Posts Tagged ‘Trade’

William Blum on Socialism vs. Capitalism

September 19, 2017

William Blum, the long-time fierce critic of American and western imperialism, has come back to writing his Anti-Empire Report after a period of illness. He’s an older man of 84, and due to kidney failure has been placed on dialysis for the rest of his life. This has left him, as it does others with the same condition, drained of energy, and he says he finds writing the report difficult. Nevertheless, his mind and his dissection of the ruthless, amoral and predatory nature of western capitalism and corporate greed is as acute as ever.

There’s a section in the Anti-Empire Report, where he discusses the advantages of socialism versus capitalism. He notes that there were two studies carried out under George Dubya to see if private corporations were better than federal agencies. And the federal agencies won by a huge margin every time. He writes

Twice in recent times the federal government in Washington has undertaken major studies of many thousands of federal jobs to determine whether they could be done more efficiently by private contractors. On one occasion the federal employees won more than 80% of the time; on the other occasion 91%. Both studies took place under the George W. Bush administration, which was hoping for different results. 1 The American people have to be reminded of what they once knew but seem to have forgotten: that they don’t want BIG government, or SMALL government; they don’t want MORE government, or LESS government; they want government ON THEIR SIDE.

He also states that the juries’ still out on whether socialist countries are more successful than capitalist, as no socialist country has fallen through its own failures. Instead they’ve been subverted and overthrown by the US.

I think he’s wrong about this. The Communist bloc couldn’t provide its people with the same standard of living as the capitalist west, and the state ownership of agriculture was a real obstacle to food production. The bulk of the Soviet Union’s food was produced on private plots. Similarly, Anton Dubcek and the leaders of the Prague Spring, who wanted to reform and democratize Communism, not overthrow it, believed that Czechoslovakia’s industrial development was held back through the rigid structure of Soviet-style central planning.

However, he still has a point, in that very many left and left-leaning regimes have been overthrown by America, particularly in South America, but also across much of the rest of the world, as they were perceived to be a threat to American political and corporate interests. And for the peoples of these nations, it’s questionable how successful capitalism is. For example, in the 1950s the Americans overthrew the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz after he dared to nationalize the banana plantations, many of which were own by the American corporation, United Fruit. Benz was a democratic socialist – not a Communist, as was claimed by the American secret state – who nationalized the plantations in order to give some dignity and a decent standard of living to the agricultural workers on them. The government that overthrew Benz was a brutal Fascist dictatorship, which imposed conditions very close to feudal serfdom on the plantation labourers.

Which leads to a more general point about the emergence of capitalism, imperialism and the exploitation of the developing world. Marxists have argued that capitalism had partly arisen due to western imperialism. It was the riches looted from their conquered overseas territories that allowed western capitalism to emerge and develop. Again this is a matter of considerable debate, as some historians have argued that the slave trade and plantation slavery only added an extra 5 per cent to the British economy during the period these existed in the British empire, from the mid-17th century to 1840. More recently, historians have argued that it was the compensation given to the slaveowners at emancipation, that allowed capitalism to develop. In the case of the large slaveholders, this compensation was the equivalent of tens of millions of pounds today. At the time the plantation system was in crisis, and many of the plantation owners were heavily in debt. The slaveholders used the money given to them by the British government – £20 million, a colossal sum then-to invest in British industry, thus boosting its development.

This system has continued today through what the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal termed ‘neocolonialism’. This is the international trading system which the former imperial masters imposed on their colonies after the end of imperialism proper following the Second World War. High tariffs and other barriers were imposed to stop these countries developing their own manufacturing industries, which could produced finished goods that would compete with those of Europe and the west. Instead, the former subject nations were forced through a series of trade agreements to limit themselves to primary industries – mining and agriculture – which would provide western and European industry with the raw materials it needed. As a global system, it’s therefore highly debatable how successful capitalism is in providing for people’s needs, when the relative success of the capitalist west has depended on the immiseration and exploitation of countless millions in the developed world.

And in the developed west itself, capitalism is failing. In the 19th century Marx pointed to the repeated crises and economic slumps that the system created, and predicted that one of these would be so severe that it would destroy capitalism completely. He was wrong. Capitalism did not collapse, and there was a long period of prosperity and growth from the late 19th century onwards.

But terrible, grinding poverty still existed in Britain and the rest of the developed world, even if conditions were slowly improving. And the long period of prosperity and growth after the Second World War was partly due to the foundation of the welfare state, Keynsian economic policies in which the government invested in the economy in order to stimulate it, and a system of state economic planning copied from the French.

Now that Thatcherite governments have rolled back the frontiers of the state, we’ve seen the re-emergence of extreme poverty in Britain. An increasing number of Brits are now homeless. 700,000 odd are forced to use food banks to keep body and soul together, as they can’t afford food. Millions more are faced with the choice between eating and paying the bills. In the school holiday just passed, three million children went hungry. And some historians are predicting that the refusal of the governments that came after the great crash of 2008 to impose controls on the financial sector means that we are heading for the final collapse of capitalism. They argue that the industrial and financial elite in Europe know it’s coming, are just trying to loot as much money as possible before it finally arrives.

The great, free trade capitalism lauded by Thatcher, Reagan and the neoliberal regimes after them has failed to benefit the majority of people in Britain and the rest of the world. But as the rich 1 per cent have benefited immensely, they are still promoting neoliberal, free trade policies and imposing low wages and exploitative working conditions on the rest of the population, all the while telling us that we’re richer and generally more prosperous than ever before.

Back to Blum’s Anti-Empire Report, he also has a few quotes from the American comedian Dick Gregory, who passed away this year. These include the following acute observations

“The way Americans seem to think today, about the only way to end hunger in America would be for Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird to go on national TV and say we are falling behind the Russians in feeding folks.”

“What we’re doing in Vietnam is using the black man to kill the yellow man so the white man can keep the land he took from the red man.”

For more, see https://williamblum.org/aer/read/150

Advertisements

Donald Trump Predicted in Stephen Baxter’s 1995 Novel ‘Titan’

July 16, 2017

I’ve been making my way through Stephen Baxter’s SF novel, Titan, these last few weeks. Baxter’s a British SF writer, with degrees in maths and engineering. He applied to be an astronaut on the Anglo-Soviet mission to Mir in the 1980s, which went to Helen Sharman. He’s probably best known for his Xelee-sequence books. These are set in a universe dominated by the extremely advanced, but mysterious Xelee, who are engaged in a war across the entire universe with the Photino Birds, dark matter creatures determined to age and extinguish the universe of ordinary matter. He has also written other novels about a variety of parthenogenic humans, descended from a lost troop of Romans, a catastrophic flood in the Bronze Age, and the books The Long Earth and The Long War, about parallel worlds, with the late, great Terry Pratchett. His novel, Voyage, an alternative history in which NASA launches a final manned expedition to Mars, was adapted for Radio 4 by Audio Movies in the 1990s. He was also the scientific advisor for the 1990s BBC SF series, Invasion Earth, about aliens from the higher physical dimensions invading the planet.

Titan is also about a last, crewed NASA mission. This time its put together by a team of astronauts, space scientists and ground control crew as the Agency’s last, great space expedition before it is closed down following a shuttle disaster. It’s set in what was then the near future – 2004 onwards – in America increasingly falling into right-wing extremism, irrationalism and Christian fundamentalism. The leading politician and subsequent president, is Xavier Maclachlan, a Texan with standing on an aggressively anti-science platform. Here’s the description of the man and his policies on pages 284-5.

Hadamard was in Washington during the inauguration of Xavier Maclachlan, after his wafer-thin win in the 2008 election.

Maclachlan called it a ‘liberation of the capital’.

