Discussion Forum for Readers and Supporters of European Action

Thank you Robert, I must confess I believe in Darwin's theory and ever more will do so, to which I must confess that his theory has not caused any wars or evile treatment to any ones opinions that do not fall in line
with faith doctrine's. Under various faiths millions have been murdered for non belief of individual invented Gods. I find it quite remarkable for people to throw darwin's views in the bin, while unable to present any proof of super human Gods who have over many years produced evile spokesmen
that are still respected.

European Action believes in complete religious toleration. As such, we should respect those religious people who contribute to society in many ways including an ethical influence. This is the greatest contribution of genuinely religious people.
Religiosity is the human feeling that there is something greater than all of us. This human feeling is shared by both Christians and Muslims.
In response to another comment by 'a european person', we do not condone ideas of racial supremacy. Races are different, that is true, but each race holds within it its own inner worth. It is right for them.
We need religion more than ever in this liberal secular society that is responsible for the near-total degeneracy of the West. We need a strong morality that only a really dynamic religion can inspire.
Secular atheism has been a curse.

Religion is a super natural belief which may have been invented by crackpots, why did God or Gods make us differant? Some are white some are black, the Black African as a smaller brain than the white european. If that is correct then faith is another con tric created by some form of God that demands that the cracpot was Darwin. I'm an athiest and want equal laws and treatment for all, religion should have nothing to do with Law,
or education, it should be kept at home behind closed doors, as it can be offensive. I'm against fixed marriage which should not be allowed,like women treated as second class citizens, what sort of gods are we dealing with?

Edited by author 05-07-2008 21:30
Sharia law would work on a two tier system along with English secular law. English secular law as enacted by Parliament would be paramount regarding the more serious offences.
There is no reason why Sharia law should not be applied within Muslim communities just as the deliberations of the Beth Din are accepted by religious Jews.
Atheists have no religion, therefore they can not have religious laws. They have only English secular law.
I agree with FG. A religion must be defined by the number of its adherents. Otherwise you have crackpots inventing religions every five minutes.
Let us maintain a sense of proportion, please.

As for the 30.000 or more look it up on the internet, So would it be correct in saying our law (other than British) should be carried out because we are not interested with yours. Please look beyond any faith and say this is our Law take it or leave it, don't go to Isreal and try and change there faith or Law, Christian or Muslim.

As Atheists have no religion they obviously don't need religious courts. A religion should have a reasonable number of adherants in order to qualify for having its own religious courts, something that clearly does not apply to all but half a dozen of the 30,000 different religions you mention. Incidentally, who says there are 30,000. Who counted them?

That being the case, there are at least 30.000 differant religions will they all qualify for the same respect as the two faith laws you have mentioned? Should athiest have the right to differant laws?

Sharia law applies only to Muslims. It can not be 'imposed' upon non-Muslims. This is something that needs to be made clear.
The Jewish community has the Beth Din which is an exclusively Jewish ecclesiastical court that rules on many aspects of Jewish life. The Beth Din has no jurisdiction over Christian life.
I see no reason why British Muslims should not have recourse to Sharia law when it comes to domestic issues. It is said that Sharia law is less time-consuming that the racket monopolised by lawyers in this country.
Laws concerning the punishment for murder and rape remain the prerogative of British secular law as enacted by Parliament, of course. This is accepted by Muslims.
Any public debate needs to be tempered and conducted without the hysteria that the likes of the BNP would whip up. You will find the truth is not the horror and cruelty that some would like to misrepresent the Islamic way.

Robert, should sharia law be used in in Britain without any public debate
from the run of the mill workers and their adult family's

Two former subscribers are automatically banned from posting here for trouble-making and offensive remarks. The previous post may be one of those.

Edited by author 11-06-2008 19:08
Of course, when the Russians took over Poland and established a puppet communist government they also imposed major border changes.

Eastern Poland became incorporated in the Soviet Union whilst a large chunk of eastern Germany and the Prussian enclaves were transferred to Poland. In other words, Poland was 'shifted' westwards.

As a result, many of the Polish people are really of German ethnic origin so your Polish plumber could be German despite having names that read like the bottom line on an optician's eye-chart.

Although of interest, none of this is of great importance since the future lies in our new European citizenship and the many advantages that will be ours - so long as this common citizenship is along National European lines and not as part of the global capitalist community.

