John Monks says trades unions should press for a return to old-fashioned capitalism

[Wolveryeti]

I hate how the Economist doesn't publish the names of its articles' authors. I think it's fucking dishonest.

 

[frogwoman]

I hate how the Economist doesn't publish the names of its articles' authors. I think it's fucking dishonest.

not so much dishnest as annoying.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Well, I think it is designed to give the impression that each article is the result of a collectively agreed on 'line' from 'The Economist'. Hence dishonest.

 

[frogwoman]

a workers cooperative perhaps?

 

[danny la rouge]

a workers cooperative perhaps?

 

[Idris2002]

The Economist editorial on the miners strike in 1984 is seared on my memory. It declared that the miners must be defeated to secure the UK's economic future.

Now who is to suffer their bull now the world economic system is fucked?

They printed everything that Thatch was going to do to the miners in 1980, and then reprinted it after their victory in '84. It was called the Ridley Plan. Like FM said, it's important to read them, to see what they're saying.

Anyone remember the old New Statesman, before it got taken over by Blairite policy wonks?

 

[frogwoman]

blairite? not sure about that, i thoguht the new statesman was usually quite left wing, or maybe my definition of what left wing is is rather loose...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, I think it is designed to give the impression that each article is the result of a collectively agreed on 'line' from 'The Economist'. Hence dishonest.

Apparently it's supposed to project the opposite of what you presume; that the journos are so independent and well-informed that they don't need a byline, they're that authoritative.

Load of bollocks, of course.

 

[danny la rouge]

blairite? not sure about that, i thoguht the new statesman was usually quite left wing, or maybe my definition of what left wing is is rather loose...

No, very liberal. Pilger gets a regular column, but as a token.

 

[frogwoman]

 

[gosub]

Saw the John Monks thing, and have for the life of me been trying to remember the name of a film, British 50-60s ish set in a factory making agricultural machinery that becomes a co op, and the struggles it has and who with, the film itself was regarded as contentious at the time

 

[_float_]

Apparently it's supposed to project the opposite of what you presume; that the journos are so independent and well-informed that they don't need a byline, they're that authoritative.

I understood it was to avoid "showboating" journalism.

 

[butchersapron]

Saw the John Monks thing, and have for the life of me been trying to remember the name of a film, British 50-60s ish set in a factory making agricultural machinery that becomes a co op, and the struggles it has and who with, the film itself was regarded as contentious at the time

Chance of a Lifetime maybe?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042326/

There was also The Angry Silence made around the same time - Richard Attenborough being very vocal at the time in support of it's pro-scab message
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053602/

 

[where to]

the Economist aims to do what most modern publications do these days and thats hit the pleasure zones of its readers rather than think, research and report.

 

[gosub]

Chance of a Lifetime -that's the one, denied circuit release at the time. Good film.

 

[where to]

strange article that. barely any quotes, sources or references but a full breakdown of the guys ideological position

 

[danny la rouge]

strange article that. barely any quotes, sources or references but a full breakdown of the guys ideological position

Yes, isn't it. I know of no come-back from him, so I suppose we must assume it's fairly accurate.

 

[rioted]

You need to know what the enemy is thinking and doing

Know Thy Enemy

Know thy enemy:
he does not care what colour you are
provided you work for him
and yet you do!

he does not care how much you earn
provided you earn more for him
and yet you do!

he does not care who lives in the room at the top
provided he owns the building
and yet you strive!

he will let you write against him
provided you do not act against him
and yet you write!

he sings the praises of humanity
but knows machines cost more than men.
Bargain with him, he laughs, and beats you at it;
challenge him, and he kills.
Sooner than loose the things he owns
he will destroy the world.
SMASH CAPITAL NOW!

But as you hasten to be free
And build your commonwealth
Do not forget the enemy
Who lies within yourself.

Christopher Logue

 

[where to]

Yes, isn't it. I know of no come-back from him, so I suppose we must assume it's fairly accurate.

i wondered whether he might have actually written it himself.

 

[danny la rouge]

i wondered whether he might have actually written it himself.

Aye, but it's in the 3rd person a lot of the time.

I agree it's a strange piece.

 

[Karamazov#1]

Because old fashioned capitalism worked out so well for the trade union movement didn't it The current gang of clowns in senior positions in the TU movement aren't much better than Monks. All people like Simpson and Woodley want is a seat at the top table doing deals with the government and the owners behind the backs of their members. It's only genuine workercontrol of the union movement that will get rid of these hacks.