Armed militia bands came in from Idaho and Arizona and Oklahoma and Montana, to fire off black-powder salutes to the nationalist-populist who promised to repeal all gun control laws. In the crowd, Hadamard saw a couple of Ku Klux Klan constumes, a sight he though had gone into an unholy past. Come to that, there was a rumour that a former Klan leader was being made ready to become a future White House chief of staff. And in his speech Maclachlan appealed to the people to end what he called the ‘Israeli occupation of Congress’…

And so on.

As soon as Maclachlan lifted his hand from the Bible, US peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Africa started to board their planes to leave. Foreign aid stopped. The UN was being thrown out of New York, and there was a rumour that Maclachlan was planning some military adventure to take back the canal from Panama.

Army engineers – set in place during the handover from the last Administration – started to build a wall, two thousand miles of it, along the Mexican border, to exclude illegal immigrants. White it was being built, troops brought home from peacekeeping abroad were operating a shoot-to-kill policy.

There was chaos in the financial markets. Machlachlan had withdrawn the US from the North American Free Trade Treaty, from the World Trade Organisation, from GATT. Reviews of the country’s membership of the World Bank and the IMF had started – arms of an incipient world government, Maclachlan said, designed to let in the Russians. He had raised tariffs – ten per cent against Japan, fifty per cent against the Chinese – and world trade collapsed.

The Chinese, particularly, screamed. And so Maclachlan sent the Seventh Fleet to a new station just off the coast of Taiwan.

Meanwhile all the strategic arms treaties with Russia were torn up, as Maclachlan orderd his technicians to dig out the blueprints for Reagan’s old dream of SDI. In fact, Maclachlan wanted to go further. He was inviting ideas for what he called his ‘da Vinci brains trust’. The press was full of schemes for fantastic new weapons: smart remote sensors; dream mines that could shoot at passing traffic; smart armour that would use explosive tiles to deflect incoming projectiles; maybe even an electrical battlefield in which electricity-propelled shells would be zapped in by low-flying aircraft.

And back home, Machlachlan had cut off any remaining programs which benefited blacks and other minorities, and any funding that appeared to support abortion, which had been made illegal in any form.

Xavier Maclachlan was a busy man, and he was fulfilling his campaign promises.

Clearly, much of this is an extrapolation from the policies and attitudes of the Republican party and the American extreme Right in the 1980s and 1990s. Reagan had brought right-wing Christian fundamentalists into the Republican party, who had previously stood aloof from politics as part of a corrupt, fallen secular order. He had also begun to wind up government welfare programmes, particularly those aimed at benefiting minorities, such as Black Americans. Fears of an imminent apocalypse, social breakdown and Russian invasion, even after the collapse of Communism, had resulted in the emergence of the survivalist and then Militia movements, armed right-wing paramilitary groups. These had a bitter resentment of the federal government, which culminated in McViegh’s bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma. They also tended to be bitterly racist and anti-Semitic. They believed and still believe in stupid Nazi conspiracy theories that claim that the Jews are trying to destroy the White race through racial intermixing and that America is covertly controlled by the Jews through the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’, or ZOG. These groups and right-wing American fundamentalist organisations also believed that there was a secret, Illuminati conspiracy to create a one world Satanic superstate centred on the UN. Phyllis Schlafly, who was actually a Democrat, regularly denounced the UN as well as women’s rights. And one leading figure in the militias – I think it may have been Bo Gritz, who supposedly served as the model for ‘Rambo’ – stated that the way they would clear America’s international debt would be by minting a single coin with the legend ‘1 Trillion Dollars’. As for the Klan, there were a series of scandals in which senior Republican politicos were revealed as having links to or membership in the White racist terrorist group. The most notorious of these was David Duke in Louisiana, who is unfortunately still around and blaming the Jews for everything even today.

And political scientists and economists were predicting the rise of China and the other ‘tiger economies’, which would dominate the ‘Pacific Century’ even then.

Of course, there are things Baxter failed to predict, like 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. He also takes the conventional view that the various free trade agreements and UN organisations, like the IMF and the World Bank, are nice, liberal, benefificial institutions, rather than the way corporate America imposes its own neoliberal policies on the rest of the world, particularly the developing nations.

Not that the Democrats have been much different. Counterpunch has reported that Obama was considering removing the ‘No first strike’ policy towards a nuclear confrontation, and Killary has been every bit as aggressive in her stance towards Russia and China as the Republicans, perhaps even more so.

As for the White extremist and racist groups supporting the new president, all that’s different is that the Klan has been largely replaced, or subsumed, into the internet-based Alt Right. But the hysterical fear of gun legislation, promoted and lavishly funded by the gun manufacturers and the NRA, against the desires of the majority of Americans, and even the NRA’s own rank and file membership, remains strong.

It shows how long the attitudes held by the American right, and which led to the election of Donald Trump, have been around. Since his election, left-wing news sites such as The Young Turks, Secular Talk and the David Pakman Show have reported that Americans have become increasingly dissatisfied with Trump. Sixty per cent of the American public want him impeached. This dissatisfaction even extends to Republican voters.

Trump, however, in his racism, his isolationism, aggressive nationalism and hatred of the welfare state and women’s rights, is very much in line with the general political stance of post-Reaganite right-wing American politicians. Indeed, he’s so much a part of this political trend that, with caveats, his election – or rather, the election of someone like him – was predicted by Baxter over two decades ago.

No wonder an increasing number of young Americans are looking to progressive politicos like Bernie Sanders for leadership and the redemption of their country against a corrupt political elite and the military-industrial complex. And I fervently hope they win, and that humanity will continue to reach out to the cosmos in a spirit of genuine exploration and wonder, and not as another arena for warfare.

Daily Mail: Democrat Party WikiLeaks Information Was Not Hacked by Russians

December 17, 2016

Now this is a very strange story, as it seems the Daily Mail may just about have done some independent reporting, rather than just following the anti-Russian line the Clintonite Democrats and their allies in the media have been trying to whip up.

Strange days, indeed.

In this video from The Jimmy Dore Show, Dore and his guests discuss an article in the Daily Mail, which reports that Craig Murray, a former British ambassador closely involved with WikiLeaks, has come forward to claim that the material published by the organisation came from an insider from within the party, and not from Russian hackers. Mr Murray is the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was relieved of his post and then charged with misconduct, of which he was cleared. He is a close associate of Julian Assange. He stated that he was handed the material published by WikiLeaks in a wooded area of a park in Washington D.C. by a member of the Democrat Party, who was disgusted with the corruption of the Clinton team and the Party’s bias against Bernie Sanders.

This contradicts Killary herself, and the CIA, who have claimed that the material was obtained by Russian hackers. Murray states that the Russians may have hacked the Democrat Party, but they weren’t the source of the information published by WikiLeaks.

Dore and his production team discuss how the Democrats have tried to blame everybody except themselves for the leak, and for losing the election to Trump. The latest excuse is that the material was obtained after John Podesta, one of Killary’s aides, fell for a Nigerian phishing scam. You know, the type where a Nigerian prince or somebody claims that he has all this money lying around, which he would like to put into your account for safekeeping, if only you would give him the details. Dore makes the point that if the story was true, then it would raise the question of what a grown man, who was taken in by such a blatant piece of fraud, was doing holding a position so far up in the party. He also notes Podesta also lost of his mobile phone in a taxi, and it took a day for that to be returned.

Dore makes the point that all these comments and accusations about Russian hackers were an attempt by the Clinton team to deflect attention away from the embarrassing content of the leaked material itself. He concludes this piece by wondering if anyone in the media will now go to Murray himself for this side of the story. He bets they won’t.

Dore doesn’t mention it in the video, but Murray is a rare example of a high level civil servant with an independent conscience. He was relieved of his ambassadorial post as he spoke out about the brutal, corrupt nature of the Uzbek regime and made it very clear that he did not think her majesty’s government should be supporting such a despotism. This was at the precisely the time when the British government was very keen to support the regime, especially through trade deals, which I think were to secure oil contracts. Murray also has his own website, giving his profound and controversial views on international politics and its corruption. I also think he’s contributed at least one article to Counterpunch.