An MP has criticised the 'liberal elite' BBC for causing attacks on Polish people living in Britain. Conservative David Kawczynski opposes the BBC's negative coverage of 'soft touch' immigration of 'Polish White Christians' while ignoring the more 'controversial politically correct immigration from outside Europe'. Recent figures show just 8% of immigrants are from Eastern Europe, the vast majority are non-European from the Asian sub-continent and black Africa. The 'Daily Mail' recently revealed that 500,000 immigrants came to Britain last year.

Good for him ... he is, after all, 'one of us'.

Despite the sting operation Max Mosley has won the confidence vote in his FIA leadership.

An interesting development in the Max Mosley saga:

From The Sunday Times
May 18, 2008
MI5 linked to Max Mosley sex scandal
David Leppard
An MI5 officer has been forced to resign after admitting that his wife was a prostitute who took part in a notorious “Nazi-style orgy” with Max Mosley, the Formula One racing chief.
The intelligence officer, who cannot be named for security reasons, left the service last month after it emerged that his wife was one of the five call girls who took part in the sadomasochistic sex session with Mosley.
Exposure of the lurid orgy led to calls for Mosley, the son of Sir Oswald Mosley, the wartime British fascist leader, to step down from his post as president of the FIA, the governing body of world motor sport.
In an extraordinary turn of events yesterday, MI5 was forced to deny through Whitehall channels that the orgy had been a “sting” that it had set up to discredit Mosley. “Any suggestion that the service was involved in setting up Mosley is total nonsense,” a senior Whitehall official said.
The official did disclose, however, that one of MI5’s officers had left the agency after his wife’s involvement as a call girl in the orgy became known. “I cannot talk about individual cases, but we do expect high standards of behaviour from all staff at all times, both professionally and privately,” the official said.
“In any case where a member of staff is believed to have fallen below those standards, action will be taken.”
The officer is understood to be in his forties and to have served in the military before joining MI5, where he was involved in surveillance operations.
The disclosure is a severe embarrassment to Jonathan Evans, director-general of MI5, who is understood to have informed Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, and assured them the agency was not involved in any sting.
Questions will now be asked about why the service’s vetting procedures failed to expose the secret, which could have made the officer vulnerable to blackmail.
Mosley, who is 68 and has been married since 1960, is one of the most powerful men in world sport. His father was a hate figure who led the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s and 1940s. His mother was the society beauty Diana Mitford, a great admirer of Adolf Hitler.
When the story broke, Mosley said he had been told by a source close to the security services that he had been targeted in a covert investigation of his private life “by a group specialising in such things for reasons and clients as yet unknown”.
The F1 boss’s five-hour sex session with the five call girls took place in an underground “torture chamber” in Chelsea, west London. The Oxford-educated former barrister is alleged to have re-enacted a concentration camp scene in which he played the role of both guard and inmate.
The session is alleged to have involved prostitutes dressed as German officers and camp inmates. It was secretly caught on video by one of the call girls, who used the name Mistress Abi. Sources said it was Abi’s husband who worked for MI5 and that she sold the story to the News of the World newspaper for an undisclosed sum. According to the paper, Mistress Abi wore a Luftwaffe uniform during the session and oversaw beatings of Mosley.
In the video Mosley can be seen standing naked as Abi ties him up with chains before ordering him to lie face down on the bed. Later she screams: “Face down! Did I say move? We don’t want you comfortable.”
Mosley was condemned by Jewish groups and leading figures in the motor racing world. He was snubbed by the crown prince of Bahrain, who told him not to attend the Bahrain Grand Prix last month.
Sir Jackie Stewart, the former world motor racing champion, said that Mosley’s position was “untenable”. The Monaco royal family, the Grimaldis, have made it clear that he is not welcome at next Sunday’s showpiece grand prix in the principality.
Mosley has been unapologetic and has claimed that he needs to stay on to fight the Nazi allegations in a libel action. He denied the orgy had any Nazi theme and said it was “harmless” and “completely legal”. Disclosure of the MI5 officer’s role appears to be his latest tactic in a desperate attempt to save his job. “This is an astonishing piece of information, which I will pass on to my legal advisers,” he said last night.
The News of the World denies there was any collusion between itself and the secret services.
MI5 employs 3,500 people in the fight against Al-Qaeda and hostile powers and prides itself on its discretion. It has been horrified to discover that an officer has become involved, even indirectly, in a high-profile sex scandal.
The service will have been forced to conduct a thorough review of the officer’s work and personal life to establish whether he has put any state secrets at risk.
Security sources say that in any case where an MI5 officer or a close family member is involved in prostitution there is a risk that their integrity — and hence national security — could be compromised.
One official said: “Clearly there would be a conflict there for any member of the service. Prostitutes by the very nature of their business will be connected to people who are probably in the criminal fraternity.”
An internal MI5 investigation is trying to establish whether the officer knew his wife was involved in prostitution and whether he was involved in her business affairs.
The matter is also being examined by the Quest security company, run by Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Metropolitan police commissioner who investigated the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Quest was already working for the FIA when it was asked to investigate the Mosley affair.
Mosley is facing a confidence vote in a secret ballot of the 220 members of the FIA assembly in Paris on June 3. He has written to the presidents of member clubs painting a doomsday scenario if he is forced out of office. He says he needs to stay at the helm of the Formula One governing body until October next year in the interests of the sport.
The suggestion of MI5 involvement in the Mosley scandal will bring back echoes of the role that the spy service had in monitoring his father. Documents released by the Public Records Office in 2002 showed how the intelligence agency had planted unnamed informants inside the British Union of Fascists. They reported on him until his arrest and detention in 1940.

