Discussion Forum for Readers and Supporters of European Action

So the answer to Eddie Chapman's question is, the role of the London Stock Exchange under syndicalism would be that of a shopping mall, multi-screen cinema complex - or better still it could house the new European Credit Bank. It never ceases to amaze me that the economic system outlined in the previous posting is not more widely appreciated and supported such is its obvious superiority to global capitalism and the now discredited state socialism.

Only one political journal in Britain advocates syndicalism along these lines, European Action. It is one of the most powerful weapons in our policy portfolio.

Edited by author 17-05-2008 15:46
'Eddie Chapman', for all his sins, is an Americanised capitalist and very much a participant in the casino capitalism of the global variety. His speciality is in the area of asset stripping. Material profit for the least effort is very much his forte. He dabbles in 'British fascism' as a kind of hobby.
His question on syndicalism or workers' ownership is best answered by Robert Skidelsky from his biography on Mosley.
On page 495 he wrote, "This was to be one pillar of his 'European Socialism' [the wage-price policy]. The other was a 'synthesis of private enterprise and syndicalism' - an outgrowth of his earlier guild socialism and corporatist ideas. In his essay 'European Socialism' (1951) Mosley laid down three stages for the development of industrial ownership. A new industry 'is best launched and brought to the point of established success by a single creative individual' who should be 'relieved of the main burdens of taxation' and given every freedom and encouragement to use his drive and energy. At the second 'intermediate' stage, when the industry has become 'too large for personal management but not yet ripe for syndicalisation', it should be owned jointly by workers and shareholders (co-partnership). Finally, when industries become so big 'that they have passed beyond any kind of private management and are now controlled by officials of monopoly capitalism or by the officials of the state' they would revert 'to the workers who would take the place of the shareholders'.
The industry would become 'their industry and they can do what they will'. In this way Mosley hoped to reconcile private initiative with satisfaction of the quest for status which 'to an almost fantastic degree ... rises above the question of mere reward'. In political terms, he was not unaware of the advatages of an attack which can 'roll up the left flank of labour by its syndicalism [and] the right flank of conservatism by its support for the creative individual ...'. As always he liked to think of himself in the 'hard centre' ready to take over the 'soft centre' of a disintegrating liberalism". End of quote.
The creative individual as the initiator of a private enterprise would enter into the undertaking with a strong sense of service, knowing full well that he would be the creator of something that would eventually become syndicalised. His greatest reward would therefore be a recognition of his great service to European Socialism and he would be honoured as such.
The Americanised capitalist, on the other hand, only sees 'what is in it for me alone?'.
The London Stock Exchange would be replaced with a European Credit Bank for the purposes of providing European capital to new private enterprises. With Europe a Nation, the internationalism of the finance system would end and our economy and our money would belong exclusively to the European people.
The nature of international capitalism consists entirely of causing conflict between countries, exploitation through low wage economies succeeding and the inequalities of wealth and poverty within nations. The parasite that exploits this for his own emolument through amassing wealth without productive labour is an enemy of the people.

Hello everyone. I have just caught up on all the posts here. Roberts extensive description of Workers Ownership covers some very interesting points. I wondered if I might pose a question? What would the role be of the London Stock Exchange under such a system? Historically the LSE was a source of capital for small business where the shareholder bought a 'share' of the companies success or failure. This is not to be confused with the current casino that operates on a global scale and has more in common with the National Lottery. In essence if we move towards Worker Ownership and an 'Owner' were to retire what would the exit strategy be? By this I mean he owns part of the concern through his labours. How does he recieve value for that which has built? If I missed something from the earlier posts then I apologize but it does seem to have merit as a question. Hope all is well with the Forum.

Now can we have that in English, please?

Edited by author 04-04-2008 09:33
European, you seem to think that the wage/price mechanism and workers' ownership are separate systems when you say that they 'can function side by side'.

In post 287 I wrote, "The wage/price mechanism is a method of Government leadership in the area for maintaining a parity between wages and prices which can only be achieved within a self-sufficient economy free of international competition.
Syndicalism, on the other hand, is the method of running industry in a fair and equitable way. Workers' control within the wage/price mechanism."