This article should also embarrass Killary and her team, as well as the CIA, as Hillary has been using the accusations of Russian hacking not only to attack Trump, but also to whip up hatred against the Russians and the independent media. She was so incensed about being hacked by the Russians – despite the fact that there was no evidence – that she wanted a military response. And last week the Washington Post ran a piece by Craig Timberg which seems to have drawn on material from the Democrat Party, Ukrainian Fascists and a pseudo-scientific eugenicist and biological racist think tank listing 200 different alternative news organisations and journalists. These were smeared as the promoters of Russian propaganda. Just as the Ukrainian Ministry of Truth has smeared independent journalists there.

Now Mr Murray has shown that this is based on another lie. It’s a lie intended to stop serious discussion about what is wrong with the Democrat Party, the corruption and mendacity of the Clintons, and which is adding to the plethora of other lies, bringing us dangerously close to war with Russia.

As I said, it’s a bizarre thing to say, but this time the Daily Mail may have done the right thing and the world a service.

David Tennant Reads Out Scottish Tweets Attacking Trump for Brexit Comments

October 27, 2016

Way back in July Donald Trump travelled to Scotland to open one of his golf courses. At the press conference there, one of the assembled hacks asked him what he thought about Brexit. Trump was very positive, stating that the strong pound had meant that Britain had lost trade. Now it was weak, trade would recover, and we Brits had taken our country back.

This annoyed the guid people north of the border, as the majority of Scots had voted to remain. In this clip from the American Full Frontal satirical news show, the former Doctor Who, David Tennant, reads out some of the tweets directed at Trump by outraged Scots. Warning – there is a lot of profanity, so be careful where you play it. As the Beeb used to warn audiences, it’s not really suitable for children and those of a sensitive disposition. On the other hand, some of the insults are highly inventive despite the obscenity. One of the show’s hosts, Samantha Bree, asks Tennant, as a former Dr. Who, if he could go back in time to stop people voting Brexit. Cue that clip from Dr. Who, of the Doctor explaining how he can’t go back in time to save people.

Here’s the clip:

Of course, it’s not just Trump’s stupid and ill-informed comments about Brexit that have angered people in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. He’s also managed to make himself massively unpopular by purchasing land and trying to get people evicted from their homes for his wretched golf course, in an area that already has far too many of them. Scots already had one good reason to despise Trump, quite apart the threat he poses to peace and any chance of international prosperity and justice throughout the world if he gets to be America’s next president. His remarks praising Brexit were just one insult too many, and so the floodgates opened to this wave of spleen and vitriol. Which he justly deserved.

George Galloway and Peter Hitchens on Blair and the Iraq War

August 30, 2016

This is another very interesting piece from YouTube, again featuring George Galloway. It’s not really a video, as it’s just recorded dialogue, presumably from his radio show. In it, he talks to the right-wing columnist and broadcast, Peter Hitchens. The two are from completely the opposite ends of the political spectrum, but on the matter of the Chilcot Inquiry and the Iraq War they are largely in agreement. Galloway acknowledges that he has profound disagreements with Hitchens, but also some overlap. Most of the talking in conversation is done by Hitchens, who makes some very interesting points.

Hitchens points out that, although the Chilcot Inquiry made Blair the sole culprit responsible for the Iraq War, there were many others involved, who have been exonerated, such as Alistair Campbell. Hitchens is not greatly impressed with Blair’s intellectual abilities. He states several times that he was only a figurehead, and the real leadership of New Labour was elsewhere. Blair, he contends, didn’t really understand what was going on around him. At one point Hitchens states that Blair didn’t really want to be a politician. He wanted to be Mick Jagger. He probably had the intellectual ability to be Jagger, but certainly lacked the necessary brainpower to be prime minister. He also argues that Blair was really only a figurehead for New Labour. He was found and groomed by the real leaders of the faction, who wanted someone who would be ‘the anti-Michael Foot’. They settled on Blair, and prepared him for the role without him really understanding what was going on.

Hitchens and Galloway also discuss the allegation that everyone was in favour of the War, and it was only the Left that was against it. Hitchens states that he was initially in favour of the War, but if he had the sense to turn against it in 2003, it shows that you didn’t have to have any great prophetic ability to be against it. Hitchens states that he feels that people were led to support the War, because of the myth of the ‘Good War’. This is based on the belief that the Second World War was a straightforward, uncomplicated struggle against evil. Ever since the War, our leaders have been fancying themselves as Churchill or Roosevelt, and casting every opponent as Hitler. They did it with the Iraq War, and they’re doing it now with the Russians and Vladimir Putin. They’re presenting Russia as an expansion power, and preparing for another war with Russia by sending troops to Estonia and Poland, when the reality is that Russia is not an expansionist threat and has actually ceded hundreds of miles of territory. Hitchens also informs Galloway and his listeners that Britain has actually sent troops into the Ukraine.

Hitchens goes on to state that much of the West’s destabilisation and attempts to destroy opposing regimes is done covertly, through the funding of opposition movements, the manipulation of aid, and – here Galloway supplies the words – ‘moderates’. This happened in Syria, where considerable damage was done before we started bombing them. But people don’t realise it, as this will never show up in a newsreel. As for how warmongers like Blair can be stopped, it can only come from parliament. Hitchens remarks approvingly on the way parliament stopped Cameron when he wanted to bomb Syria. Unfortunately, Hitchens concludes that turning Blair into an object of ridicule is the only justice we can expect. He is pessimistic about there being any tribunal that can bring war criminals like Blair and Bush before it, and so here there’s a difference between those, who have and those who don’t hold a religious belief. For religious believers, you hope that there will be an ultimate judgement coming. Galloway concludes by saying that he believes that there is such a punishment coming to Blair.

It’s an interesting dialogue, as the two clearly have pretty much the same perspective on the Gulf War. They’re both religious believers, as they themselves make clear. Hitchens converted from Marxism and atheism to Christianity, while I think Galloway has said that he’s converted to Islam. As believers in two of the Abrahamic religions, they share the faith that God does judge the guilty in the hereafter. Galloway is very supportive of Hitchens in this video as well. Hitchens states at one point that he’s going to publish a book on the myth of the ‘Good War’. Galloway asks him when it’s going to come out. Hitchens then replies that he hasn’t written it yet, to which Galloway then tells him to come on, as he wants to read it.

Hitchens is right about the manipulation of protest movements, humanitarian aid and opposition groups by the West to destabilise their opponents around the world. This is what happened in Chile and Iran with the overthrow of Salvador Allende and Mossadeq respectively. It happened in the Ukraine during the Orange Revolution, and I’ve no doubt Hitchens is exactly right about it occurring in Syria. The parapolitical magazine, Lobster, has been saying this more or lest since it was founded in the 1980s. It laments that very few, in any, academic scholars are willing to accept the fact that so much diplomacy and politics is done through covert groups.

I think Hitchens is also correct about Britain and the West always casting themselves as the heroic ‘good guys’ in their wars, though I strongly disagree with Hitchens’ reasoning behind it. Hitchens has made clear in his books, column and website that he believes Britain should have stayed away from the Second World War. He correctly points out that it was not about saving the Jews from the Holocaust, but honouring our treaty with the French to defend Poland. he also thinks that if Britain had not declared War, we would still have the Empire.

I’ve blogged before that I believe this to be profoundly wrong. We did the right thing in opposing Hitler, regardless of the motives of the time. The Poles, and the other nations threatened by Nazi Germany needed and deserved protection. Churchill’s motives for urging Britain into the War was that Nazi Germany would be a threat to British naval power in the North Sea, if they were allowed to conquer Europe. This is a correct evaluation. A Europe under Nazi domination would see Britain pushed very much to the periphery. The Nazis believed that it was control of the Eurasian landmass which would determine future economic and political power and influence. If Britain was deprived of this, she would eventually stagnate and decline as an international power.