Thank you for your lucid answer to my question. I must agree with you that the free market model is not doing very well these days! In my kneck of the woods war, famine etc are just another opportunity to buy on the cheap. Sadly the rest of the world has been infected with the same US style of thinking! When we start to make something as opposed to making our living through taking in others laundry then syndicalism with have a very real role to play in the economy.

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.

In the 1970s Britain's dead-duck motorcycle manufacturing companies were combined into the Meridian Motorcycle Company which was owned by its work force along syndicalist lines. It really was a case of allowing worker ownership a chance so long as capitalism can't make a profit out of it. The experiment failed because Britain's motorcycle industry had fallen so far behind Japanese imports.

The only other syndical experiment in the UK is of course the John Lewis/Peter Jones/Waitrose partnership where the company is theoretically owned by the staff who all share the profits. I remember years ago talking to someone who worked at Peter Jones who said the arrangement was not a happy one for the staff who still 'enjoyed' low pay and management with the them-and-us mentality.

However last week I was in the Halifax bank when in trooped a number of check-out girls from Waitrose opposite. They were paying in their share of the annual profits and from what I overheard the average was about £2000.

Does anyone else know anything about the John Lewis Partnership and whether the partnership aspect works successfully?

I would just add to FG's synopsis that syndicalism as industrial democracy is the highest expression of social justice above and beyond both capitalism and communism.

As OM wrote in the piece from 'Mosley - Right or Wrong?' quoted below, there is no reason why existing European banks and building societies shouldn't be responsible for providing syndicates with the capital and finance that they need. They would of course have to operate within new laws created by the National European Government to prevent investment capital leaving or entering Europe without Government sanction.

I don't think OM distanced himself from Raven's syndical ideas, rather he developed them from the pre-War Corporations, to a more purist form of syndicalism in the immediate post-War period and finally to the 'Wage-price mechanism'. The latter sought to apply the benefits of syndicalism in a much simpler and quickerway, whilst orthodox syndicalism would still be applied to the then nationalised industries as a large-scale trial.

I've always favoured formal syndicalism ("Industrial Democracy") myself as it is something that ordinary people can easily understand and see the benefits of.

Edited by author 02-03-2008 10:38
For the benefit of the forum:

The problem of banking was seen by Mosley to be in the international trading system whereby finance could move money out of the system and damage governments. Banking as such could be creative if contained within an insulated economic system such as Europe a Nation. Currency exchange would also not apply.
As such, finance was free to operate under those terms.

No rudeness in my message. I clarified the purpose of this topic and gave you a choice. You took the correct course. Bye, bye.

Offered the choice and given your rudeness I'll choose the latter option.

Raven Thomson's 'Our Financial Masters' was pre-war British Union policy.
This forum is concerned with the post-war policies of Union Movement.
Now stick to the topic or go elsewhere.

Alright I think I see where your going with this, or rather where O.M. was going.You say you are only the drummer, does that mean you were once in the U.M. drum corps?

I know O.M. distanced himself somewhat from Raven's writings in latter years, but Raven's "Our Financial Masters" is essential reading concerning finance and money creation.

Edited by author 01-03-2008 22:21
All of these matters are for the people to decide. I am only the drummer.
Personally, I am opposed to usury so we could call on the services of the Bank of Dubai.