They would not 'function side by side' but more accurately as one being integral to the other. One is Government leadership and the other is the means whereby industry is run in practical terms.
It is misleading to talk of them as separate ideas in those practical terms because they are both parts of the whole.

Re Max Mosley, I read a refreshing article by Matthew Syed in the Times on Thursday, part of which he claims ownership of a pair of leopardskin handcuffs.
Syed wrote, "The head of a leading Jewish organisation said that Mosley should resign because his alleged re-enactment of concentration camp rituals was insulting to Jews. Call me pedantic, but how can someone be taken as insulting when his actions took place behind closed doors and were not intended to be seen by those who are now taking offence? Had Mosley merely fantasised about his Nazi fetish without acting it out, would that have been a resigning matter?
One sometimes wonders how much longer it is going to take before we pay something more than lip service to the tenets of liberalism To paraphrase Locke, what the hell have a person's fetishes got to do with anyone except those who are asked to indulge them? Not even D.H. Lawrence, that great chronicler of English sexual hypocrisy, could have imagined that, 80 years after the underground publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover, we are still haranguing people for their private sexual preferences.
Our revulsion at Mosley's behaviour is breathtakingly irrelevant. I am repulsed by homosexuality - in the strict sense that I feel nauseous at the thought of personally engaging in gay sex - but that is not sufficient reason to condemn gay men. Disgust carries not a shred of moral or legal force when it is directed at those engaged in mutually consenting behaviour, whether it involves sex, spanking or leopardskin handcuffs".

There is no doubt that Max Mosley's privacy was invaded to a very considerable degree and I wish him well in his litigation against the gutter press.

The story involving Max Mosley is unfortunate. There was no evidence of 'Nazi uniforms' on the News of the World's video. No doubt this was added to make the story more sensational and to attack the memory of his great father. Max Mosley says he is considering suing the paper for a 'wholly unwarranted intrusion into my private life'. (The far right Daily Express itself owned by a pornographer reproduced the story). The Tory News of the World is itself immoral so shouldn't judge others. Max Mosley is not a politician. It should be remembered that Max defended his father when physically assaulted by Reds and Yellow Star/62 Group thugs at an East London Union Movement rally in 1962.
Granted White African states are no more but the White Dominions of European descended majority populations still exist. The wage-price mechanism and workers ownership of industry or syndicalism can function side by side.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/3003_nazi_orgy.shtml

It is a hard enough uphill struggle as it is without the breaking news on the above News of the World link. Yet another opportunity to defame Oswald Mosley's memory albeit by way of exposing the extra-curricula activities of one of his sons.
I wonder what Nicholas Mosley would have to say after revealing the private life of his father in two books ... 'Rules of the Game' and 'Beyond the Pale'.

To answer your last question, Hermes, European Action, like Union Movement, calls for Europe a Nation. That means a completely unified Europe with a central government. That is more than a 'mere' federation.
Europe must become a unitary force in the world.

From the Editorial of European Action number 15 (March/April 2008):

PERILS OF ‘INDEPENDENCE’ IN KOSOVO
The Americans are sticking their noses into Eastern Europe again and they are the main exponents of the break-up of Serbia. This is intended to provoke Russia, of course. As Kosovo is historically a part of Serbia it would have been constitutionally correct to have consulted Serbia first, instead of this so-called spontaneous uprising by the people with their new flags and banners supplied by the CIA.
President Bush now dictates the destinies of the European peoples so that they can be sucked into the globalist morass with the World Bank pulling all the strings.
Kosovo will be no more independent than when it was tied to Belgrade. That is the fate of petty nationalism.

Edited by author 17-03-2008 23:00
Change of subject if you don't mind, but Robert you mentioned what sounds like a pro-Russia policy a post or two ago. In that regard whats your declared view of Kossovo's declaration of independence? (Rejected of course by Russia) I rather think the UK's legitimising of the further break up of Serbia was a mistake, not least for the precedent it sets. Of course America was one of the first nations to recognise Kossovo. What is their agenda?
Presumably we don't want the Balkans becoming a set of ever smaller statelets which are less and less economically viable. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Union reject petty nationalisms of any variety
within Europe? Could you clarify that the Union Movement does not just want a 'mere' federation of Nations?

