Which Way for the
Economy?
The Background to the Threat to Close
Ford Dagenham
The decision by Ford Europe to axe 1,500 jobs at the
Ford Dagenham plant with the threat to close the factory altogether has raised
the question for the workers: who decides? That is, why should it not be the
workers who set the agenda and decide the direction for the economy, and not
have it decided for them on behalf of the multinational monopolies and the
finance capitalists? It has underlined that the workers must affirm their
rights – their right to a livelihood, their rights as human beings and as
workers, and above all their right themselves to make the decisions that affect
their lives. The Ford workers cannot accept that their role is just to make
cars. Rather, in common with all workers, they themselves must fight for their
solutions to the crisis of capitalism and that they embark on the line of march
which will ensure that they themselves become the decision makers.
What is being underlined by the developments at Ford, as
with Rover at Longbridge, and generally with the recent escalation of
mega-mergers and the demands that everything be subordinated to the success of
the monopolies in the global marketplace, is that to submit to the logic of the
rich in these circumstances is not only directly against the workers interests
but is also devastating to the national economy.
How does the logic of Ford operate? One year ago, a new
chief executive for Ford was appointed, Jac Nasser, with the mission to shake
up Ford’s corporate culture in the face of intensified competition from
the other car monopolies globally. There are just four other major car
monopolies formed from mergers and take-overs besides Ford with a web of
subsidiaries throughout the world. These are General Motors, Daimler Chrysler,
Toyota and Volkswagen. Nasser bought Volvo in 1999 for $6.45 billion,
overhauling the design of their cars and launching plans for increasing their
luxury car sales. In North America, slow-selling unprofitable car models have
been replaced with more lucrative models. Ford then embarked on a $2 billion
"restructuring" of its South American operations. Now it is turning
its attention to Europe. "We are seeking tough cost reductions across
Europe," Nick Scheele, chairman of Ford Europe, said in an interview with
the Financial Times.
The Ford monopoly is faced with particularly intense
competition for the domination of the European market from its rivals such as
Volkswagen and GM. The drive of the Ford monopoly, as with all the vast
multinationals, is to dominate the market, to undercut its rivals, to intensify
the productivity of labour, to combat the falling rate of profit. It has
reasoned that to combat a situation where in the third quarter of last year,
for example, Ford Europe’s operations lost $171 million, it must
concentrate on Germany. Success in Germany, Europe’s biggest single
market, is seen by Ford as crucial for success in Europe. Germany is almost
twice the size of the next-largest European markets, which are Italy, Britain
and France. Ford has already moved its European headquarters from Britain to
Germany. The ruthless, all-out competition for the European markets has led
inevitably to the phenomenon of "overproduction", as the production
is not geared to needs but to grabbing and creating the market for goods, in
this case cars. Ford’s strategy is to streamline at the same time as
concentrating on what will be most profitable and give them the competitive
edge. In this situation, Nick Sheele has come up with a "transformation
strategy" to turn the £28 million profits in 1999 back into something
approaching the £193 million Ford made in Europe in 1998.
Should workers share this logic? There are no end of voices
telling them, from the government to the TUC leaders, that they should do so.
According to these voices, there is no alternative to this globalised
competition, and that actually, provided it is given a "human", an
"acceptable", face, this law of the jungle will pan out to a land of
milk and honey in the 21st century. Rather than attempt to solve the crisis,
and fight for their own interests, workers are told that social partnership
with those who use them for their competitive global strategies is the only way
that prosperity can come about. The class war is over, they are told, and to
make sure that Britain becomes number one globally, continue to attract
"inward investment" and all the other ways to entice the finance
capitalists to make their billions in Britain and for the financial oligarchy
in Britain to compete globally, the workers should do nothing but submerge
their whole beings into this strategy.
Not only can workers not accept this logic, but their
programme is one where they will be in control of their own lives and build a
society where their interests are paramount in harmony with the general
well-being of the whole society. The finance capitalists will be compelled to
submit to the good of the national economy, and instead of parasitically
extracting the maximum from the society they will be subordinated to a
direction of the economy, dictated by working class for the national interests,
which puts the people’s well-being at the centre and develops society with
this motive. The workers will decide the fate of their own social product, and
with socialist planning and national and international trade under their
direction, benefiting the economy and carried out for mutual benefit
internationally, will ensure the harmonious growth of the economy.
Why should not this logic prevail? The step in that
direction right now is that the workers should affirm their rights and fight
for the victory of a pro-social programme. Within this, they can get organised
and raise the level of discussion on their own agenda.