Seriously though, this from 'Mosley, Right or Wrong':

"Creative finance will have a bigger part to play than ever and can reap great rewards if it plays that great part in the national interest. All the traditional abilities of British finance and those of other European centres will be required to develop new enterprises in Europe and its overseas territories. This can provide them with bigger opportunities and in the end - when basic needs are satisfied - with bigger reward than the present speculative scramble within a dying system. Provided they so operate within the European system, banking and finance will be free. There will be no need to control these forces, once we have removed their power to take money from the country, which we shall do by creating a self-contained system insulated from world markets. After that, the energies of finance can only assist the country. It will get its reward from creative work and not from wrecking trade or government."

The incentive of profit would be retained for the creation of new enterprises ... which, when large enough, would be syndicalised.

Can I ask on what basis this National Investment Bank would make it's decisions concerning where to invest? Would they themselves be driven by the profit motive? If so would usury be involved? Or would they perhaps be centralised statist investment institutions with all the possibilty for sub-optimal decision making that would involve.
These are not rhetorical questions BTW.

I suppose the best existing example would be the John Lewis Partnership where the members of the partnership (the workers) are the owners. Profits are shared fairly and equally. A pension scheme is operated in order to look after 'partners' in retirement. In fact, the firm serves all the social needs of the workers/partners.
Investment for the long term is in practice with competitive returns expected on that investment. A National Investment Bank would suit that purpose.
There would be strict rules on who shares the profits. Only partners in the firm could benefit from these. No more dividends for absentee shareholders who have no working connection to the firm.
Ownership of the firm carries responsibilities ... that is to say, liabilities for the privilege of being workers/partners.
The devil is, indeed, in the detail and strict guidances for the structure, obligations and ethical code need to be formulated to avoid the abuses experienced in private and state ownership in the past. No more fat cats or directors awarding themselves inflated benefits, as you comment.
Do not confuse worker ownership with state ownership, either.

Robert, could you give some explanation as to how investment capital would be raised in worker controlled industries? Is the intention to have some kind of National Investment bank or Guild banks or to sell debentures or bonds for the public to invest in the business or at least lend to the business, presumably though without any 'say' in the governance of the business? (which in corporate companies today is a sham anyway, with directors not being prevented from awarding themselves fantastic and exorbitant benefits) Would the workers in a business be a form of 'partnership' and would they have limited liability?
Sorry to pose these questions, but such corporate investment and corporate government issues must be resolved to put into practice genuinely worker owned as opposed to state controlled businesses. The devil is, as they say, in the detail.

Edited by author 01-03-2008 16:33
That is, indeed, Andy Burn (ex-Royal Flying Corps, as well).
He was well known for sporting a straw boater in the summertime. He would egg on UM speakers with shouts of, "Rub it in, rub it in". His spirit was tireless.

Arno - The issue of globalisation and the dangers of free trade were so central to Mosley's thought that he discussed them in every book he wrote. Such as his great post-War book 'The Alternative' and 'Mosley - Right or Wrong'from the 1960s.

Changing the subject, in the picture at the top of this page, isn't that Andy Burns standing behind the Ford Anglia in a light coloured sports jacket with his arms folded? Andy was a senior civil servant who was responsible for establishing the framework of the welfare state.

Robert,

>Syndicalism as a theory has been used by all sorts of political colours and persuasions.

I can agree with that.

What of my other question???

>Could you please direct me to any of the writings by Mosley and friends were the issue of globalisation and free trade are discussed?

I would be especially interested in his ideas of trading blocs and also in his ideas on credit creation and credit channeling (for productive purposes).

Best wishes!
Arno

Edited by author 01-03-2008 14:21
Welcome, Arno. You and I have discussed this before.
Syndicalism as a theory has been used by all sorts of political colours and persuasions. In the United State, syndicalism means something quite different, as does corporatism. They use it as capitalist terms.
There have been anarcho-syndicalists as well as national syndicalists, most notably in the Spanish Civil War.
In Union Movement, and now European Action, it simply means workers' control in their own industries. By workers we include management and those who operate the administrative side of things. In our system it is in partnership with creative free enterprise.
The Marxists also use the term socialism ... but then so did Hitler. It can mean different things to different people but you can only understand it within specific contexts. For Mosley, it was European Socialism and clearly defined.
The creation of Europe a Nation along with the system of European Socialism combining syndicalism and free enterprise will surely be revolutionary ... without the excesses of earlier revolutions.

