks to be cast in the role of 'evil 'CRISIS'-IN 1972 But shortages and rising prices of oil hit the United States almost a full year before the outhreak of war in the Middle East. In September 1972, Allan Hamilton, treasurer of the giant Exxon Corporation, spelled Things out:
Unless and until the real nature Tory Government and the Minework- of the crisis is understood, and profit levels become such that the industry is confident that its investments will bear fruit, the supply of energy will not be forthcoming.
This marked the beginning of a campaign by the oil monopolies to carry out in the held of oil supply a manoeuvre they had already success fully executed over natural gas Natural gas, usually found in conjunction with oil, is another energy sing and selling the precious substance source in which the oil companies have long had a stake. Almost one-third of US energy needs are met from this source. However, unlike other fuels, natural gas prices have been subject to government regulation.
Prices have been pegged at a level sufficient to guarantee the oil companies a 15 per cent profit margin. But, used to the soft touch of oil monopoly profits, 15 per cent is not a very attractive Tigate to The onl Bants, who have long campaigned for an end to price controls, sist that existing profit levels were insufficient to finance exploration and development of new gasteserves, and were thus jcopardising the long. tern supply of this key fuci.
JUGGLING THE BOOKS that this "crisis" was a classic case of juggling books. Just as the oil industry's campaign against pas-price regulation got into high goar in 1968, the figures on gas reserves suddenly starled to go awry.
ed that some 600 billion cubic feet of reserves didn't really exist at all. Then new additions to reserves suddenly went into a dramatic decline compared with previous 30a.3.
entered in companies books were much higher than those turned in to the Government-in some cases as much as ten times greater!
companies" trickery, the Nixon administration its path greased by generous bribes-has moved te meet that they are prepared to take even tougher action if anyone tries to stand in their way. In the winter of 1972, for example, they practically cut off all gas supplies to the Texas town of San Antonio until they were awarded a new contract with improved prices, The oil monopolies adopted a similar approach with regard to oil and petroleum. For some time they Their main tactic has been to in costs up.
There is overwhelming evidence put it:
First it was mysteriously discover1971 listings.' One US Government agency which tried to check up on company figures about reserves found that the figures Despite this exposure of the oil many of the gas producers' demands.
And the companies have shown dropped.
ly dried up.
OIL CUT-BACKS have been bolding back the expansion of oil refineries, lament that the economic incentive did not exist for such new investment, and that pollation control laws were pushing When this did not produce sutlici ently rupid results they adopted the expedient of cutting back the level of production in the existing retiner! iscilitics. As a New York newspaper's summary of an official Senate inquiry 'The largest retinery operators in the US made last winter's shortage inevitable a year earlier. They did so., by reducing operations of their refineries in the first four nonths from 92 per cent of capacit •.. to an average 89 per cent of capacity. Moreover [the oil compani es] deliberately reduced their inventories of oil products until by September, 1972, stocks of heating oil were as much as 10 per cent below Towards the end of 1972, the Government responded to this sup posed 'shortage by easing the restrictions on the import of oil into the US, allowing companies to increase Imports by up to 10 per cent. Sig nificantly, several of the larger firms did not bother to take this option.
As a result, there was a major crisis in supplies of beating oil by carly 1973. In January of that year Texaco told the State Government of Massachusetts that it was running out of supplies of the cleaner heating oils, and would cut off all Europe. its customers by the end of the week unless pollution regulations were All across the country schools and public building were forced to shut industry down as stocks of heating oil similarA MARGINAL EMBARGO The recent shortages in the United States stem from procisely the same camse-not the "total embargo" by the Arab producers. This embargo might sound very senous, until you realise that imports from these countries accoant for only d per gent of total LS oil supplies.
Just as the oil monopolies are responsible for the oil shortages, they huve played a decisive role in the recent wave of price locreases by the oil producing states, There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the compunes, far from being the victims of the producers price rises, are the active architects of such a policy.
Washington columnist Jack Anderson, who has been the first to disclose many aspects of the Watergate scan. dal, has pubtished an account of secret documents of the ArabianAmerican Oil Company (Aramco) which operates the big Saudi Arabian oilfields and is jointly owned by four of the US monopolies ENCOURAGING PRICE RISES These documents reveal that Aramco actively encouraged the Saudi Government to push for price rises shortly hefore the Decem ber decision of the oil-producing states to double official prices. Aramco then became concerned that the extent of price increases was too great-not because it invoived any ecoomic hardship for them, trut because they were worried about the possible 'political repercussions" of such massive increases in western In order to understand the attitude of the oil monopolies it is necessary to grasp something of the intricate cconomics of the international ail When the Middle East oil Fields were opened up in a big way after the Second World War, the American oil giants principai interests were in US operations, but the rich Middle Fast fields offered oil at a fraction of
what it coat to prodoce in the US. la order to protect the American indastry a strict quota was imposed on all importa into the US-first by voluntary agreement with the big companies and then by law.
SUPER PROFITS
As a result, the domestic price of US oil has been well above the international market price-almost double throughout the 1950's and 60's- with the oil monopolies making immense super-profits on the limited quantities of Middle East oil they were allowed to import.
The difficulty has been that US industry has had to pay through the nose, compared with its Western European and Japanese competitors, for its oil supplies, The recent price rises solve that problem, actually making US oil cheaper than ou bought on the world market.
The "posted prices" which the oil-producing states set, and which they have just raised so sharply, are not the actual market price of oil-they are purely arbitrary prices used to work out the producing states royaltics and taxes on oil (which are now set at about 60 per cent of posted prices).
