Proletarec. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1906-19??, 1946-12-25
Monopoly and the COP.

The next Congress will hear a great deal about applying the anti
trust laws to labor. 1t is a subject that deserves the most careful con-
Should not this also have the attention of a Congress whose majority
party never tires of proclaiming its dedication to free competitive enter
prise?
Assistant Attorney General Wendell Berge, head of the anti trust
division, told a Chicago audience last week what he has been telling
people up and down the country for months: The greatest threat
~ rec enterprise arises monopolslc control of great indus
tries. If we really believe what w constantly say about the necessity
OF preserving free enterprise, then the time to act is now"
One reason for special urgency is that World War II. like the
tHt one, tremendously strengthened the monopolstc control of U. s.
industry More than half a million small business concerns folded
during the war, and they are not all coming back. The $50 largest
facilities.
Maybe nothing much can be done about bigness. Size alone is not
the primary evil, anyway, What we have to worry about is the steady
oncentratlo OF economic power in a few hands, coupled with the
tendency of big business, when insulated from competition,
to seek stability at the cost of adventure, security at the cost of new
enterprise, high prices at the cost of low production
invoking the antitrust laws against the giant of monopoly often
seems like a terrier attacking a masttf. A huge corporation will spend
more to defend itself in al antitrust suit than the Department of
FEC has a staff of 1900 to regulate the communications industry alone
The lCC has 1900 to regulate transportation, and the SEC 1900 to
regulate the securities business But when the antitrust division nires
200 lawyers and spends two million dollars a year to police competition
throughout the whole realm Of big business, Congress considers it
generously dealt with.
If we mean what every political platform says about enforcing
the antitrust laws, the appropriation for this purpose should be in
creased and amendments to the law considered, Gov Arnall, for
example, has suggested that a corporation twice convicted of violation
governments role IS enforcer Of free competition in all its agencies.
Today some agencies tolerate MONOPOLY while the antitr Trust division
IS attacking 1t; the Federal Trade Commission, for one, has pursued
policies directly in conflict with those of the division. The RFC
has not shone as a friend Of small business.
Having made big business bigger, through a contracts govern
ment,financed plants and publicly subsidized research, the govern
menus mlnlrnum obligation now is to see thai big business operates
w nhln M u meaning and intent of the antitrust laws. The response
p"y leSs WW equal weight upon legislative and executive branches,
For President Truman that means giving the antitrust division com
plete backing, and supporting its policies through all other admins
tratVe agencies. For Congress-for the Republican majorty-it means
appropriating adequate funds and insisting N a real enforcement
program. Most Republican majorites in the past have nreferred to
look the other way, Will the present one do the same-The Chicago