BERLIN

¢ ROME

WASHINGTON.

More Soviet factories
to adopt new system

By BERT WHYTE

Tribune Staff Correspondent

MOSCOW

Although only 704 out of
40,000 industrial enterprises
in the USSR switched to the
new system of planning in 1966,
results were so encouraging that
hundreds of plants followed
suit at the beginning of this
year.

“At present 2,500 plants, em-
ploying roughly 10 percent of
the industrial labor force but
producing one quarter of all
industrial output, are operating
under the new system,” said
Alexei Rumyantsev, editor of
the Economic Gazette, at a press
conference on the new econo-
mic reform in Soviet industry.

“About half the country’s en-
terprises wil make the change-
over before the end of this year.
The reform will be completed

by the end of 1968. We have
every reason to say that the re-
form helps to increase the pace
of economic development and
efficiency of production. One of
the main features is the inten-
sification of economic instead of
administrative stimulation in
economic management. The
rights of executives of factories
and mills have been enlarged
and the role of material stimu-
lation of workers and engineers
eers has been raised.”

Last year factories operating
the new system increased their
profits by 25 percent whereas
the figure for the whole of
Soviet industry was only 10
percent.

One of the key problems will
be the introduction of a 12 per-
cent increase in | wholesale
prices in heavy industry. At
present about 20. percent of

manufactured products are pro-
duced at a loss. It is contended
that the new prices will make
operation of these _ factories
more profitable. At the same
time it is promised that there
will be no increase in retail
prices.

Following the press confer-
ence I talked to Rumyantsev
and asked him what progress
had been made in introducing
a general system of cost-account-
ing across the country. He said
each industry was working out
its own system. I asked what
would happen in the case of in-
dustries which produce neces-
sary goods but which, for geo-
graphic or other reasons, con-
tinue to operate in the red, and
cited as a possible example a
coal mine within the Arctic cir-
cle.

Rumyantsev replied that the

purpose of the new economic
reform was not to close down
plants; that in certain cases
subsidies would be paid out of
profits from the particular in-
dustary as a whole.

In an address to electors in
Moscow on March 9, Nikolai
Podgorny, president of the Presi-
dium of the Supreme Soviet,
stressed that economic reform
“is the main pivot of the party’s
policy in economic development
in the present stage.”

He went on to say that, “‘this
is not a simple process; old
methods of work, which no
longer accord with the demands
of life, the scale of development
of productive forces, are being
broken.”

Moscow newspapers, maga-
zines and economic journals
carry voluminous articles about
the new economic reform. Much
attention is paid to the revision
of wholesale prices, designed to
strengthen economic. relations
between separate enterprises
and separate branches. “To put
it. in a nutshell,” comments one
economic expert, ‘‘the essence
of these relations boils down to
the deepening of cost-account-
ing in all links of industry.

According to an article by
leading officials of the Central
Statistical Bureau, which ap-
peared in Pravda recently, “The
Soviet system of statistics in
its present state needs radical
transformation, not slow im-
provements.” The article stres-
sed: “Disregard of the objective
nature of economic laws and
categories of socialism—the law

of value, price,
supporting basis, and mi
which took place in tt
had a harmful effect
tics.” t
The article said “the ii
ing of great numbers ©
nected indices in the
Statistical. Board prod
illusion of richness %
tion and makes econom
stantly concerned wit
of information for
analysis.” 1
The authors of ee.
speaking of past mist
failures to fulfill plans
“The situation arose
tistical indices, which
ondary in their nature
garded as the aim of PY,
and not the means 1

‘its processes. The sul

often on how to reac 4
indices of the plan, er,
qualitative fulfilment. ©
sult, the statistics hae
rect, but considerab
on production, serving *
couragement to turn ae.
without regard for ¥% a
and in all the cases
was no demand for t
the work that was &
produce it was waste
point of view of sociely
est.” ;
Obviously there pee,
many unsolved problem J
from the first stage
sfer of enterprises ee
methods. Basically fot
problems of growth, ©
try continues to be
pace exceeding that 0

ing capitalist countries

They call him ‘Wilson, the chameleon

By JOHN WILLIAMSON
(London, England)

HE right wing Labor govern-
ment of Harold Wilson,
despite open snubs from

Bonn and Paris and rumored
“slaps on the wrist” from Wash-
ington, continues with flint-faced
sternness its slavish support to
the U.S. war on Vietnam, its in-
comes “freeze and squeeze”
policy and its efforts to join the
European Common Market.
This is carried through in the
face of a mounting opposition
among -Labor MPs on all these
issues, dramatic mass lobbies
of students and trade unionists
and continuous peace activities.
The growing Labor back-
bench dissatifaction reached a
new high when 63 Labor MPs
abstained on the government’s
defense policy. In the very cen-
tre of the debate was criticism
of Wilson and Brown’s refusal
to dissociate themselves from
Johnson’s escalation of the war
.in Vietnam and opposition to
the highest-ever peace time mili-
tary budget of £2,205 million.
Both of -these government
moves are in direct opposition
to Labor Party national confer-
ence decisions. This partiament-
ary battle had been preceded by
68 votes calling for support of U
Thant’s three-point plea to end
the war in Vietnam at a meeting
‘of the parliamentary Labor
Party. While Wilson mobilized
145 votes against this proposal
of the Left, the size of its sup-
port was a shock to the right
wing.
Just

a week previous, 40

Labor MPs also defied a three-
line whip in parliament, and re-
fused to support the right wing
Labor government policy to
treble fees for overseas students
—a decision with definite racial-
ist overtones. Throughout the
country, students with some fa-
culty support, organized demon-
strations, boycotts of lectures,
petitions, picket lines and deput-
ations to MPs and the govern-
ment—all demanding a rescind-
ing of this, increase in fees. A
petition with 40,000 student
signatures was handed in to 10
Downing St. These actions took
place in virtually every univer-
sity in the country.

