FEATURE _ —vietor VS. PROFITS — U.S. capitalism’s decline A ceording to Fortune: Recovery from the slump, most economists agree, will be sluggish by past standards. Unfortunately, the factors that will restrain expan- sion are not simply short term. The medium-term growth potential of the U.S. is limited by fundamental features that began to emerge in the = 1970s and will stay with us through the late 1980s. (October 4, 1982) ; The article attributes this to the consequences of the new high-technology “based on computers, telecommunications and robotics.” This factor — caused the decline in steel and other basic industries, says Fortune, and an overall reduction in factory employment. Trade and service jobs soared, notably in eating and drinking establishments, health services, and busi- ness services. It was noted that high technology has little to do with these new jobs—overwhelmingly manual and low-paid—such as “‘emptying bed- pans.” And as these workers are paid much less than the displaced factory workers, mass markets are undermined. There is a lot of confusion in the Fortune article. To attribute the worsen- ing economic situation to high-technology is wrong. Scientific and technical advance offers unprecedented opportunitites for raising living standards, easing labor and providing more paid leisure. Statistics cited in Fortune show that manufacturing productivity in the last decade increased more slowly than usual, so high technology did not account for the drop in jobs. Most high-tech has been applied to military, financial and consumer end- uses, from MIRV missiles to instant stock market quotations to Atari com- puters. The bad economic situation is due, fundamentally, to capitalism’s gen-. _ eral weakening. In particular, the drop in factory employment resulted from a relative decline in markets: stagnation and decrease in mass pur- _ chasing power; loss of markets to rival, foreign capitalists; the shift of production to foreign, low-wage plants; government cancellation of -Socialist-country markets; and neglect of the public-sector infrastructure. Fortune says this decade is a “transition period’ in which “adjust- ments” have to be made. The ‘“‘adjustments”’ are being imposed all right— on U.S. workers and especially oppressed peoples—and if Fortune’s forecast is correct, much worse is yet to come. But perhaps not for the capitalists, whose potential for big profit increases—based on declining real wages, farm prices, and soaring military contracts—is great. This development may be behind the magazine’s concluding sentences: While transition periods are never comfortable, the eventual rewards—a higher standard of living, an enriched quality of life— ~ could be great. With luck, we may be back on the fast track by the late 1980s. Workers on soup lines, being evicted from homes and losing cars are not . - inclined to wait for “‘luck’’ at the end of the decade! Fortune offers no program. The Communists do. Take Point 2 of the Party’s New Economic Bill of Rights: An Emergency Public Works Act to provide up to 15 million new jobs at union wages. These federal construction projects will be de- signed to rebuild our crumbling cities by constructing five million low-income, federally subsidized housing units per year, repairing and rebuilding our mass transportation, water supply and sewage sys- tems, streets, bridges, tunnels and constructing modern highways and . railroads. This program focuses exactly on those end-products that use the output of basic industry. It will require full production and expanded capacity of steel, cement, lumber, copper, construction equipment, trucks and many — others. The market for food, clothing and consumers goods paid for by the 15 million newly hired, well-paid workers would enjoy a record gain. And the projects would be financed at the expense of the military budget, especially the high-tech modern military budget, which uses very little steel, cement and other basic-industry products. The lack of high-tech equipment in fast food joints and for hospital services, Fortune admits, is because workers can be hired for such low wages that it doesn’t pay toinvest in technology. The low wages aren’t due to “low productivity,” as Fortune claims, however, but to the pressure of mass unemployment, to discrimination against Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, — immigrants. : The provision of jobs to meet people’s needs will reduce unemployment, increase the bargaining power of service workers, and make it easier for — them to organize and win decent wages and working conditions. By Professor A. Stohr cal munitions total more than 150, tons. Special chemical warheads a At the beginning of February 1982, President Ronald Reagan announced a multi-million dollar program for build- ing up chemical weapons, including the production of new types of chemical weapons. This will entail the financing of a complete restocking of the U.S.’s chemical weapons arsenals and the at- tainment of a qualitatively new stage in its chemical weapon capability. This process had already been set in motion on May 22, 1981, with the approval of $20 million for the construction of a nerve gas factory in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. The United States finally acceded in January 1975 to the 1925.Geneva Pro- tocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. (It was the 95th state to do so.) The U.S. started the production of chemical weapons a few years after the end of the Second World War. The U.S. forces had seized stores of chemical warfare agents in Nazi Germany at the end of World War II, in particular the stacks of tabun (a deadly nerve agent developed and produced by IG Farben). These were shipped to the U.S. shortly after the end of the war or stored, ready for possible later use, in depots in West Germany. In contrast, the relatively small stocks that fell into the hands of the Soviet armed forces were com- pletely destroyed. | According to information from the U.S., in the field of nerve gases, the most effective chemical warfare agents at the time, U.S. arms factories pro- duced between 1953 and 1957, more than 15,000 tons of sarin and between 1961 and 1967, more than 5,000 tons of VX. In addition, a large number of in- stitutions are either directly or indi- rectly under the control of the Chemical Corps of the U.S. armed forces and are financed from the Pentagon budget. According to details provided in the Sci- entific American of April 1980 by Mesel- son and Robinson, U.S. stocks of chemi- Professor Stohr is the deputy director of the Chemical Toxicology Research Center of the German Democratic Republic Academy of Sci- ences. shells have also been developed 4 tested for the multiple launchers of * U.S. armed farces, for Lance missi and naval artillery systems: therefo these weapons can also be adapted chemical warfare. In practical te the U.S. armed forces are equipped w all the necessary means for massive and lightning use of chemical agents if all potential theaters by all armed vices and under all weather conditio The enormous chemical arsenal stored ready for use in large depots. Ac cording to Lois R. Ember, writing il Chemical and Engineering News (Dé cember 15, 1980), there are at least 1! stores in the U.S. itself, two on the ter ritory of the Federal Republic of Get many and one on Johnston Island in the Pacific. (The Federal Republic is tht only country outside the U.S. where U» foreign gas is-stored.) The total sto¢ could annihilate the world’s popula four times over. The ‘‘special depots’ are mos' well protected and tightly guarded U.S. security units. Until now only sc details have reached the public as to extent of these depots and the type ammunition stored there. Reports h appeared in the press of a depot n Fischbach on the French border w at least 2,000 tons of highly toxic nerv: gas are stored. Over the next few years the finan allocation for the development, produe tion and storage of new chemicé weapons as well as for the general pre paration for chemical warfare is to ™ dramatically raised: ER Chemical weapons fundita) Year (million $) : 1978 lll 1981 259 1982 . 932 1983 705 1984 1,400 (Wireless Bulletin from Washington, i the ICA, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Feb. 11, Washington’s chemical weap program includes, in addition to mass production of new toxic age the testing of new methods of app! tion of chemical weapons and the Name U.S. Army Chemical Commodity Center Edgewood (Maryland) _ U.S. Army Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Denver (Colorado) U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal Pine Bluff (Arkansas) Muscle Shoals Phosphate Development Works Sheffield (Alabama) Newport Army Chemical Piano. == Newport (Indiana) _ Desert Test Center Salt Lake City (Utah) » U.S. Army Chemical Center and School _ Fort McClellan, Amiston (Alabama) U.S. chemical weapons plants Year of com- Number of missioning employees Area (km 1918 1,900 (1972) 42 1942 800 (1964) 74 1941 1,800 (1941) 1950 1958 300 (1962) 1942 1,200 (1972) 1951 700 (1966) PACIFIC TRIBUNE NOVEMBER 26, 1982—Page 6