Nor do I believe we would have kept the Empire. The first stirrings of African nationalism had emerged before the Second World War. Ghana had taken a momentous first step in being the first African colony to have indigenous members of its governing council. The Indian independence movement had been growing since the 19th century, and was gathering increasing support and power under the leadership of Gandhi. Orwell, remarking on a parade of Black troopers in French Morocco in the 1930s, stated that in the mind of every White man present was the thought ‘How long can we keep fooling these people?’ The War accelerated the process of independence, as, along with the First World War, it taught the indigenous peoples of the Empire that the British alongside whom they fought were not gods, but flesh and blood, like them, who suffered sickness and injury. The War also forced the pace of independence, as Britain was left bankrupt and exhausted by the War. As part of their reward for aiding us, the Americans – and also the Russians – demanded that we open up the Empire to outside commerce and start to give our subject people’s their independence. This was particularly welcome to the leaders of the Jamaican independence movement. This had also started in the 1930s, if not before. It was partly based on the dissatisfaction of the Jamaican middle class at having their economy managed for British interests, rather than their own. They hoped that independence from Britain would allow them to develop their economy through closer links with the US.

I also think that the belief of most British people in the rightness of the Wars we fought also comes from British imperial history. Part of the Victorian’s legacy was the Empire and the belief that this was essentially a benign institution, which gave the less developed peoples of the world the benefits of modern British rule, medicine, technology and so on, while downplaying the atrocities and aggression we also visited on them. It’s a rosy view of the Empire, which is by no means accepted by everyone. Nevertheless, it’s the view that the Tories would like to instil into our schoolchildren. This was shown a few years ago by their ludicrous attack on Blackadder and demands for a more positive teaching of British history. Unlike the Germans, who were defeated and called to account for the horrors of the Nazis and Second World War, Britain has never suffered a similar defeat, and so hasn’t experienced the shock of having to re-evaluate its history and legacy to that level. And because Hussein was a brutal dictator, Blair was indeed able to pose as Churchill, as Thatcher did before him, and start another War.

Factory Councils and Workers’ Co-Determination in Austria: Part

June 28, 2016

Co-Determination Austra Cover

I’ve just finished translating a pamphlet I got thirty years ago from the Austrian embassy on the system of factory councils and co-determination there. Like Germany, Austria has a system where much of the work of the trade unions in individual factories is performed by factory councils, rather than shop stewards. The number of members in a council vary according to the size of the factory, and most members of these councils, as a rule, tend to be members of the trade union. These call meetings of the factory staff, and negotiate with the management about pay and conditions, as well as changes to working practices, closures and the like. There’s also a system of Youth Trust Councils, for employees, who are too young to vote for the factory councils. In joint-stock companies, the factory councils may, I think, also nominate some of the members of the supervisory councils, which may appoint up to a third of the members of the board of directors. As with Britain before Maggie started trashing such arrangements, there was also a mediator in the State Economic Commission, which would step in to make an award if no agreement could be reached between the employers and the factory council and trade unions. There was also parity commission, which was the Austrian counterpart to the British Wages and Prices Commission in the 1970s.

This is not an official translation, and I’m sure I’ve made any number of real howlers. It’s also nearly thirty years old, so please don’t take it as a guide to present Austrian employment legislation. I wanted to translate it, as a way of showing one of the forms workers’ control/ management representation has taken, and which could be a model for better industrial relations over here.

Co-Determination in the Workplace

The Constitutional Law on Work

(Vienna: Federal Press Service 1983)

“In the Interest of the Employee and of the Factory…”

The Austrian parliament unanimously passed the Constitutional Law on Work on 14th December 1973, which came into power on 1st July 1974. it is one of the significant sociopolitical laws of the Second Republic, as Austria has been since 1945. With this legislation the regulation of the collective rights of the workers, which were valid up to then, were thoroughly standardised, their present scope broadened and their basic principles improved as well as their details. The law has already been in force for several years. Up to now, the experience has led to further improvements reaching their goal, especially with the recent effort to put in motion reforms of the representation of employees.

Austria can thank the good cooperation of the employees’ and employers’ representatives for social peace and prosperity. Conflict is settled at the official table. It hardly ever comes to strikes.

One of the most important of this good collaboration’s assumptions is a worker’s right, whose principles are respected by both sides. The employment right has a considerable tradition, it was further continually developed and finally adjusted in a comprehensive manner to the challenge of our day with the passage of the new Constitutional Law on Work.

The factory constitution is regulated in the second part of the Constitutional Law on Work. It means to express here in a programmatic statement, that the declared goal of the factory constitution is to bring about an equalization of the interests of the employees and the factory. This is the guiding principle for the whole law. The legislator expresses with that, that there exists a natural opposition between the interests of the staff and those of the plant owners. Its execution should however, follow the regulated paths. The new regulations encountered offer the right instrument for that.

The Constitutional Law on Work is the first part of an entire codification of Austrian employment rights. It contains the decision on collective employment rights, as well as the employees’ organisations and their relationship to the employer. The second part of the codification will include individual employment rights, as well as perhaps the decisions about working hours, holidays, days off, protection of service, and the employment of women and children. It has been realised in sections. Up to now the regulations about leave were in force, further regulations, e.g., about the termination of employment contracts and compensation security will follow. The whole codification should combine the rights of the employee in a single work of legislation.

The negotiations about the Constitutional Law on Work has extended over more than a decade. It especially came to vehement arguments in the last, decisive phase between the employers’ organisations and the unions. The control of factory co-determination and employee co-operation repeatedly stood in the foreground, as it dealt here with very recent innovations opposed to the earlier legal position. Finally it succeeded in arriving at a compromise, which all those taking part could agree. The agreement reached amends to the passed legislation, that the Constitutional Law on Work finds in practice, not just according to the letter, but also in its spirit, according to application.

Collective Rights at Work

The Constitutional Law on Work is in force for all Austrian employees with the exception of officials in public service and employees in agriculture and forestry. The collective employment rights in force in the Constitutional Law on Work cover five great areas of rights above all.

* Agreements between employees and employers above factory level.
* Employees’ organisation in the factory and their rights.
* The role of the unions in the workplace – as far as these have been mainly regulated by law.
* Agreements between employers and employees at workplace level.
* The employees’ right to co-determination in the enterprise’s organs.
* Co-determination in social concerns.

Agreement above Factory Level

Agreements between the organisations of the employees and employers are concluded n the form of so-called collective agreements. Such collective agreements can only be agreed according to the determination of the law between the parties capable of collective agreement. The employers’ side as well as the side of the employees automatically possess the constituted legal representation of their interests (with compulsory membership) for the capability for collective agreements. On the side of the employers this is dealt with by the Chamber of Industrial Economy (Chambers of Trade); on the employees’ side, the chambers for workers and employees.

At the same time those organisations are awarded the capacity for collective agreements by the authorities on the basis of legal prescriptions, resting on voluntary membership and which, among many other things, the number of their members and the extent of their activity have decisive economic significance.

In practice no collective agreements are decided by the chamber for workers and employees on the employees’ side. This function falls to the Austrian Federation of Trade Unions and its 15 unions, which possess the capacity for collective agreements for all groups of employees. On the side of the employers collective agreements are as a rule decided by the Chambers of Industrial Economy and their sub-divisions, but there are also professional associations, which were awarded the capacity for collective agreements and which themselves make use of the possibilities resulting from this.

The Chambers of Industrial Economy

The Chamber of Industrial Economy are the corporate bodies of the public right, and represent the interests of industrial economy. All enterprises of industrial economy must belong to it on the basis of legal decisions and accordingly have to render a large membership fee.