Parallel with these events the
Labor government is manoeuver-
ing to continue its vicious wage
freeze policy. It has the audacity
to propose that at the end of the
so-called “severe restraint” pe-
riod that ends in June there will
be another phase when the
Prices and Incomes Board will
get still more authority to dic-
tate events that will include
power to delay pay increases
for up to one year and that there
will be no backdating of wage
rises already suspended during
the past year.

While the Trade Union Con-
gress make a lot of noise about
never agreeing to continued
government interference and le-
gislation they, projected their
own TUC voluntary wage re-
Straint policy. In effect they
were proposing to do the govern-
ment’s dirty work for it. Even
then Wilson refused to surrend-
er the government's ‘“compul-

sory” powers. Unfortunately a
national conference of all Trade
Union executives were cajoled
by anti-government speeches of
the TUC leaders to support this
“voluntary” wage restraint pol-
icy by a 5 to 1 vote.

The feeling of the rank and
file trade unionist
when 4,000 trade union branch
representatives from England,
Scotland and Wales lobbied their
MPs at Westminster in opposi-
tion to any wage freeze and
further government legislation
against the trade unions. A week
later, a further trade union lob-
by, smaller but equally militant,
was held outside the conference
hall where the union executives
met.

Seeing this mounting opposi-
tion throughout the country and
reaching unprecedented strength
inside .the parliamentary Labor
Party itself, the prime minister,
in his capacity as Labor Party
leader, launched a vicious as-
sault on all dissenters inside the
party.

He said “‘every dog is allowed
one bite’ but if. he continues
“biting” he ‘may not get his
license renewed” — an obvious
threat to withhold Labor- Party
endorsement. He even went so
far as to threaten dissolution of
parliament, because of lack of
support from his own party.

The entire country and the
labor movement is rocking with
this arrogant, threatening and
dictatorial attitude.

Clearly this speech of Wilson
was one of desperation — not
confidence; of weakness — not

was seen-—

‘Market to

strength; and of intimidation of
his own party — not struggle
against the Tories. The’ decisive
thing is for the Left inside the
Labor party to stand its ground
and continue to fight to change
Labor government policies.

Wilson, ‘the supreme political
chameleon” as the Morning Star
characterizes him, tried to ex-
ploit the visit of Soviet Prime
Minister Kosygin for his own
purposes but in fact he was look-
ing over his shoulder at Wash-
ington all during the negotia-
tions. The Sunday Observer had
a headline “U.S. Casts Shadow
Over Kosygin Visit.”

Wilson, when in Bonn, catered
to the revanche trends and re-
iterated Britain’s refusal to re-
cognize the GDR. At Strasbourg,
he played on the anti-U.S. string
of his harp, saying that Britain
wanted to join the Common
strengthen Europe
against the USA. But back in
London he pledges loyalty to
NATO and the Atlantic Alliance
and George Brown shamelessly
defends American bombing of
North Vietnam and American es-
calation of the war while Wilson
rejected a proposal of Labor
MPs to invite U.N. Secretary U
Thant to Britain, stating that he
did not think U Thant’s course
was the way to get peace. In
his desperation to ‘administer
British capitalism better than
the Tories, Wilson tries to be all
things to all men and loses the
confidence of everyone.

The Kosygin visit to Britain,
as far as the people were con-
cerned, was a great success. He

March 23, 1967—PACIFIC TRI

‘occasions on tw0

way y
” in
pandl

went out of his
the ordinary “bloke
tory and to shake ©
many on the streels fi
walked around at vat
tunity, to the constel
the security men.

Kosygin spoke piuntld

hid

he
Vietnam, he called 100 it
conditional terminally |
rican bombing and 4
of aggression” agains ould
without which there ¢¢
be any talks. On We t
he said the sociali®
could not allow “Cerra
ism” to achieve the aul
pired to: revision ° f
acquiring nuclear W®
elimination of the
Tory Daily Telegraph
speech an “abuse e
two main allies . -° asl
_ The Russian prope
Anglo-Soviet friend et,
cording to the observ
vided and embarras®
ernment.” The final vin
expressed agreemeM”
on various points tit
Soviet relations. Mos lc
was the affirmative
the British Gover®™ df
Treaty and Friendshi (oy
although the Wilst oot?
ment would nf

all
B

not |
phrase “nan-aggressiy
of upsetting theif
ners. oo
Most disappoint
failure to say any!
about ending the
nam, reflecting
Brown’s refusal
Johnson war policy:

puné~