Robert,
 
A "linguistic" question:
 
I am intrigued by the mention of Syndicalism in the economic and political organisation model of European Action.
- I think I mentioned to you before that in my political background there was a considerable period of Syndicalism. I early noticed how Syndicalism had influenced Lenin's populism when manoeuvring for power go into power ("The State and Revolution" : "All Power to the Soviets" and his twisted cadre party ideas, as opposed to Marxist mass parties) as well as many Fascists (starting perhaps with Mussolini and followed by Mosley and Quisling), with twisted cadre party ideas and ideas of a functional democracy ("business based parliaments") rather than the ideologically based democracies ("Party based parliaments")
 
So far so good. I am however, somewhat puzzled over European Action's use of "Syndicalism" as a term for policy of a class-cooperation, i.e. corporatism. According to classic Syndicalism, this would describe a "post-revolutionary" ("post general-strike") situation and not at all describe Syndicalism policy under Capitalism. Quite the opposite since Syndicalism is famous for its uncompromising class struggle, and for its criticism of all kinds of bureaucracies (private and public).
 
Of course everyone is entitled to twist a language at one's pleasure, but I do find this rather inventive.
;-)
 
Best wishes!
Arno
 
PS
Could you please direct me to any of the writings by Mosley and friends were the issue of globalisation and free trade are discussed?

Edited by author 01-03-2008 13:04
It would need to be extremely generous to compensate for the educational and employment opportunities these people would forego were they to take up the offer of repatriation. Where would you suggest that money comes from?

I now believe that any repatriation scheme for the 21st century should be entirely voluntary. No one should be compelled to leave Britain and Europe. Generous financial grants could be offered to immigrants to encourage, but not force them to resettle in their homelands of their ancestral origin. Lucrative aid packages could be offered to co-operating Third World countries. This would be genuinely fair and humane.

I was not aware of that detail in Marley's career. I am indebted to you.

You seem to be unaware that the movement of which he was a leading figure advocated "return to Africa". Why or how his forbears ended up in Jamaica is not something I'm overly concerned about.

Bob Marley came from the West Indies. He did not come from Africa. Although you would claim Africa is his ancestral home from whence an Arab trader took his people.

You see Robert, I feel encouraging cultural awareness among the majority of the black population of Britain at least would not result in a back-to-Africa exodus. Those ideas did the rounds in the seventies, Bob Marley and all that. They came and went, not much more than a fad for them really. Nice little semi in Harlesdon with a job on London Transport - shanty-town outside of Lagos? No-brainer really is it not?

 
Succinct means briefly and CLEARLY. You didn't ramble on for ever. In order to explain a serious issue, you used comparatively few words but I would say it was explained most clearly. I fail to see the problem with the use of the word succinct. The other word I used was thorough,which means done completely, I feel you did that too. Therefore you nit-picking has been wrong.

Yes I am entitled to my opinion thank very much. If my writing appeared as dismissive retorts then I regret them but you really were not at that stage explaining what your policy would be in regard of repatriation. You have since done that.

Edited by author 01-03-2008 09:10
You are entitled to your opinion, Imperium, but I can find no 'elaboration' you claim in the six lines of post 256. In fact, you do not explain why you think my proposals are not feasible. Just a series of rhetorical questions and dismissive retorts.
Mosley's proposals around 1962 were presented at a time when Britain's immigration issue could be tackled with few problems.
Today, the demographic changes are such that immigration is no longer the sole issue. Assimilation and integration are now the over-riding issues, that and cultural identity.
I have suggested a different approach to that of the early 1960s because you can not repatriate people who were born here. Many have little knowledge of their parents' or grandparents' land of origin and know nothing but Britain.
So what do you do? You create a situation where they have a choice, as explained at greater length in my last posting (257).
By the way, 'succinct' is something very brief. 'Elaboration' is the opposite. You seem to have a problem applying them where appropriate.

Thank you for a thorough and succinct answer.
I don't treat other peoples as inferior BTW, I do believe that European civilsation is the greatest the world has ever known, though there has been important other ones. Can I also say that I feel your humane repatriation scheme might have been a good idea in 1962, but unlikely to succeed nowadays. The reason for this I elaborated in my last post.