Thank you Robert, that clarifies the situation. Syndical ownership of industry and the Wage-Price mechanism are complementary not alternatives. There was another party (beside the Anarcho-syndicalists) who embraced a degree of syndicalism and that was the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). The problem was you had to embrace all their internationalist clap-trap at the same time.

Edited by author 15-03-2008 16:54
From an article by OM in the National European of 1964:

"The wage-price mechanism could secure that throughout Europe the same rate is paid for the same job, thus eliminating unfair competition; also that wages, salaries and fair profit are progressively raised as science increases the means to produce, thus preventing slumps and unemployment by a proper balance between production and consumption. It will be found that no reform short of these measures will prevent recurrent economic crises and that such a policy is impossible without the economic leadership of European government within the system of Europe a Nation".

Syndicalism is the policy promoted by European Action as the only fair way to run industries. FG is right. The only alternative to workers' control is the bungling of a state bureaucracy or the old capitalist parasitism involving absentee shareholders who have no working connection to the industry.
The wage/price mechanism is a method of Government leadership in the area for maintaining a parity between wages and prices which can only be achieved within a self-sufficient economy free of international competition.
Syndicalism, on the other hand, is the method of running industry in a fair and equitable way. Workers' control within the wage/price mechanism.
So you see, European, the wage/price mechanism does not replace Syndicalism. They complement each other.
European Action is bringing out an exact facsimile of the 1953 pamphlet, A Workers' Policy Through Syndicalism, to be available to all readers of the paper. It remains a good read to this day and just as relevant.
Many more Union Movement pamphlets in facsimile format will be published by us in the coming months.

European, there is no longer a white Africa and no more a white Commonwealth. Africa has thrown out the white man and what is left has no future under black rule. We should now be looking towards Russia as an extension of Europe a Nation. Years ago in 1979, I wrote an article 'From Lisbon to Vladivostok' with that idea in mind. This, then, in the days of the old Soviet Union.
Jean Thiriart always wanted to make a deal with Soviet Russia along those lines. Now that we can truly see the real nature of American administrations, it seems the only sensible expression of 'Real Politik'. Another advantage would be being on the same land mass.

Edited by author 15-03-2008 15:58
I always looked at the Wage-Price mechanism as a fast fix measure to establish some of the benefits of syndicalism right away until syndicalism proper was being established.

This is the only area which I felt some disagreement with OM's later views, he said that so long as working people were getting good wages they wouldn't care who owned industry. Yes, but someone has to own industry and the only other alternatives to the employees is the state or absentee capitalist shareholders. We know the first doesn't work because it destroys initiative, enterprise and incentive and capitalism by definition means someone other than the workers taking the profits.

Also, of equal importance, the actual 'sense' of owning the company you work for is of tremendous psychological importance in engendering initiative, loyalty and common purpose among the work force.

Mosley advanced beyond syndicalism (as he had beyond the pre-war Corporate State) to the simpler concept of the wage-price mechanism. European Government should intervene to raise wages and lower prices throughout Europe. Of course when a business has grown too large for control by the founder or his descendants and has become a monopoly combine owned by absentee shareholders, these should be bought out and control handed over to a syndicate of the workers.
Mosley was also right to propose that Africa should be divided between white and black living as friendly but seperate cultures, nations and governments. Independent white states should be established in Southern Africa. Whites and blacks are suffering under Mugabe's brutal Marxist regime in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). Increasing numbers of whites are fleeing to Europe. The article on Ian Smith in the latest issue of European Action was timely. The British Isles, mainland Europe and 'Europe overseas': the White Commonwealth and White Africa, with close co-operation and barter agreements with the Syndicalist countries of Latin South America, with their large populations of European origin can become the greatest civilization mankind has ever known.

The John Lewis Partnership has its own website. It is worth a visit.