There is a federal Chamber of Industrial Economy for the whole federal area, and a chamber of industrial economy for the land in question, in each of the federal lands of Austria. As well as the Federal Chamber of Industrial Economy, the chambers in the lands are also arranged in sections: industry, business, trade, foreign commerce, finance and commerce.

The functionaries of the chambers are elected by the members of the chamber in secret ballots, in which there an indirect electoral system from the smallest specialised groups at the level of the lands to the top of the federal chamber. The elections are made according to lists, which are as a rule arranged by the industrialists’ organisations of the political parties. The overwhelming majority in almost all organs of the chambers of commerce in all the federal lands is placed by that list, which is connected to the Austrian People’s Party.

The Trade Union Federation

The Austrian Federation of Trade Unions is an organisation of employees resting on voluntary membership. It is divided into 15 specialist trade unions, which are basically organised on the principle of the individual group. This principle has only penetrated, , when apart from the trade union for the workers in private industry there is also its own union for the staff. As a rule through this only two trade unions are represented in a workplace (one for the workers and one for the staff).

The Austrian Trade Union Federation is relatively centrally organised. As well as financial sovereignty, legal personality falls exclusively to the central institution. The individual trade unions are nevertheless responsible for the policy of collective agreements. The trade union federation has a comparatively high density of organisation. Out of 2.8 million employees, 1.7 million are members of trade unions. In many workplaces there is a hundred per cent organisation. Apart from the Austrian federation of trade unions any greater such unions, only similar to trade unions, exist neither in private industry or public service.

Within the Austrian Federation of Trade Unions itself there are, however, political groupings (factions), in which the trade unions members may meet the individual political parties. The organs of the Trade Union Federation and the trade unions are largely constituted on the basis of the political strength of the particular parties within the trade union membership. Accordingly the top functionaries of the Austrian trade union federation and almost all the trade unions come from the Austrian Socialist Party.

Collective Agreements

Laying down the area of validity of a collective agreement is basically the duty of the free agreement of the agreeing parties, which are concluded for ‘branches’, in which only one particular enterprise is active as employer, there are also general collective agreements, which comprise almost the entire Austrian economy.

The collective agreements are basically valid for all employers and employees, which belong to the bodies capable of collective agreements, which have concluded an agreement. On that point the collective agreement is also valid for those employees, which do not belong to the employees’ voluntary organisations, but are employed by an employer, who belong to the concluding employers’ organisation. As the collective agreements on the employers’ side as a rule are concluded by the interested parties’ legal representatives (with compulsory membership) and almost all the professional groups are covered, it is almost not possible for an enterprise to operate in a space free of collective agreements.

The present content of the collective agreement is naturally regulation of salaries. Austrian collective agreements respectively contain for everyone the minimum wage of their underlying employees’ group. This minimum wage can be changed through agreements at the level of the workplace or between the particular employee and the employer – though solely in the favour of the employee. Apart from that, in many cases agreements are concluded between the parties capable of collective agreements, that the wage paid to the individual employee at the time of the conclusion of the collective agreement – independent of its relationship to the minimum wage in the collective agreement – are raise by a certain percentage. These agreements in Austria are called wage rises, established by collective agreement. Regulations about the permissible system of performance wages and the method of their execution are often contained in the collective agreements.

Apart from regulations for wages, the collective agreements as a rule also contain decisions on the type of work and welfare rights. So most certain working conditions, regulations about working hours, free time, are concluded through collective agreements. Where these matters are also regulated legally (which today is almost the case in many cases and should be developed in the frame of the second part of the codification of employment rights), the collective agreements’ regulations can only vary in favour of the the employee, however, never to their disadvantage by law. According to the Constitutional Law on Work it is also possible, that agreements about the humanisation of the workplace and agreements about the common arrangements of the parties to the collective agreements, are secured in the sense of the protection of the employee from the consequences of rationalisation.

The Parity Commission

There are also agreements over price and wage policies in the frame of the very widely developed collaboration between the trade unions and the chambers of commerce in all areas of the politics of the social economy. The parity commission constitutes the institution for equalizing the interests in this sector for prices and wages. This institution, which has in no way legal anchorage, meets monthly under the chairmanship of the federal chancellor of the Austrian republic. Apart from members of the federal government the top functionaries of the employers’ and employees’ organisations take part in its conferences.

The trade unions have bound themselves to raise wage demands only if the parity commission opens negotiations. If a trade union wants to carry on negotiations by this about a new collective agreement, it must carry this wish above the Austrian federation of trade unions to the parity commission, that means, to the competent wages committee for it. There will commonly be consultations between chambers and the trade union federation, whether new negotiations should be permitted on the grounds of the terms of the collective agreement and the general economic situation.

The judgments of this system must nevertheless be clear, that the decision of the parity commission is practically never refused; the influence of the commission in practice merely extends, to that it can delay the point in time of the wage negotiations.

The Employees’ Representative at the Workplace

The most important employees’ organ in the workplace is the factory council. A factory council can be elected by the employees in every workplace, in which at least five people are employed. When at least five workers and five staff are employed at the same time, so in almost all cases separate factory councils for the workers and the staff are elected. There is, however, also the possibility, under certain conditions, of electing common factory council in such factories. Where there exist separate factory councils for workers and staff, these commonly form the factory council. In such councils a worker can be elected in the staff factory council, and a member of staff in the workers’ factory council.

The number of members in the factory council is set down by law. For five up to nine employees, a single member of the factory council is to be elected; from ten to 19, it is two, from twenty to 50, three members of the factory council, from 51 up to a hundred, four factory council members, and so on. In factories with 500 employees there are eight, with a thousand, thirteen, and with 5,000 employees 22 factory council members.

The factory councils are elected in a written and secret ballot of all employees of a factory for a duration of service of three years. Basically the system of proportional representation is used; in the smallest workplaces voting takes place solely for persons. To tender a candidate list for the factory council elections – varying according to the size of the factory – a number of signatures of those entitled to vote is required. In practice standing as a candidate is either through a list of names or lists ov candidates, who declare themselves for a particular political part. Lists drawn up by the trade unions are not usual.

Foreigners Also Vote

Foreign employees (of which at the moment about seven per cent of the employees active in Austria are foreign citizens) possess a fully active right to vote in elections to the factory council. There have no right to a passive right to vote.

As workers in the sense of the Constitutional Law on Work, employees belonging to middle management are also valid. Only managing and work directors of a factory and executive employees with similar wide-ranging powers do not fall under the conception of a worker and are from this neither active nor passive in the frame of the entitlement to vote in the employees’ organisation.

The execution of elections to the factory council is a duty of the electoral board, which is to be elected in a factory meeting. The factory council is also duty bound to render accounts of its activity regularly to the workforce in the frame of factory meetings (at least once a half-year). It can be recalled by the factory meeting with a qualified majority under certain conditions. All employees (i.e., the workers or staff) of the factory concerned take part in the factory meeting. The factory meeting can also be held during working time, if the factory owner is agreeable to this. It can be agreed in collective negotiations or at the factory level, that salaries will be fully paid for the time of the factory meeting; this is the rule in the most cases.

If an enterprise consists of several factories, a central factory council is to be established. The central factory council is elected on the basis of proportional representation by all the factory councils of the respective enterprise from their midst. It represents the whole staff opposed to the enterprise management in all questions, which go beyond the sphere of action of a particular factory. It reports to a meeting of factory councils, to which all the factory councils of a particular company belong.

The employer is bound to place at the disposal of the factory council space and working material, which it needs to exercise its activity. It is usual in Austria, for the factory councils to have in middle, and in many cases, also in small enterprises to have at their disposal at least its own room and corresponding office materials. In larger factories it falls to the share of the factory councils to have a clerk, whose cost is born by the enterprise. The factory councils also have at their further disposal financial means in the form of factory council funds. These funds are fed by a distribution of cost, the height of which is established by the factory meeting. It can amount to half a percent of the salary, that means, of the pay, and is deducted by the employer from the salary’s payment and transferred to the factory council. Apart from the organisation’s cost, social contributions are also paid from these funds.