Mosley said, "Send them back to good jobs and conditions". Why would we want to send them back? Because they do not fit in culturally? The reason large communities of people from a different culture are here is because the economic conditions at home were very bad and Britain opened the doors to them so that they might enjoy a better material life.
Now imagine if the Indian sub-continent and other parts of the 'Third World' had enjoyed booming economies all those years ago and those countries' populations had a good standard living. Would they have come here? Of course not.
So the answer is obvious. Lift these countries out of poverty and persuade them to join in with others in systems like Europe a Nation, freeing themselves from exploitation by the international trading system. Who would not want to go back home under those conditions? I include second and third generations who you say have conflicts of loyalty or are 'confused'.
The way to do it is by inducement, giving them the choice. It is gentle persuasion with a consideration for all those involved.
You have to stop treating people of other races and cultures as if they are inferior beings. They are not. They are different, if you like, but they deserve the same respect.
It is all very well these extreme right-wing groups like the Leeds-based British Peoples Party saying we are going to get rid every non-white person by force if necessary. You know that could never happen simply because the BPP has no chance of being in a position to carry out such threats.
The direction we go is to promote cultural awareness throughout Europe and then across the globe. The individual states that make up Europe a Nation would be encouraged to dig still deeper into their roots ... and that is how cultural identity is promoted. Such an atmosphere would awaken the cultural roots of all those who originally came here as guests and settled here. Then the proposal is that they resettle in their homelands ... because they want to and not because a small group of 'ultras' want to drag them all out at dawn and drive them to the ports in coachloads to be forced onto boats at the point of a bayonet. If you try anything like that it could easily backfire on you.
Feasibility is concerned with the practicable and humane means a regard for the feelings of others.

 No Robert, I do want to know. I do accept that whatever you propose would be done with the utmost sensitivity. The essential thing is, I don't know what it is you would do with the utmost sensitivity. Send them back to countries of origin, no you said you wouldn't do that. Allow them remain, well not quite I detect. Encourage some to go back and then encourage the others to integrate- well no, not really. What is it then? Europe a nation would mean no non-Europeans in Europe I gather, as the system functions. All well and good. But what of those already in Europe?
"Something that will work given all the facts of feasability", well that could be said of any successful project, but in what direction?

You mean you do not want to know what a 'realistic and humane policy' means.
It means something that will work given all the facts of feasibility. Humane means treating all people with respect and consideration, irrespective of their origins.

No Robert I'm really not twisting anything, I have no interest in that. I'm merely interested in exploring the issues, perhaps selfishly so, I apologise. I just haven't understood what phrases like " A realistic and humane policy mean"
Very well then,I won't be bothering you again on this forum.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 20:25
Imperium, you have sought to misrepresent me. I never suggested a Europe full of non-Europeans but I have conceded that some demographic changes are now permanent. This has been established in Dermont Clark's definitive article on the subject of immigration.
Get it right. In my response to Hermes I stated, "Your last paragraph is NEAREST to our position". On the other hand, a rigid racism with all the implications of forcing the removal of large communities and even ethnic cleansing is not part of our agenda. We need a realistic and humane policy that considers the feelings of all peoples.
The purpose of Europe a Nation is to bring an end to that impossible situation whereby all countries involved in international competition try to outdo others in the export of goods. Those that use cheap labour always come out on top and those that maintain a decent standard of living eventually lose out. Cheap non-European labour has always been encouraged by this capitalist system because low wages keep down costs.
In a large-scale insulated economy there would be no need for such tactics and Europe would be truly for the Europeans. Non-European immigration would end because the need for the importation of cheap labour would become redundant. We would no longer be competing on world markets but rather building up our home market.
Non-Europeans would then remain in their own countries or within their own economic union run on similar lines to Europe a Nation.
Again I state, the cultural imperative is higher than the biological. That was Mosley's position and it remains that of European Action. No one is compromising our essential European identity.
You have obviously not read the front page article in the current issue of European Action but simply twisted the responses on this forum.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 19:20
"Twenty or thirty years later, those who have migrant ancestry but are born here of parents also born here are generally thoroughly and doubly integrated ( by nature and by nuture) A dynamic modern Pan-Europa Party should welcome any person of any colour, of any ancestral stock, where by nature and nuture Europe is their only spiritual 'home'. Could anyone sensibly ask for more?" - Hermes. Strongly endorsed By Robert Edwards

So that's it then, E.A.'s position in terms of non-white members appling to join. But I do tend to agree with you, few would. Not I believe because they have anywhere else as a spiritual home, but because so many of them are spiritually completely lost and confused in terms of homeland, it's tragic really. What it doesn't mean is we have to compromise our "Europeanness" to accomodate their confusion.

