Tuesday, 11 August 2009

If Oswald Mosley had stayed in the Labour party ...

Stories bubbling around the papers are suggesting Ed Balls sees himself as Labour's heir to Nye Bevan. Bevan, of course, was highly supportive of his fellow Labour MP and Minister, Oswald Mosley. Had Mosley remained in the Labour party, his strident support of National Socialist ideas could have driven the party, with the useful support of those such as Nye Bevan, in a very different direction to that in which Atlee took it.

Mosley, as Labour member for Smethwick and Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster in MacDonald's 1929 government,
formulated much Labour policy that remains on the agenda of leftists such as Ed Balls today. Dick Crossman in 1961 described Mosley's plans for the party as "Brilliant ... a whole generation ahead of Labour thinking"; amongst other measures, he advocated nationalisation of industry and the banks, and a massive scheme of public works and public spending to tackle unemployment. Both are measures with which neither Bevan nor his self-identified successor Balls would quibble - and both measures were used with some temporary success by Labour's German counterpart National Socialists during the 1930s.

Will Balls, like Bevan and Mosley before him, seek to take Labour in a more leftish and State Authoritarian direction than it wants to go? And wi
ll he survive it? Mosley left to form his own New (Labour) Party, and Bevan and his Bevanites failed to turn Attlee, and Gaitskill eventually saw him off in 1955. It's fascinating to think that had Mosley remained in the Labour Party, it could be sporting today a rather different symbol to that of the red rose ...


Stop Common Purpose said...

New Labour is finally showing its colours as a Fabian (Mosley was at one time a Fabian) New World Order communitarian party.

It contains elements of Fascism as Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

This merger has been going on for the last 12 years in the form of Public-Private Partnerships.

New Labour is actually communitarian which is a new term for many people.

Communitarianism tramples on the rights of individuals in favour of the rights of the community or 'civil society'.

The EU and New Labour are thrusting communitarianism down the throats of the British.

Obama is thrusting communitarianism down the throats of the Americans.

America is supposed to be a republic, some people think that America is a democracy but in actual fact America is well on its way to becoming a communitarian dictatorship run by a bunch of corrupt bankers working out of the Federal Reserve Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Here is an explanation of communitarianism frrom the US point of view.

And here is Niki Raapana's website about communitarianism.

Anonymous said...

Oh for god's sake. Obama isn't "thrusting" communitarianism down anyone's throats. He stood on a platform to reform the healthcare system and won, remember?

Setting up a ridiculous straw man in your "understanding" of communitarianism and then proceeding to undermine it might offer you some fatuous pleasures. But you evidently know nothing about what you're saying.

Booyah said...

Mosley was a nazi. Ed balls = adolf hitler in waiting

Booyah said...

did i really say that out loud? I need to stop drinking at work...

David Davis (Libertarian Alliance) said...

I have been calling them GramscoFabiaNazis, for years.

Anonymous said...

You've managed, with your last sentence, to sum yourself up quite nicely there, BoT.

To presume that Obama isn't forcing unwanted socialistic measures down anyone's throat is to imply that every eligible American voted for Obama and his "reforms".

Plenty of people didn't vote for Obama and don't support his form of government. Also, it remains to be seen how many of those who did vote for Obama are still so "inspired" once his plans are put into action and the subtext of corporate lobbying, and its costs/consequences, are explored more fully.

Not that I'm personally against universal health care, because I'm not, but Obama is, in my view, a quite ghastly shallow fraudster and corporatist shill - his banking "reforms" are a real hoot, aren't they now - all very portentous.

Miller 2.0 said...

Bad history/timeline.

Bevan supported Mosely before Mosely started espousing fascist ideology. Before that he was on the Labour left and sympathised with the ILP (who sent most of their lot to Spain to fight Franco).

Raedwald said...

Miller - Bevan wasn't immune to espousing a little fascist ideology himself; describing all Conservatives as being 'lower than vermin' as Bevan did echoes Hitler's description of the Jews. We must count ourselves lucky that fascists such as Bevan and Mosley didn't get their way.

tory boys never grow up said...