The employer has to grant the members of the factory council the free time necessary, with the further payment of their wages, for the fulfillment of their duties.

Free Opinion Without Disadvantage

At the offer of the factory council, in factories with more than a hundred and fifty workers, one, in factories with more than seven hundred workers, two, and in factories with more than three thousand employees three members of the factory council (for the further three thousand employees yet another member of the factory council is elected) are to be exempted from the stoppage of wages for their capacity to work. The law prescribes, that these exempted members of the factory councils, who fully dedicate themselves to representing the interests of their colleagues, are in no way allowed to accrue to themselves disadvantages in pay or promotion.

Every member of the factory council is entitled to an exemption from work to take part in training and educational events, up to a maximum of two weeks in their three year term. In factories with more than twenty workers during this period the full wage is to be paid. In factories with more than two hundred employees a member of the factory council on the factory council’s application is exempt during the term of the factory council for a maximum period of up to a year in order to take part in training and education events – at any rate, without stoppage of pay. These decisions serve to give the members of the factory council the opportunity to acquire those perceptions, that they require for the better exercise of their functions. This stands to them as a rich offer to have at their disposal the employees’ organisation’s educational event.

The members of the factory council choose from their midst a factory council chairman. The members of the central factory council elect the central factory council chairman. The factory council chairman represents the factory council to those outside and convenes its sessions at least once a month. In the larger factories the factory council chairman is, as a rule, identical to the exempted members of the factory council.

Rights of the Factory Council

Apart from its common powers of representing the staff, the factory council is entitled to precisely defined rights in social, staff, and economic questions.

It has as part of its usual powers, the right to supervise compliance with legal prescriptions and collective agreements in the factory. For this goal the factory council is granted the right to inspect payrolls and lists of salaries. If staff actions are conducted in a factory, the factory council can take judgment through an agreement of the employees for the actions of the staff.

The factory council has the right, in all matters, which affect the interests of the workers, to propose appropriate measures to the factory owners or his competent co-worker and, if need be, the responsible agencies outside the factory. The factory owner is obliged to listen to the demands of the factory council, in all matters, which concern the interests of the factory’s employees.

The factory owner is further obliged to give information on all matters, which affect the economic, social, health or cultural interests of the factory’s employees. He has to hold common conferences with the factory council at least quarterly about current matters, general principles of factory management in social, staff, economic and technical respects as well as about the shape of working relations and inform it of important matters with that. Such conferences are carried out monthly at the demand of the factory council.

Co-operation in Training

The factory council also has the right to arrange and administer supporting arrangements for the benefit of the workers and those belonging to their families, as well as other welfare institutions. In the larger factories in many cases there exist such support funds from the factory council; in some cases these are paid in by contributions by the enterprise to these supporting arrangements based on agreements at the factory.

The factory council is further entitled to co-operate in the planning and execution of the factory’s vocational training as well as educational and retraining measures. It has the right to take part in the administration of the factory’s and enterprise’s own training and educational arrangements, as well as the administration of the factory’s and enterprise’s own welfare arrangements.

Vox Political: Simon Wren-Lewis on the Spectre of Fascism Behind Brexit

June 23, 2016

Mike over at Vox Political has also put up a very important piece by the economist, Simon Wren-Lewis, on the terrible racism and lies behind the Brexit campaign. He notes that not only has the Brexit campaign lied massively, the fact that their lies have been repeatedly revealed as lies does not seem to have stopped them or their campaign. Despite being repeatedly told the truth, the supporters of Brexit continue to believe that migrants are all a strain on the economy and the NHS. He discusses the way the centre right here and in the US are being taken over by extremist, populist politicians – meaning the Republicans and Trump across the Pond, and BoJo, Gove, Patel and the Conservatives over here, as well as the murder of Jo Cox, a politician, who stood against it. He also makes the point that this racism could become even more vicious and extreme if Britain does leave the EU, and the trade deals that the Brexiters have promised don’t materialise. He makes the point that Britain doesn’t have any immunity from the rise of such pernicious racism, and it cannot be allowed to pass.

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/06/23/euref-why-defeating-brexit-is-so-important/

Mike has illustrated this piece with a picture of Enoch Powell, whose infamous ‘rivers of blood speech’ is still referred to as a telling prediction of the truth by right-wingers like Nigel Farage. Mike’s absolute right here. The NF used to sell a Union Jack badges. Around the edge of them was written the slogan ‘Enoch was right’. In fairness to Powell, before he completely lost his sense politically, he had done much that was admirable. He was a member of CND, and in 1959 made a speech attacking the British abuse of Mau-Mau prisoners at the Hola Camp in Kenya. This is included in The Penguin Book of Twentieth Century Protest, edited by Brian MacArthur, pp. 254-6. He wasn’t personally racist, and could speak Urdu. Nevertheless, his speech, and his absolute opposition to non-White immigration, gave an immense filip to the racist right and other Conservative opponents of immigration like the right-wing journalist, Simon Heffer.

The prof’s piece is also interesting for some of his remarks of his commenters. Most seem to be Brexiters absolutely outraged that anybody could decently oppose their plans for Britain. But one comment especially caught my eye because of what it said about Maggie’s favourite economist, von Hayek.

The commenter quoted the ideologue of neoliberalism from a piece he wrote to one of the papers supporting Maggie Thatcher’s anti-immigration stance in 1979. Hayek claimed that respectable society in Austria wasn’t anti-Semitic, and deplored attacks on Jews, before the First World War. It was only when ‘unassimilable’ Jewish immigrants flooded into Austria after the First World War that attitudes towards them changed. The commenter states that this was also Thatcher’s attitude, and has been the attitude of people like the Brexiters ever since.

The commenter’s right, but I found von Hayek’s claims that there was little anti-Semitism in Austria before World War I unconvincing. Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf that he only became an anti-Semite after he saw a Jew dressed in a kaftan while wandering through the backstreets of Vienna. This was when Hitler was a tramp, and his biographer, Joachim C. Fest, has made the point that the Jew he saw was probably a refugee displaced from the eastern provinces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which stretched as far as Ukraine, by the pogroms which broke out in the late 19th century. Many of the ethnic German schoolchildren and younger generation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the late 19th century were Pan-Germans, wishing to unite with the Wilhelmine Empire further north, and with a racist hatred of Slavs and Jews. Discussing his experience of late 19th century Vienna, Hitler describes his admiration for Karl von Lugerer, the mayor of Vienna and leader of an anti-Semitic party. Apart from von Lugerer’s anti-Semitism, Hitler also admired his mastery of propaganda. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism increased in Austria considerably during the Council and Communist Revolutions that broke out there, as in Germany, just after the First World War. These were initially popular, but were increasingly resented after a series of church burnings. Many of the Communist battalions responsible were led by Jews, and although the Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere were militant atheists, who attacked and persecuted all religions, this was particularly blamed on the Jews. Gentile Austrians also felt themselves threatened by Jewish success in business, especially in banking.

Despite von Hayek’s comments, the rise of anti-Semitism in Austria was not simply a result of the sudden influx of ‘unassimilable immigrants’. It was partly due to the strained ethnic tensions caused by rising nationalism amongst the various peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and a reaction to the anti-religious activities of committed Communists during the 1919 revolutions. Nevertheless, von Hayek’s comments supported Thatcher’s anti-immigration policy, just as fears of unassimilable immigrants now fuel the Brexit campaign.

Labour’s Ernest Bevin and European Union

June 6, 2016

I’ve posted several pieces pointing out that the idea of a united Europe, or a European parliament, ultimately goes back to the Quaker William Penn in the 17th and 18th century philosophers and idealists, such as Immanuel Kant. In his essay, On Perpetual Peace, Kant advocated the creation of a federal European state as a way of preventing further European wars. The great Italian patriot and revolutionary, Mazzini, also believed in a federation of European nation states, dedicated to peace.