"A European movement chock full of non-europeans would be about as authentic as an Indian Restaurant staffed by White Ulstermen."

"Biriani so it is"

No, I made perfectly clear in my last post I believe that were their to be a Europe run on the lines of European Socialism, although there would be some, there never would be a Europe full of non-Europeans. If workers are owners, why would they then want to go and get cheaper workers from elsewhere, it doesn't make sense. Yet it still gives the occasional non-European scope to come in and set up a smalll business to meet consumer needs. Guilds (Syndicate) membership being of such high importance, integration for established non-Europeans would have far greater imperative.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 06:47
You take a very realistic approach to the racial aspect of what it means to be a European, Hermes. To be commended.
I shall return to the views of Oswald Mosley. He has been described as a neo-Lamarckian and believed that culture was far more important than race. This is one of the major differences between us and the far-right reactionary nationalists. They are racists, pure and simple - their petty nationalisms based on extreme xenophobia.
There is no great concern on the question of being dubbed 'racist' and our position on the race issue has not been determined by any such pressure from the politically correct lobby.
Nearly all large-scale migratory movements in the last fifty years have been determined by economic factors ... that is why our main plank has been the propagation of an economic solution in the form of Europe a Nation and all the other large areas of the world where there exists a cultural bond between peoples.
Coercion is not necessary at all. It is a law of nature that everything is in a state of 'becoming'. Anything other will wither and die. And so it is with race. Mosley's main concern was that a very large number of people from very different cultures coming to Britain would create serious social problems, which events over the last fifty years have borne out. Illegal immigration is, of course, illegal and to be opposed on a legalistic basis. Who can argue with that?
Your last paragraph is nearest to our position and the only policy that could work.

Edited by author 29-02-2008 00:24
Are we reluctant to grasp the racial bull by the horn?. I can see the overwhelming concern that E.A is not portrayed as a racist group..what are people afraid to say? Should there be anything to hide?

Biological theories of race have been discredited, though there are always going to be 'average' differences between persons of different genetic blood stock, and us white men are not often top of the form on a particular trait, particularly in the arena or the sportsfield! Some say, even in the bedroom, which is a below the belt remark and defamatory!

However the European character of a pan-european movement does require its members to be European by birth and by culture, and this is an inevitable dimension to any 'national' movement, as would any African, Chinese, etc etc equivalent movement. If this 'dimension' was racist, then the very concept of nation would have to be racist, in fact the concept of race and racism would be racist! No, there has to be cultural 'authenticity'..and this does extent, like it or not, into politics. A European movement chock full of non-europeans would be about as authentic as an Indian Restaurant staffed by White Ulstermen.

Robert is right that a Europe movment would rarely be of interest to migrants i.e. those not born in Europe. In my experience even the children of recent migrants are rarely integrated because their parents hanker for the 'homeland' and they are still taught its language and culture imbibed at mother's knee; it doesn't take Norman Tebbit's Cricket test to prove that those who are born of parents who hail from another continent are torn between two worlds, and I'm afraid this is inevitable. They may be born here (nature) but they are not brought up usually in European culture (nuture). They are often thoroughly unhappy and when they are not actually protesting they are moaning. But is this anything to do with their bloodstock or 'race'? Of course not; this is purely about cultural alienation or acceptance, 'integration' and where people feel their 'spiritual' home is. Is it Europe or is it somewhere else? One does not have to categorise by colour or heritage, people very readily will adopt a stance..they make their own choice of spiritual home early on in their lives.

Twenty or thirty years later, those who have migrant ancestry but are born here of parents also born here are generally thoroughly and doubly integrated ( by nature and by nuture) A dynamic modern Pan-Europa Party should welcome any person of any colour, of any ancestral stock, where by nature and nuture Europe is their only spiritual 'home'. Could anyone sensibly ask for more? . Isn't that right Robert?

Edited by author 28-02-2008 22:05
The front page article of the latest 'European Action' (number 15) is a first-class analysis of the important differences between the stuck-in-the-rut 'racial demon nationalism' of the BNP and the principled stand of the National Europeans in keeping with Oswald Mosley's thinking. This article is an important policy statement and should be read by everybody who cares about where the real threat to European culture comes from. Other excellent articles include Dermont Clark's piece on the way globalisation thrives on the maintenance of world poverty. Agree with it or not, you've got to read it.