Thus, with posted prices now standing at $I1.60 a barrel, the states collect about $7 in revenue on every barrel produced. The actual production costs vary considerably, but in Saudi Arabia they run at about 5¢ a barrel.
With the world market price standing at about $8,30 this still leaves the oil monopolies with a handsome profit of about $1.25 a barrel on Saudi oil, for example. Even allowing for the higher production costs in other parts of the Middle East, this compares very favourably with the 30¢ a barrel the oil companies were making in 1969.
Of course, the big oil monopolies are not just oil producers. The seven top world companies between them control more than 50 per cent of every stage of oll and petroleum production in the capitalist world shipping, retining and distribution, This integrated structure of multinationa turms allows room for all sorts of fiddles.
One of the reasons why the Arab states insisted on the posted prices" system was that they were convinced (cottectiy) that the oil monopolies were avoiding payments to the prod ucing states by selling ou at below market-prices to their affiliates, who were then taking huge profits at the refining and distribution end of the business.
TAX CONCESSIONS
Today the boot is on the other foot. The oil companies receive vast tax concessions from their 'home" Governments, All payments to the Arab states can be deducted from taxes due to the American and British Governments on the profits earned from oil production. It is thus in the company's interest to push the price of crude oil supplied to their own refineries up to the point where the refineries are making nil profit. The retineries will then have no profit on which to pay taxes, and huge production profits will be free of tax because of the deduction of payments to the producing states.
If the rise in world market prices should actually push costs to the refineries too high (so they actually end up making a loss, for example) then this can be met by passing the buck to the consumer through higher retail prices.
A useful side effect of this financial manoeuvre, for the oil monopolies, will be to hit their main competitors the 'independent" oil firms who are not involved in oil production, but buy crude oil in the world market for processing in their refineries. A dramatic rise in world prices of crude ail would undermine the profitability of these firms relining of the monopolles on the refining side of the business. (The same process has pone on in the retail business in the US. There the 'shortages" to cut off supplies to to the monopolies' own retail outlets).
something of an embarassment to about the 'energy crisis. In the first mine months of 1973 the US oil industry profits rose by 47% over the previous period in 1972. The top industry giant, Exxon, rung up an increase of 59%. Foreign operagigantic profits. Only 2% of US Fast, but these investments account overseas investment, related to the long terin strategy of oil giants have found the political climate in the Middle East-and the Middle East wars) and the growing nationalist feeling in favour of nationalisation threaten their interests in these parts of the world, Moves such as the increase in posted prices can help stave off the threat of nationalisation while promoting the interests of the oil companies. Concessions such as 'participation' (allowing the oil producing companies) operate in the same way: they avoid outright operațions, and strengthen the hold monopolies have used the excuse of independent petrol scations, forcing them to close and leave the field open All this is reflected in the profits of the oil giants, which have become them in the midst of all the hubbub tions were the main sources of these overseas investment is in the Middle for 20% of the total profit earned by LONG TERM STRATEGY The big rise in world prices is also the oil monopolies. Increasingly the non-industrialised countries generally -too risky. Political upheavals that can disrupt their operations (like the of епетку. pany with important now sources of capital from the producing States' oil revenue, and tie the iterests of the dil States ever closer to those ol' the international monopolies, In the words of Sheik Yamani, Saudi oil minister and chief spokesman for the Arab producing states, Our aim is firstly to strengtben the majors lie the oil monopolies] and their role, whether directly or indirectly, in the world market in order to maintain prices.
There 1s, bowever, a danger that as the "participation' of the oil states turns into a majority interest and control (which by agreement is supposed to happen in 1983, when the oil States acquire a 51% interest, but has already taken piace in Kuwait the liquefying of coal and its use as where the Government has acquired a 60% interest) the policies pursued by the producing companies could interests of the oil monopolies refining and sales operations in the industrialised countries. In order to prevent such a development the monopolies are seeking to strengthen of petroleum industry, so that the producing States will remain dependent on the monopolies for the transport, refining and marketing of assume control of production.
EXTENDING THE STAKES Another move which the nonopolies have made to strengthen their hand against the producing states, and, at the same time, to hedge their bets in case anything goes wrong, is to extend their stake in other sources They already have substantial control over natural gas, both in the US and in Britain. Other possible sources from which oil can be extracted-tar sands and oil shale-are being rapidly bought up by oil companies, who we also branching out into coal mining Of the top ten US oil companies all have interests in natural gas and oil shale, nine are involved in uranium production, six in coal mining, and five have a stake in tar sands. The second and third largest coal com panies in the United States are own ed by oil corpanies Many of these industries and processes would simply not have been profitable in the face of competition from cheap Middle Eastern oil, Coal mines, for example, were being shut down around the world for this reason. Now coal is once again a profitable fuel: indeed it is economically practical to talk about a crude oil substitute in the produc tion of petroleum (a process which was developed in Germany during the Second World War and which kept the German air force flying in the final ycars). The same goes for the extraction of oil from shale and tar sande The oil price rises have given the oil companies an inestimable windTall in the increased value of their energy assets-oil and natural gas reserves, coal mines, leases on oil shale, etc, There is no doubt that the pay-off from the energy crisis for the oil monopolies has been immense. But the "crisis is a phony from beginning to end-s typical play of monopolistic blackmail-and the masterminds behind it are to be found in the boardroons of New York, London and Amsterdam, not in the deserts of Arabia.
Next week we will look or Britain's recent on crisis in detai and analyse the manoeuvre of the oil companies in thir country. RAY ALEXANDER
----- pull-quotes -----
National woos the workers