This is the blog of Robert Edwards, the editor of European Socialist Action, the paper of EUROPEAN ACTION. This blog will feature articles published in European Socialist Action for the purpose of eliciting comment ... so give us your comments. All material is copyright protected. Enquiries to: email@example.com Website: europeanaction.com (click on front pages for link) This is europeanaction.blogspot.com
Monday, 26 December 2011
The Greater Europe ... or Little England
European Socialist Action No 37
Oswald Mosley speaks in Shoreditch, East London, 1960s
Actionstands for the complete
integration of Europe as an economic and political unitary power.
This is clearly a continuation of the policy of Oswald Mosley’s
Union Movement, two of which former members are writing in this
current issue of EA’s European
Socialist Action. Yet another former
member is further mentioned in a report detailing recent interviews
with an American university’s history department. There is no other
group, with or without a regular publication, that can claim to stand
firm and square for this policy and we therefore claim to be unique
and original in that regard.
for us the compromise or flirtation with right wing nationalism, that
reactionary throw-back to the days of Empire, that refuses to
acknowledge the world has changed since the sun set on it long ago.
Not for us the semantic juggling with terms that pretend to be
‘European’ but are, in fact, a cop-out through the fogginess and
confusion of garbled talk of ‘confederations’ and loose alliances
that mean, in reality, no unity at all.
wing nationalists, which includes all Eurosceptics and enemies of
European unity (‘nationalism’ being an essentially generic term)
presuppose we each possess, as separate countries, something called
that the waving of a flag and the face of a monarch or a president on
a bank note mean, through such symbolism alone, these things become a
reality. Wishful thinking or deluded dreaming? A bit of both, I
wing fringe parties hold onto their only version of an economic idea
which is expressed through that tired and worn-out demand, “We want
to go it alone and choose who we trade with in the world and not be
told by Europe”.
very good if you have the vast resources of something the size of the
British Empire at its height ... but all rather pathetic when you are
left high and dry as a set of weather-beaten little isles in the
North Sea with nearly all your major industry gone in the click of
Margaret Thatcher’s finger and thumb. What on earth are these silly
little ‘patriots’ going on about? Trade with whom we choose? How
is little Albion going to compete successfully on world markets
against the likes of China or India ... or do they have “a cunning
plan”, as the unfortunate Baldrick would occasionally inform his
master in the BlackadderTV
British far right does not like economics ... or, as one of them
informed me some time ago, “Economics is Marxist – commie
rubbish”. Anything is “rubbish” if you do not understand it.
This is probably the reason why parties like the BNP have no economic
policy to speak of, apart from a childish fantasy called ‘national
autarky’, getting everyone to dig for victory ... as they are so
fond of wartime metaphor. The idea of the allotment gets a revival in
the BNP’s book of economic self-sufficiency ... grow your own!
have to ask yourselves, why do they persist with this “rule
Britannia” nationalism in the face of all the evidence that ‘little
Britain’ would never work as a so-called sovereign power? First of
all, no sovereignty in the big, bad wide world and, second, no power
with your industry spent and the East taking over your former glory
in industrial terms.
do they hate Europe so much? Let us have a look.
our history of Britain in the last few hundred years it was
inevitable that myths and legends would be created on the strengths
of the many achievements of exceptional individuals. We were the
‘work shop of the world’ during that period called the Industrial
Revolution when British capitalism could exploit the vast resources
of overseas empire ... but the social cost was enormous when the
ordinary people were often treated worse than animals down mines, in
factories and up chimneys. The ‘subjects’ in our overseas
territories were regarded as less than human. All of this, in order
that Britain could be ‘great’. The few became exceedingly wealthy
and the many were to become the downtrodden industrial working class.
ordinary British people who nearly broke their backs under horrendous
conditions were kept in such dire poverty that none had the
purchasing power to consume all that they produced here in Britain.
Instead, overseas markets were created which created conflict with
other European powers equally keen on exploiting the foreigner.
Competition on such a scale ultimately led to war because, let us
face it, all wars are economic (that dirty Marxist word).
the 20th Century, we had two catastrophic world wars with European
brother against European brother or, if you like, the workers
fighting other workers. After the First World War there was an
attempt to right the wrongs that had led to the massive slaughter in
places like Flanders with both communism and fascism offering answers
to the crises of capitalism in the 1930s. Indeed, the ideas of
national self-sufficiency, tied to vast imperial resources, as
proposed by ‘the Modern Movement’ in various countries, was the
nearest to a real threat to an international system of finance that
manipulated the money supply within international competition. With a
toss of the coin, fascism lost and had to go ... with another war in
problem of fascism in the 1930s was that it was ultra-nationalistic,
which was another factor that could lead to war. Oswald Mosley came
to that conclusion shortly after the Second World War. An alternative
had to be found.
terms of economic practice, fascism became totally redundant with the
loss of Empire, as a direct consequence of the Second World War.
