|
|
|
Book Review
| Capital and Labour in the British Columbia Forest Industry, 1934–1974. By Gordon Hak. Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2007. 258 pp. Illustrations, notes, maps, tables, bibliography, and index. Cloth $85.00, paper $29.95.
|
| British Columbia's highly productive forest industries have sustained the province's economy for more than a century. With more than 90 percent of its forest land in Crown ownership, British Columbia policy makers developed a system of lease and licensing arrangements that allocated huge swaths of timberland to lumber corporations. This study focuses on the "glory days" of timber production from the 1930s through the 1970s, the "Fordist age"—a moment in time characterized by mass production, large corporations, and big industrial unions—all designed to produce wood-fiber goods for consumer markets. Under the Fordist model, governments functioned to manage relations between capital and labor, providing an organized, rationalized economy, including social support services associated with the "welfare state." |
1
|
|
Gordon Hak, however, reveals a set of relationships between capital and labor, between companies and unions, that were considerably more chaotic and messy than Fordist theory suggests. Clashes between large integrated forest companies and small, independent operators persisted through and beyond the Fordist era. The author also points to persistent "struggles between unions and within unions in the British Columbia forest industry" (p. 95). The best known of the intra-union conflicts were the efforts of the anti-communist factions in the International Woodworkers of America (IWA) to purge the union of its communist leadership. In the midst of the Cold War—and pressure from American IWA leaders—British Columbia's IWA ousted "Red Bloc" leaders from their positions. Despite struggles within the IWA and between the IWA and the American Federation of Labor, unions cooperated, especially when crossing the picket line was involved. |
2
|
|
Capital and Labour tells a nuanced story, attempting to show that provincial forest policy enjoyed a healthy degree of autonomy during the Fordist era, especially by using the small operators as leverage against the large corporations. The Sloan Commission report of 1957, however, largely supported the big corporations. After reading the report, one small operator bluntly remarked: "I now have an idea as to how the carrier pigeon must have felt just before he became extinct" (p. 59). In brief, the author does not persuasively show that small operators were a significant political force, nor does he effectively make the case for state autonomy. |
3
|
|
In a material sense, British Columbia's forest industries were successful during the Fordist era. Companies made money, workers received good wages, and the province experienced a rising standard of living. But that sunny image concealed an ugly picture of desiccated forest landscapes, polluted waterways, and a multitude of other environmental disturbances. With the emergence of the environmental movement in the late 1960s, those conditions created controversy in provincial politics, with environmental organizations arraigned against capital and labor. Although environmentalists effected important changes in the next three decades, their reforms did little to alter the machinery of production. The author concludes, "the fundamentals of capitalism remained entrenched" (p. 187). |
4
|
|
This is not an easy read. Numerous passive voice constructions, long, cumbersome sentences, repetitious passages, and careless proofreading ("lesser lesser"—p. 67) mar an otherwise provocative narrative. |
5
|
|
William G. Robbins is Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History at Oregon State University. He is the author and editor of eleven books on the American West and Environmental History, including Landscapes of Conflict: The Oregon Story, 1940–2000 (Washington, 2005). |
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|