The Chapel Hill weekly., 1963-10-09

When we do, it is obvious that
the many consume them; that
they now as truly have sub
; stantally all there Is, as if the
: title were in the United States;
that the great body of property
is socially administered now,
and that the function of pri-
vate ownership is to divine in
advance the equilibrium Of So
cial desires which socialism
equally would have to divine,
but which, under the Illusion of
self-Seeking, is more poignantly
and shrewdly foreSeen."
In our country we have achiev-
ed a political balance, a balance
between that which IS privately
done and that which is govern
mentally done, a balance which
we perpetually readjust. Indeed
were it not for the fact that we
accept the existence Of a con-
trast between what we call pub
lie and what we call private
without thinking too much about
it, the difference would be some
what puzzling. We call General
Motors Corporation an example
Of greatly successful private en-
terprise = private, / suppose,
because the whole public has
no vote in who shall be its COM
mander- -n-chief and the COM
manders of its Corps and its Di-
visions. To be sure many, many
thousands of our people get some
voice, but one wonders whether
they have a voice any more ef-
fective in selecting. say, the
Undersecretary Of State or the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
The function that General Mo-
tors performs, in everything but
our habitual vocabulary, is sure
ly a public one. The great ag-
glomerateS of people and ma
chimes which make up our cities
could not exist without the bright
colored automotive corpuscies
that circulate in what are right
ly called arteries, bringing the
means of existence, both animate
and inanimate, to every part,
just as red and white corpuscles
flow through the arteries OF
man, bringing the substances of
life to every extremity. And Cen
eral Motors Corporation in many
respects comes under rather in
innate governmental supervision,
sometimes, / am sure, to the
great irritation Of its officers,
Since 1887 there has been no
doubt of the Constitutional COM
petence Of Congress to regulate
the relation between General Mo-
tors and its employees, and the
government does so in rather
surprising detail. The Congress
has recently enacted statute
governing the relations between
motor manufacturers and their
local dealers, who are nominally
independent contractors, but who,
viewed realistically, have a much
more subordinate relationship
to the whole entity. The federal
government exercises vigilant
relationship to the whole entity
The federal government exerciS-
es a vigilant supervision over
the pricing policies of great man.
ufacturerS like General Motors,
and the reports Of the Supreme
4 Court frequently contain accounts
/ of litigation in which favoritism
in pricing is penalized. Govern
mental vigilance is not limited
to the relation between General
Motors and its employees, its
/ dealers, and its customers; gov
ermment vigilantly oversees any
arrangements between General
Motors and other great corpora
tionS. The Supreme Court of the
United States has recently DEM
onstrated that under the Anti
Trust Laws there has grown an
unduIy close relation achieved
by stock ownership between Gen.
eral Motors and Dupont and has
made a rather drastic decree
about it. AT any rate, one says
to oneself, General Motors is in
business for private profit; pri-
vate people get its earnings.
Well, so it is and so they do; ex-
cept that a very large share
Of whatever profits General Mo
tors may make IS taken by the
government which thus in a true
sense becomes not only super
visor but a sort Of partner IN
the enterprise; nor are General
Motors profits solely shared by
virtue Of taxes imposed on the
corporation itself, for the govern
ment also demonstrates Its par
ticipation in this profitmaking
venture by taking a share in the
avails of its products as they
come to the hands Of its officers
and employees through pay