Without the vast resources of an overseas empire, self-sufficiency
was impossible and we were back to competing against other countries,
keeping wages down in order to keep costs down. Mosley wanted to
organise the economy in a way that an insulated economy could create
a home market for all that it produced but this could only be
achieved on a large scale. Small, isolated countries could never
alternative was Europe, along with areas of the world known then as
the ‘white dominions’ ... Canada, Australia, New Zealand and
South Africa. They were to be brought into Mosley’s idea of Europe
a Nation on the basis of European kinship alone. That kinship, as it
was, no longer exists as each ‘dominion’ gene-pool became infused
with extra-European peoples and they traded with areas nearer to
them. Australia with the Pacific Rim, for example.
principal aim of Europe a Nation is the elimination of crises and
depressions by striking a balance between production and consumption,
putting the money into the pockets of the workers to buy back the
goods they make as fast as science can increase the means to produce.
Mosley called it the wage/price mechanism. This could only operate
within a large insulated economy free of the vagaries of
international competition ... which would mean an end to ‘free
trade’ that has so long ruined this country of ours.
industry should be under workers’ ownership with all having a stake
and a share in the running of each industry. This would correct the
previous injustices of capitalist exploitation. No more workers
versus the bosses.
a Nation would mean the elimination of racial and national hatreds,
the product of many centuries of competitive warfare and religious
strife. No single nation-state would ever again attempt hegemony over
the rest ... Europeans must be
must have an ever-expanding European economy creating a demand for
skilled and trained people such as scientists, technicians,
engineers, teachers, physicians, architects and so on. Science shall
serve the workers’ state.
will be the abolition of unemployment with the right of every
European to work, leisure and education.
all this, we will need a system of planning, the main purpose of
which will be the ordered development of Europe’s resources,
ensuring no waste.
call this European Socialism where strong, democratic government
leads the economy, intervening where it matters but giving power and
responsibility to the workers in their places of work. Who do we mean
by ‘workers’? It must be those who toil by both hand and with
brain, the operative or worker working alongside elected managers and
supervisors. It also includes people like buyers and statisticians.
In other words, the entire team in a going concern, working together.
It can not be otherwise.
do we arrive at this when we have to contend with the greatest
political obstacle to Europe a Nation – nationalistic
thinking. Right wing nationalist thinking being its worst expression.
This does not belong exclusively to the fringes of British politics.
Oh, no. It exists within the Establishment and in the Tory Party, in
particular. Again, these people are the great exponents of free
trade, the doctrine on which international competition is based. It
is a free for all whereby those who keep costs down by keeping wages
low have a fighting chance of winning. Those who want to give workers
a fair deal do not stand a chance. Well, that is the Tories for you
... minimum wage, a horror of horrors to them. They will use all the
claptrap of jingoistic nationalism, “we’re all in it together”
and “do it for Britain” ... when, in fact, they are doing it
purely for themselves while loafing about in their gentlemen’s
I said, those who want to give the workers a fair deal do not stand a
chance ... under this system.
It will always be like this so long as we are part of the
international free for all now known as globalism. They call it the
“world economy”, rather blowing the gaff on the idea that each
country’s economy is its own. It also makes a mockery of the policy
these nationalistic people peddle concerning “trading with whom we
choose”, as if it is all a nice, friendly game with fair rules. It
is not. Co-operation notcompetition.
you have the worst of all, this conspiracy by private banking to
create a national debt in each country, building a monopoly on the
control of money so that governments are helpless in the grip of
all of government policy is reduced to a single objective ... not the
improvement and betterment of the lives of ordinary people, the
people who elected the government, but this over-riding push to
reduce a phantom borrowing deficit, then something is gravely wrong
in the world.
your ordinary man or woman in the street to whom do we owe this
incredibly vast amount of money and they can not tell you. Even
though they do not know, they go along with it. Never question it.
the core of it is private banking or, more precisely, the system
of private banking which aim is to
control the world’s money supply. Sometimes called the Rothschild
model of banking, it seeks to take away from governments the means
for creating and distributing money. It is created through borrowing
from private banks and must be paid back at interest.
such, all central banks must surrender their national purpose to an
international purpose, hence the wars with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
and a few more lined up. Why? ... because all these countries
had central banks completely independent of the Rothschild usury
model. This is developed further in the article on the back page from
an American writer.
is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for a fully united Europe
with its own government and its own banking system whereby the
European people’s government controls the money supply
through a European credit bank not based on usury but on a regulated
need to maintain that balance between production and consumption.
Private banking would end and so would the external National Debt.
need the strength and power of a super state like Europe a Nation,
big enough to defend itself from the New World Order’s dirty
tricks, which acts as the military wing of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, pushing countries into debt slavery and
then dictating how those countries regulate fiscal policy with
threats if they default. Meanwhile, public services are sacrificed
first as an ‘austerity measure’ while those that are responsible
for economic crises, the private banks, accept public bail outs and
then continue to award themselves massive bonuses. If you have two
luxury yachts why do you need a third? Why all this greed?
do we allow ourselves to be treated this way and why is it allowed to
go on? The answer, my friends, is that all governments in the West
are in thrall to these financial institutions and are there to serve
them and not us.