What a stupid and obnoxious post and subsequent comments by yourself.

Of course we can all play the guilt by association game - you rather forget all those Tories who wanted to appease the Nazis, or the former communists who were among Thatcher's advisers, or the fact that Nick Griffin's dad used to be a member of the Conservative Party until not too long ago. And I suppose because I want the trains to run on time I can be seen as a supporter of Mussolini. Oh and for which party was Mosley first elected. Only a simpleton cannot appreciate that individual's views can change over time or that even the most obnoxious politician might not say something agrreable on some subjects on some occaisions.

As for describing Bevan as a fascist - you really demonstrate your total ignorance of most historical matters. Bevan was opposing the facists in Spain and supporting the victims of fascism well before the war - and while the official policy of the Tories was one of appeasement. He was a vehement critic of Chamberlain - and was pushing for Churchill to takeover from a very early stage.

Ed Balls, Nye Bevan and the Labour Party may be many things, and you are free to disagree with what they say - but they are not fascists (or Stalinists or whatever abusive tag you may wish to throw at them)

When I see people on the right resorting to such abuse, and that is what it is - it reminds me that scapegoating is a favourite tactic of all totalitarians. It is somewhat ironic that I'm currently reading Scum of the Earth by Koestler - in which a man with immecible anti Fascist credentials was locked up as being a potential Facist collaborator by those people who subsequently collaborated with the Vichy republic.
And before you start waving Bevan's lower than vermin quote around perhaps you should understand the context in which it was said - he made it perfectly clear that it was because of his anger at first class people being kept in semi starvation during the 20s - so perhaps a little anger was justified on the part of an MP who represent a mining seat. Even though he hated Churchill for what he did during the Miners' Strike - it is worth noting that it didn't stop him supporting him against the Fascists or being a member of his Government.

Anyway at least under this Labour Government the rise of fascism during the 20th century is now part of the history curriculum. Clearly it wasn't in your day, either that or you wern't listening.

Raedwald said...

Tory boys -

Did you see the word fascist once in my post, ever? Don't forget, German National Socialism initially promised many attractions to British socialists. To deny that anyone in the Labour party prior to the Spanish civil war sympathised with the NSDAP - the National Socialist German Workers Party - is crass stupidity.

And if Bevan can describe one cohort of his fellow man as 'lower than vermin' are you really, really telling me that this is OK, but that the same words spoken by a Nazi are not OK? What rank hypocrisy. It was a Fascistic comment and you know it.

tory boys never grow up said...

The word fascist was in your subsequent comments as I said in my first paragraph. You seem to make a habit of applying abuse to whole cohorts of your fellow men - that doesn't make you or Bevan a fascist however. I can forgive Bevan one silly comment as a result of justifiable anger - you however are a repeat offender.

You also forget that prior to 1936 that there was still a lack of detailied understanding in the UK about the nature of German fascism (I daresay you might say that the Nazis were not fascists - but then again you'd be wrong - go and read about the Night of the Long Knives) - fuelled to no small extent by appeasers within the Tory Party and much of the press. Subsequent ignorance and puerile modern day comparisions are much less excusable.

not a Tory either said...

the Night of the Long Knives) - fuelled to no small extent by appeasers within the Tory Party and much of the press.

How on earth was the Night of the Long Knives fuelled by the Tory Party and much of the press? Given that the Soviets had been assassinating their opponents both in and out of the party since the year dot, they might have been more of an inspiration?

Incidentally, the Daily Mail supported Moseley for only the briefest of moments. Less time than the Nazi Soviet pact was in force as a comparison, and certainly ended the moment Mosley endorsed violence. And why does Mail flirtation with Mosley get repeated ad nauseum when the Manchester Guardian gets a free pass for writing that exclusion of the Nazi party from Reich government, given its electoral success, was not in the best interests of German democracy?