nationalised industry


emoji spell for international socialism, 100% green energy, a free media, nationalised industry and services, funding for the arts, high quality education at all levels for all people and the destruction of the arms trade

like to charge, rb to cast
The Mirror has obtained a copy of Labour's draft manifesto. Here's what's in it
The 43-page draft contains landmark promises on the NHS, social care, education and housing
By Jack Blanchard

Labour will pledge to re-nationalise Britain’s energy industry, railways and Royal Mail in its most left-wing election manifesto in a generation.

The Mirror has obtained a leaked version of the party’s entire draft manifesto, containing landmark promises of £6billion-a-year extra for the NHS and £1.6billion-a-year for social care.

University tuition fees will be abolished entirely, and town halls ordered to build 100,000 new council houses a year under a new Department for Housing.

Thousands of homes will be offered to rough sleepers, and private rent hikes capped at inflation.

Meanwhile a new Ministry of Labour will oversee the biggest boost to workers’ rights in decades, while planned hikes to the pension age beyond 66 will not go ahead.

genuinely good stuff here

11th September 1973: Salvador Allende overthrown in US-backed Coup

Salvador Allende, a Marxist and member of the Socialist Party of Chile, ran for the presidency in the 1952, 1958, and 1964 elections. In 1970, he finally won in a close three-way race. Upon assuming power he began to implement programs of nationalisation of industries including copper mining and banking, government administration of the health care & educational systems, free milk for children in the schools and shanty towns of Chile, and land redistribution.

Some of his policies included rights to social security granted to all part-time workers, 55,000 volunteers were sent to the south of the country to teach writing and reading skills and provide medical attention to a sector of the population that had previously been ignored, introduction of an obligatory minimum wage for workers of all ages including apprentices, a campaign against illiteracy, democratisation of univeristy education and establishment of the Women’s Secretariat to improve women’s rights & gender equality. These policies had a huge positive impact, for instance average real wages rose by 22.3% during 1971, an 89% rise in university enrollments between 1970 and 1973 and the proportion of children under the age of 6 with some form of malnutrition fell by 17%. See here for a comprehensive list.

A number of factors contributed to animosity in Chile, including racial tensions between the poor descendants of indigenous people - who supported Allende’s reforms - and the white elite, inflation, a severe fall in the price of copper (Chile’s largest export), a 24-day strike led by truckers, whom the Chileand economy was dependant upon, the domination of the Chilean congress by the Christian Democratic Party (who were becoming more and more right-wing), as well as CIA intervention and economic terrorism spearheaded by the US.

From 1962 through 1964, the CIA spent $3 million on anti-Allende propaganda. In 1970, Richard Nixon, then President of the USA (pictured above) authorised the spending of $10 million to stop Allende coming to power. The United States attempted to rig the 1970 election, financed opposition parties, encouraged the Chilean military to perform a coup & provided them with weapons and supported strikes to de-stabalise the Chilean economy. In addition ITT gave $700,000 to Allende’s conservative opponent, Jorge Alessandri, with help from the CIA on how to channel the money safely. ITT president Harold Geneen also offered $1 million to the CIA to help defeat Allende in the elections. In contrast to this, Soviet economic support to Chile included over $100 million in credit, three fishing ships which distributed 17,000 tons of frozen fish to the population, factories (as help after the 1971 earthquake), 3,100 tractors, 74,000 tons of wheat and more than a million tins of condensed milk.

Allende’s leftist policies and friendly relations with the Soviet Union were seen as a spread of communism to Latin America by the US. On September 11th, 1973 the democratically elected Allende was overthrown in the US-backed coup. Earlier that month, Allende had proposed solving the constitutional crisis with a plebiscite, however this was never seen through. His speech outlining such a solution was scheduled for 11th September, the day of the coup, but couldn’t be delivered. La Moneda Palace was shelled by artillery & missile fire, and Allende committed suicide with an assault rifle. 60 people died as a result of the fighting that day. Chilean security forces sustained 162 dead in the three following months as a result of continued resistance against the newly formed military dictatorship.

His successor, Augusto Pinochet (pictured above), was the head of a military dictatorship that lasted until 1990. During his rule 1,200-3,200 were murdered, 80,000 people were forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured. Trade Unions were banned along with all opposing political parties, social security was privatised, economic inequality & unemployment rose dramatically, GDP per capita dropped from ~$6,000 in 1973 to ~$4,200 in 1975, again dropping with the 1982 monetary crisis and only returning to pre-coup levels in 1987. 56% of people voted against his presidency in 1988, and by the time of his death in 2006 300 criminal charges were pending against him including human rigts violations, tax evasion and embezzlement of $28 million.

The concessions Moscow made were not enough for America. Roosevelt might have understood them, for he was a world statesman who knew history. But with the accession of Harry S. Truman to the presidency, all that was narrow and grasping in American imperialism found its tool in a small-town politician, with the A-bomb monopoly in his hand and with no historic sense. Truman ignored – and probably did not even known – the fact that Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria had been in Russia’s sphere of influence a hundred years; that they owed their very existence as states to Russia’s war with Turkey a century ago. In the time between the two world wars, their rulers, being despotic monarchs, were anti-Soviet, but their peasant peoples never lost their love for Russia. So when the Red Army drove out the German armies, the pro-Nazi officialdom fled and new regimes arose that began to fight on the Russian side. Washington – in the person of Truman – saw only subversion in this.