Thanks for that, European.

Well done for the latest issue of European Action which hits the nail firmly on the head with regard to the vast differences between the National European creed and the far-right reactionaries. The BUF's pre-war policy of an insulated, self-sufficient British Empire was perfectly viable in the 1930's. When we lost the Empire through brother's war Mosley's post-war Union Movement proposed that we enter a self-contained Union of Europe to restore our greatness. The BNP's anti-European policies would bankrupt Britain and leave us at the mercy of the financiers. Even in the Thirties Mosley stated: 'When we have power there will be no war for we shall make peace with Germany and Italy in a new union of the great nations of Europe'. He was a pioneer way ahead of his time.
European Action is right to say we should attack the government for its open door policy on immigration not the non-white immigrants themselves who are as much victims as we are of the exploitative capitalist system.

Sir Oswald Mosley greets a member of the Associate Movement of UM

Edited by author 28-02-2008 07:29
<<Imperium 239
Would you accept a black person in European Action?>>

I gave you my answer with no intention of being evasive. Your question presents an absurd hypothesis because why would a black person wish to associate with people who are essentially Euro-centric with all that this implies? The hypothesis is so unlikely that the answer you really want would be unreal. We have never had a black person wish to associate with us but if and when he or she does then we will see. I shall certainly not be offensive. Union Movement had an Associate Movement of Union Movement in which non-Europeans were involved.
If you want me to make a racist statement then you are going to be greatly disappointed. Racist views of the Stormfront variety are banned on this forum.
I must ask you to avoid multiple postings. If you wish to add anything then use the edit facility and add to your original posting. You should then await a reply if you need one.

Come Robert, don't be evasive. We're all friends here.

Edited by author 27-02-2008 21:45
<<Imperium 239 27-02-2008 19:46 GMT)
Would you accept a black person in European Action?>>

It is an offence under the Race Relations Act to discriminate on grounds of race, etc.

I am a supporter of Mosley's vision of Syndicalistic worker-ownership of larger enterprises, but the problem with such a system observed by economists who have studied the possibilites of such a system is the lack of larger scale capital investment when a business opportunity presents itself. Can I suggest the pension funds become totally owned by the Guilds and would therefore be at the disposal of our syndical businesses for investment. A fundamentalist free-marketeer may criticise, but I say that such investments certainly couldn't perform any worse for the savers than pension funds have in recent years, that would be impossible.

I am not so sure. The United States is continually upping the ante. The establishment of US missile bases in Poland is sheer provocation. I do not see the Russians attempting another Bay of Pigs situation.
Europe needs to make a positive decision over this. That is, to build closer and more friendly relations with Russia and to detatch itself completely from US foreign policy.
Unfortunately, we are governed by those who embrace US-led globalism.

Vlad Putin seems very much "old school" so he may oblige the wishes of America in a return to the cold war,I fear a stand off over this. The Balkans are still a tinder-box just as in 1914.

Edited by author 27-02-2008 09:40
I believe the American-backed Kosovan declaration of 'independence' is calculated solely to antagonise Russia. The Americans would like a return to the Cold War in order to boost the arms industry. I have always claimed the Americans have been the true terrorist state and the major threat to World peace.

Sorry to change the subject but the American backing of Kosovo confuses me, the obvious double standards of supporting a "break away state" is odd when in the good 'ol USA the southern states tried it war was declared. If the poor Serbians try to lodge a complaint will the USA and it's puppets launch a missile attack, again, who are the terrorists now?

The syndicalism of Union Movement was very clear. Only workers in a particular industry could have a share of the profits. It would be under their control.
It would bring an end to absentee shareholders who just hang around for their dividend without putting any work into that industry. They are parasites.
Why do you call yourself 'Blackshirt'? This is a forum for the post-war movement. We are not fascists.

How syndicalist was Mosleys vision? Would there still be the possibility of investment from and shares owned by those who don't work in a particular trade?

Hermes, your point is very relevant. In the pre-War Mosley policy devised by Raven Thompson, the industrial corporations of the corporate state were going to be owned and run jointly by workers, management and consumers.

Immediately after the war, Mosley came to the conclusion that these corporations could become too bureaucratic and streamlined the ownership of industry and commerce along simpler syndicalist lines. I think we should indeed consider the advantages of a close l