In the 20th century, one of the great advocates for European economic union in the Labour movement was Ernest Bevin. Bevin was one of the founders, with Harry Gosling, of the TGWU and the foreign minister in Atlee’s government after the War. At the TUC Congress in 1926, Bevin urged in the name of his union that a formal resolution should be passed

That notwithstanding the political divisions of Europe, this Congress instructs the General Council to further, through the international organisations, a policy having for its object the creation of a European public opinion in favour of Europe becoming an economic unity.
(Francis Williams, Ernest Bevin: Portrait of a Great Englishman (London: Hutchinson 1952, p. 149).

Bevin was a frequent visitor to the International Labour Office in Geneva, and helped to reform the International Transport Workers’ Federation after the War. His biographer, Francis Williams, considered that his experience of the profound economic links between workers in various countries right across Europe helped shape his internationalism and support for European economic union. Williams writes of his 1927 speech in favour of economic union for Europe

“Anyone who has had to follow the transport trades of the world”, he said, “realizes that while you may satisfy political ambitions by the establishment of boundaries the economic development of the world is often in total conflict with national aspirations. I recognise and my union recognises that national aspirations and national boundaries are bound to be a great handicap to us … but we also believe that if we are to develop nationally we have got to show our people unionism in terms of raw materials, in terms of harvests, cycles of trade and exchange…”

“We have,” he continued, “debated all this week as if Britain had no industrial problem to solve. But Britain has got a problem and it is no use attacking unemployment unless we try at least to make a contribution towards its solution and one of the complications throughout Europe has been the creation of a greater number of national boundaries as a result of the Versailles Treaty… The Labour Movement should carry on a great educational work in promoting the development of all forms of national culture even to the extent of political divisions and yet at the same time to inculcate the spirit of a United States of Europe on an economic basis… Cast your eye over Europe,” he went on, “with its millions of underfed, with its millions of people with a wretchedly low standard of living. We can have mass production, we can have intensified production, but we must, in order to absorb that mass production direct consuming power ot the millions of people in Europe whose standard of living is not far removed from the animal…. When we meet our international friends (let us) talk of the real problems of Europe in terms of materials, in terms of goods, in terms of the productive capacity of the peasantry, in terms of exchange, and drive along the line of endeavouring to create a feeling of interdependence between the production of the peasantry from the land of the craftsmanship of the workshop…”

Although in 1927 Bevin no doubt underestimated the political difficulties in the way of European Economic Union and was somewhat too facile in his belief in a United States of Europe this speech is interesting not only for its evidence of the widening of his own view of the duty of the trade unions but because the premises on which it was based remained all his life fundamental to his view of international affairs. They later deeply influenced his policy as Foreign Secretary, not least in his response some twenty years later to Mr. Marshall’s Harvard speech on European economic dislocation the full significance of which, as the Annual Register at the time commented, “was not realised on either side of the Atlantic” until Bevin “grasped with both hands” the opportunity it offered of American aid in initiating European co-operation and thus brought into being the Marshall Plan.

In 1927 he was thinking aloud, dreaming a little as he said because “to be a dreamer is sometimes necessary”, and his thoughts brought many angry responses from other delegates to the Congress. Some of them opposed him because they considered that it was the T.U.C.’s business to deal with practical matters and not waste its time on large visions of this kind, others because the idea of European union seemed to them to run counter to the old socialist ideal of an all-embracing international. To this latter argument Bevin replied belligerently that he was not less an internationalist because he was also a realist. It was fine to talk about a world-wide international. but that was far away. meanwhile trade barriers to Europe were keeping living standards low and big employers were developing cartels to safeguard their own interests at the expense of the community. His resolution was carried in the end by 2,258,000 votes to 1,464,000 although both the miners and the railwaymen opposed him. (pp. 151-2).

Williams also says of his idea for a united Europe that

In the past he had been preoccupied with the need to develop trade union power in order to establish a counter-weight to the organised power of employers. Now he saw the solution to many of the world’s economic problems in somewhat similar terms, preaching the need for Britain to develop, either through participation in an economic United States of Europe “spreading from the borders of Russia right to the borders of France”, or in a Commonwealth and European bloc or both, a counter-weight to the economic power of the United States and the potential economic power of Russia. (p. 153).

This was one of the reasons the EEC, the EU’s precursor was founded – so that through an economic union European trade and industry could compete with the US and Soviet blocs. Moreover, the Social Charter in the EU safeguards some basic workers’ rights, rights that are severely threatened by the Brexit campaign.

Global Research on US and EU Sponsored Fascist Regime in Ukraine

April 10, 2016

Okay, I’m afraid I haven’t done much blogging this week. That’s partly due to my having picked up some kind of germ that was going round. It left you feeling completely drained of energy, and feeling that you were almost going to come down with a bout of diarrhoea and sickness. Mercifully, I didn’t. A lot of people in our area have had it, and all except one or two have managed to have avoid getting diarrhoea. It’s nasty, but it also seems to be over in a couple of days.

This is about something else that’s nasty, but unfortunately hasn’t been over in a couple of days. I’ve been blogging a lot about the resurgence of Fascism in eastern Europe, including Ukraine. One of the pieces I put up was about the Pravy Sektor – the infamous ‘Right Sector’ group of Ukrainian extreme Right-wing groups, including ‘Svoboda’, whose name means ‘Freedom’, but are probably more accurately described by their old monicker, the Social Nationalist Movement. Yep, they’re a bunch of Nazis. And the current Ukrainian regime includes them as one of its coalition partners, and seems very happy indeed with the extreme violence, intimidation and brutality it metes out, especially to ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

This is another video presenting the case that the regime change, the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Maidan Square in 2013, which overthrew President Yanukovych, wasn’t entirely a popular revolution, but a carefully orchestrated piece of geopolitics by the US and EU to install a client regime as the Ukrainian government. Yanukovych had committed the cardinal sin of signing a treaty providing for closer relations, both political and commercial, with Putin’s Russia. This could not be tolerated by the governments in Washington and Brussels, and so Yanukovych was toppled, fleeing to Russia with Putin.

This is at times a very hard video to watch. It’s not short, at about 1 hour 25 minutes long, and shows scenes of very graphic violence. Many of these will be familiar from some of the other videos I’ve posted up, such as the masked, uniformed figures of Svoboda and their Nazi regalia – the Wolfsangel SS Rune on their sleeves for example – marching amongst the crowd. It shows them holding torchlight marches – almost exactly like those staged in the Third Reich by the Nazis – chanting the names of Stepan Bandera and another Nationalist hero, along with cries of ‘Death to the Communists’ and ‘Death to the Russians’. At one point the marchers are shown chanting a slogan about sticking Russian heads on spikes.

There’s also footage of the snipers from Svoboda shooting and killing unarmed demonstrators in Maidan Square, in an atrocity that was falsely ascribed by Obama and the Western media to Yanukovych. It also shows the attack on the trade union headquarters by Svoboda thugs, in which something like 45 people were burned alive, while others were beaten, and thrown out of the building’s windows. As they fell, their attackers joked about how ‘Negroes are falling!’ The documentary also includes an interview from Russian television, RT, with a young woman, who was one of the survivors of the attack. She was part of a peace camp, and she and the others were chased into the building by the storm troopers. Other victims included people in unarmed demonstrations, shot and killed by retreating state security forces.

Some of the victims were dissenting journalists and politicians. There’s a clip of one of the senior journos in one of the Ukrainian papers being roughed up by the minister for looking after the country’s ethnic minorities, at the head of another mob of thugs. He was angry as the newsman had published photos of the stormtroopers beating up civilians. One opposition politician was pelted with eggs, and savagely beaten. His attackers even attacked the ambulance crew that came to help him. There are also scenes from inside the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament. An opposition politico takes the chair to voice extremely trenchant criticism of the government and its policies. Immediately, other politicos and officials start running to the lectern to force him.

