Discussion Forum for Readers and Supporters of European Action

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,

>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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?