“Parliament invented me”, Oswald
Mosley used to say. The seeds of his political convictions were sown in his early days in the Labour Party when he first grasped
the opportunity to speak up for the unemployed and the working man and woman. He continued on that theme throughout his life,
up to his death. He never waivered.
As a Member of Parliament,
he was a formidable debater and was recognised, very early on, as Prime Minister material. There was no one more suited to
the cut and thrust of parliamentary party-political debate and its biting invective than he.
It is not surprising that Mosley would adopt the phrase ‘European Socialism’ after the
Second World War*. He was a socialist from the beginning, having used the phrase ‘socialistic imperialism’ when
first standing for Parliament at the age of 22 as a Conservative Unionist candidate ... and then winning the seat in Harrow.
It is my belief that Mosley’s fascist phase (1932 - 1940) should be viewed
simply as a pragmatic device to use fascist methods of state action for the purpose of pursuing his socialist aims, that is,
curing the problem of unemployment that so blighted Britain’s social landscape in the 1920s and 1930s. In other words,
it was a convenient fast-track vehicle for a higher purpose. As it turned out, fascism became entirely discredited after a
second European war ... along with the fact that the loss of Empire made its economic arguments completely redundant. Fascism
is now dead and buried.
The problem with fascism, he said, was
it being far too nationalistic and that it tended to “ride roughshod over civil liberties”. Socialism, on the
other hand, is a view of life that says co-operation is better than competition and that working together is better than working
against each other. This is carried further onto a global level with the argument that competition within the international
trading system means someone always wins at the expense of another nation in a never-ending struggle to export more than the
others in order to keep on top. This always ends in disaster as we see today.
The answer is to create your own self-sufficient economic area in which you can organise, keeping control
of wages and prices, completely free of world markets and free of international finance. That area is Europe and the system
is to be based on the true socialism of a workers’ control of industry ... complete industrial democracy, in other words.
The people should own the means of production, distribution and exchange. Is that not what Mosley campaigned for throughout
his life, freeing the British worker, and later the European worker, from the parasites of international finance? Did he not
say the people should have control over their own money supply?
he not say that within Europe a Nation, banks would serve the European people and only the European people? Their role would
be completely positive and altruistic, in service to a European Socialist state, and not as an unregulated casino-style scam
creating mayhem and misery for millions.
Service to the state
would have its own rewards. It is that sense of service to the state that is so lacking today and only a socialist conscience,
based on fundamental socialist principles, can inspire and imbue with that spirit of service. Left wing? Maybe, if you can
only think in terms of an out-dated conflict. Such problems of ideological conflict were dealt with by the old Mosley formula
of synthesis, anyway. So that you end up with a newer, inspiring creed taking socialistic ideas onto a higher level. That
which is old, worn-out and irrelevant is left behind.
for a manufacturing industrial base is made even more evident today with the stronger performance of Germany in terms of economic
growth. We always said Germany would lead the way because it always maintained that most dynamic of economic requirements
... a strong manufacturing base in the form a thriving car industry. For what is true wealth if it is not in the
production of goods? Our lack of such a base is now Britain’s greatest weakness but it need not be so in a unified Europe
harnessing all our resources in full co-operation throughout the continent.
the self-sufficient, self-regulating economic area of Europe a Nation we would need to grow our own produce to feed ourselves
but, equally, we should create a strong and powerful home market for what can be the greatest opportunity to improve the standard
of living for all the citizens of a European Socialist state. “As science increases the means to produce” was
one of Mosley’s recurring themes and this is the key to building a higher civilisation for the European people. An advanced
industrial society (side by side with a strong agrarian culture) needs markets for its goods and in order to be truly free
of international competition we would need to develop the home market as sole consumers of these goods. This is where free
market economics (Free Trade) is finally given the boot and at last we would have control over our own affairs instead of
the buffeting created by the vagaries of the international trading system, always desperate to export under the constant threat
of undercutting from low-wage economies. “Export or die” will become the desperate cry of a bygone age.
I should make it very clear that European Socialism can only work within a
European system and that this is very different to the old international Socialism for several reasons. A ‘rational’
world economy was the goal of Marxists and, in particular, the disciples of Leon Trotsky. Both Marxism and capitalism are
internationalist. The concept of an international proletariat is, in fact, a common interest factor in this idea of a world
economy to which both Marxism and capitalism join hands in promoting.
will say, how can this be because we all know that capitalism is the enemy of communism and vice versa? What was called economic
nationalism, a system based on trade tariffs and protectionism, was the ‘capitalism’ that communists attacked.
They would rather attack their own workers than surrender any idea of this mythical international proletariat, beloved of
both the Marxists and the financiers of global big business.
Free Trade (the global trading system we still have today), Karl Marx had this to say, “National differences and
antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of
commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster”.
The internationalising or globalising of production therefore serves the agendas of what were once perceived
to be opposing ideologies, communism and capitalism. In 1902, Robert Blatchford, editor of The Clarion, published
a book entitled Britain For The British. No, it was not a right-wing reactionary, racist diatribe ... it was, in
fact, a defence of socialism in a way that differed completely to the communism of the prevailing international working
Explaining the title of his
book, Blatchford wrote, “At present Britain does not belong to the British: it belongs to a few of the British who
employ the bulk of the population as servants or as workers. It is because Britain does not belong to the British that a few
are very rich and the many are very poor.
is because Britain does not belong to the British that we find amongst the owning class a state of useless luxury and pernicious
idleness, and among the working classes a state of drudging toil, of wearing poverty and anxious care.
This state of affairs is contrary to Christianity, is contrary to justice and contrary
to reason. It is bad for the rich, it is bad for the poor; it is against the best interests of the British nation and humanity.
The remedy for this evil state of things — the only remedy yet suggested — is Socialism.
And Socialism is broadly expressed in the title and motto of this book: BRITAIN FOR THE BRITISH”.
This sentiment ran counter to communism in one very important respect. It was
a defence of the British worker in exactly the same way that European Socialism is in defence of the European worker.
Blatchford would have been considered a right-wing reactionary by Marxists
for defending the British worker for the simple reason he did not include all the ‘workers’ in the world ... the
Further, according to Marx, “The
protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former
nationalities and renders the contrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating
the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade”.
This has led us to an understanding of why contemporary neo-conservatives in American politics started
off as Trotskyites in their student days. The founder of the neo-con movement, Irving Kristol, was formerly a student member
of The Young Peoples Socialist League, part of the Fourth International. He was later a mentor to Henry Kissinger
and an entire generation of ex-Trotskyites with a new global agenda in the form of the New World Order ... the basis of an
American foreign policy bent on permanent war in place of permanent revolution.
As European Socialists we stand opposed to everything globalist because we oppose the destruction of cultural,
social and religious identities that would be the inevitable result of a ‘rational’ world economy. The issue of
immigration and border controls is one for which ex-Trotskyite neo-cons have engaged in, upholding a global capitalist agenda
... identical to that of communism insofar that a one-world system of production will transform millions into mere economic
units as wage slaves bereft of any separate identity.
Socialists says reject all this in favour of continental systems that will be large enough and strong enough to be independent
of Free Trade and capable of planning your own economy on essentially democratic lines. It is not enough that we build Europe
a Nation for this purpose but that we initiate similar revolutionary change throughout the world, identifying areas composed
of their own unique cultural and social aspects, so that we have a true balance of interests in mutual respect. The goal is
of a world that no longer competes but co-operates and the preservation of all the peoples of the world, their heritage and
their unique ways of life. European Socialism leads to freedom from globalist slavery, both capitalist and communist.