In many of these attacks, the police either do nothing, or are actively involved. There are scenes showing senior police officers in very chummy conversation with the masked and uniformed Nazis surrounding them about beating and murdering protestors.

This is also a regime, which doesn’t even bother to hide its Nazi sympathies. Another piece of footage shows members of the government at one of the national monuments making speeches praising Bandera, the Nazis and Hitler himself. They’re greeted in their turn by angry shouts and chants from a pro-Soviet crowd just behind the barrier. There’s also a leaked phone conversation from the Ukrainian politicians and Oligarch’s wife, Yulia Timoshenko, to another government official describing what she’d like to do ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians: nuke them, and then kill them all.

So what’s the US and EU’s response to the beatings, mass murder and repression? Active collusion with the regime, and smooth denials to the international press and Congress that there is any kind of ethnic cleansing being done by the regime. Or that if there is, is all the fault of the Russkies under Putin. There’s that notorious phone call between Victoria Nuland and another state department official, effectively fixing who she wants in the Ukrainian cabinet. One of the members she explicitly mentions, Oleh Tiahnybok, is the head of Svoboda. There’s also the phone call between the Estonian minister, Urmas Paet to Baroness Ashcroft about the shooting of unarmed civilians by Svoboda snipers, in which Ashcroft sounds distinctly uncomfortable. This is not stuff she really wanted to hear. And the lies go all the way to the top. It’s not just Nuland in the state department, nor Psaki, a Whitehouse spokeswoman, but also John Kerry and Obama. All of whom tell the press, and some critical US congressmen, that Ukraine is a free, democratic country that’s not oppressing anyone.

This is demonstrably untrue. The video also shows footage of Ukrainian troops entering Russian-speaking towns in the east of the country, firing on and killing unarmed civilians. There are also shown occupying a polling station to prevent the local people voting for independence. Again, when the local people march to claim their right to vote, they open fire. One young lad is horribly shot in the leg. This scene is cut with Kerry telling the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate that no-one was being prevented from voting, the elections were completely fair, and that the reason why turn-out was so low is that nobody turned out to vote. Again, that’s another lie, as the video shows a massive turn out of Russian-Ukrainians of all ages, taking the opportunity to vote for a federal Ukrainian. This is something else that’s anathema to the Ukrainian puppet regime and its masters in Washington. Obama and Kerry stand in front of the microphones and cameras claiming that the polls by the people in the eastern part of the country demanding their own separatist, autonomous enclave, lack democratic support. Of course, the video argues that the opposite is the case. It is the American-installed regime that lacks the democratic mandate.

The Fascist regime and Obama also try to claim that the demands for a separate Russian-speaking enclave in the Donbas region is due to the machinations of Putin. It isn’t. They claim that these were only made after the Ukrainian government sent the troops into the Russian-speaking areas to intimidate them. Obama, Kerry and Nuland also claim that the reason Crimea voted to join with Russia was due to the intimidation of the Russian forces there. In fact, the voting in the Crimea was much fairer and far less rigged, due to the presence of the Russians as observers.

One of the other tactics the Ukrainian regime has also tried to use to smear its enemies is accusations of anti-Semitism. The Donbas separatists were supposed to be going to pass a law demanding Jews register with the authorities. There is, horrifically, much anti-Semitism in Russia, just as there is in the rest of the former eastern bloc. But this was a lie, and soon had to be dropped as too many people knew it was.

As for the Russians, Putin is, it seems, this time the maligned one. Rather than seeking to overthrow a democratic regime or dismember a rival, and disobedient nation, the opposite is true. He’s been forced to act because a democratically elected regime was overthrown at the behest of an outside power – Washington, and the oppression of his own ethnic group by the resulting Fascist regime. And Putin has every right to do so under international law. Putin’s a nasty piece of work himself, but this time, he’s the victim, not the aggressor.

And it’s not just Russians, who are the victims. some of the groups beaten and shot at by the goose-steppers are, it is claimed, just severely normal Ukrainians. And one fact both Washington and Kiev want to cover up is that many of the original Maidan protestors don’t want the ruling president. They wanted to throw out Yanukovych, but they are very definitely not supporters of his successors.

The video lastly claims the reason Washington has set up this puppet regime, and is attempting to demonise Putin, is because Putin has defied America’s attempts to become the only world super-power, and is successfully competing with the Land of the Free in what it sees as a ‘multi-polar’ world – one in which there are various competing powers, not all subject to American domination. And so here there are shots of Putin with other world leaders, including those of Iran.

Here’s the video:

The video is by a group calling itself Global Research, based in Quebec, Canada. It’s an interesting video which presents a compelling case. I think some scepticism is necessary in the way it presents Putin. He’s not ‘whiter-than-white’ innocent. His regime itself is extremely authoritarian, and it has also responded to critics and dissenting journalists with violence and murder. The same for many of the regimes with whom he is shown doing business. But this time, it really does seem that he is not responsible for the current outbreak of ethnic violence and repression. It’s the fault of the governing elites in Washington and Brussels, safe and comfortable thousands of miles away from the horror they’ve unleashed further east.

The Young Turks: Republican Voter States Rather Vote for Sanders than Trump

March 6, 2016

This is a very interesting interview. In this clip from The Young Turks, Jordan Chariton talks to Roy Williams, a life-long Republican voter, who voted for Ben Carson in the Republican primaries in his home state of South Carolina. Mr Williams is an engineer, a contractor for the government’s energy saving programme. A committed Christian, he’s also a deacon at his local church. Williams states that he voted for Ben Carson, the Black neurosurgeon, because he had the best policies. Williams is in favour of extremely limited federal government. The states should be virtually autonomous, and the federal government only responsible for defence and facilitating trade between them.

When asked about Carson’s controversial comments, such as his remark that a Muslim should not be president of the US, Williams stated he supported this. He did not believe that a Muslim should be president of the US, but not because he was a Muslim. He objected to a Muslim president because of the status of women under Sharia law, where they are not allowed to do anything without their husband’s permission.

Williams was, however, certainly no fan of Donald Trump. He described Trump as ‘brash’, and feared his outspokenness would mean that he wouldn’t be able to last his four-year term without plunging America into a war, probably with Russia. He also objected to Trump because Trump would not work within the American system. Chariton also asked him about Trump’s bigoted policies, and asked him if he felt, as so many others did, that Trump was just throwing ‘red meat’ to the Republican base, but had no intention of honouring it. Williams said he didn’t think that was the case. So, if he was faced with Trump, he’d rather vote for Bernie Sanders, despite the fact that Sanders was a Socialist and so stood for everything he opposed. He’d prefer to vote for Sanders rather than Trump because Sanders, at least, would work within the system.

He was very definite that he would not vote for Hillary Clinton. As a former military contractor, he was very much aware of the government rules regarding security. Clinton had broken these by receiving secret emails. He stated that if she wasn’t who she was, she’d be in jail for these by now. When Chariton pointed out that so did Bush and Condoleeza Rice, then Williams accepted that they too, should be in jail.

Williams stated that the Republican party he grew up with now no longer existed, to his regret. Chariton asked him who his favourite Republican president was. He responded with ‘Ronald Reagan’. Chariton pointed out that Reagan wasn’t a believer in limited government. He massively increased the debt and raised taxes. Williams seemed at a loss when this was point out. He did, however, say he liked Jimmy Carter. Why? Carter was also an engineer, and in Williams’ own experience in the energy business, he felt that if America had followed his policy on energy, America wouldn’t be chasing after it abroad in the Middle East. Chariton asked him if he felt the country was moving leftward after Obama. he said ‘yes, to my dismay’.