Washington, which had never accepted the “anti-fascist” nature of the war, fought everywhere the anti-fascist front that emerged in all liberated lands. In Western Europe, American pressure succeeded in splitting this front and driving Communists out of the participation in governments to which their votes entitled them. This American aim did not succeed in the East. All these nations followed a common pattern, based on their own experience in the war. All had big landlords who collaborated with the Nazis and who fled with the German army; this facilitated the long over-due division of land among the peasants. In all those nations, the Germans had a stranglehold on big industry; their flight left industries ownerless as well as ruined. Nationalisation of big industry became not only easy but actually necessary, unless Americans would take concessions, which they wouldn’t. In all these nations, the war had smashed and discredited former political leaders, leaving only one line-up – those who had collaborated with the Nazis and those who had resisted. Hence, governments first arose by coalition of small splinter parties, that included everyone who had fought Germans. American Embassies, however, cultivated disgruntled former leaders and demanded their inclusion in the governments. Sometimes, East European nations yielded, hoping for American favour. To Washington’s view, they never yielded enough.

American loans, which all East Europe hoped for, did not materialise. East Europe had to depend for economic aid on war-exhausted Russia. This led to tensions over good and prices, for of nothing was there nought. It led to a firmer hand from Moscow, doling out the goods. As the cold war policy of Washington deepened, Moscow’s policy in East Europe changed.

The sign of the change was the sudden brutal expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Communist fellowship, for demanding the type of “national independence” that had been gospel for all East Europe only two years earlier. Stalin’s personal antagonism to Tito and Yugoslavia’s vociferous insistence on more industrialisation than Moscow felt able to supply, played a role, but an underlying reason for the change lay not in Yugoslavia but in Harry S. Truman. After continuously needling the Russians, he had announced the “Truman Doctrine,” and that he was sending troops into Greece and Turkey to “contain Communism.” This out-flanking of East Europe by an increasingly hostile America had the natural result. Moscow tightened control of East Europe, sought to weld it into a firm military bloc, and damned Yugoslavia when she objected.

Here is no space to review the long tale of “get tough” policies with which Washington shattered Stalin’s dream – which was also Roosevelt’s – of a long friendship between the USSR and the USA. Truman insulted Molotov on his way to the first United Nations Congress in San Francisco. America made the first U.N. Assembly downgrade the USSR for “aggression” because Soviet troops were slow in leaving Iran, though American, British and French troops stayed on uncensored in many parts of the world. The “Berlin blockade,” which Moscow began as a temporary measure to protect East German’s economy from a flood of new currency printed in the American zone, was turned by Washington into a long demonstration of America’s superfluity in planes and supplies. The “Baruch Plan” for control of the atom, announced by Washington as a “peace” gesture, was seen by every Russian as an attempt to take ownership of Soviet natural resources through a U.N. Authority – controlled by Washington.

Insult seemed added to injury when American commentators more and more grudged Russia “the great territory grabbed in the war.” To Russians, this was their own territory, lost in the first world war, only partially regained in the second. The Russians had lost of ceded 330,000 square miles in the first war, and regained 250,000 in the second, a net loss of 80,000 square miles, which roughly covered the territory ceded to Finland and Poland. Russians had not grudged it when the world war turned both Atlantic and Pacific into “American lakes,” but when these same Americans, who had taken all the oceans and who were building bases on their islands and shores, called Russia greedy for taking back what she formerly owned, this rankled.

Inside the USSR, the Truman doctrine of “containment,” and the constant baiting of Russia by an America for whose friendship Russia had longed, bred an irritated, excessive patriotism, which denounced as “cosmopolitanism” – and almost as treason – any belief that any land but Russia had ever invented anything good. This sick nationalism grew as a defence against the bitter knowledge that they had paid more than all their allies together for the joint victory, and that victory had brought them, not a partnership in building world peace, but a new hostile encirclement by American bases which still had an atom-bomb monopoly, and the taunt of “aggressor” for any expansion other than their own.

—  The Second Rebuilding, The Stalin Era (1956), Anna Louise Strong

There is no hope for any good to come of Tumblr politics. The obsessions with identity politics and toothless social justice have absolutely crippled the ability of anyone to focus on genuine, appreciable change.

People on this site only care about class inasmuch as they can talk about privilege, and have no interest in solving the real issues, such as wealth redistribution, nationalisation of industry, and electoral and governmental reform. None of you have a goddamn clue. You’d much rather talk about bourgeois concepts of gender, race, feminism and so on ad nauseam.

The only thing that divides humans in any real, demonstrable way is class. Until that is rectified, you can talk about your adorable “social justice” issues all you want (ignoring the massive irony in using that phrase) because you’ll never do any good.

For a bunch of so-called “revolutionaries” and “radicals” you sure are lazy. Anarchy never seemed so fucking tame. For a bunch of people so keen to bust out the phrase “Go educate yourself” you certainly are ignorant and workshy, and if I didn’t know better I’d say you were that way wilfully. You don’t give a damn about reading Marx or Cockburn or Trotsky or Rosa Luxembourg. It’s easier for you to just parrot each other’s pointless and sinister bullshit than it is to read about economics, learn exactly why unemployment rates sink and fall, or how to construct a viable alternative to capitalist trade.

You should all be utterly ashamed of yourselves. You’ve ensured that the workers of the world can never unite. There will never be a revolution. Just endless tempests in a sea of teacups. 

Would anyone else agree with me when I say that the general disdain of the left in American politics is because of McCarthyism and a lot of anti-Communist sentiment generated as a result. I mean, I’ve seen some propaganda videos from the time and they paint just about everybody as a communist.

In a Union? Probably a Commie.
Talks bad about Capitalism? Definitely a Commie.
Talks about nationalisation of industries? 100% Commie.

Yet before the 1950s America did have quite a noticeable socialist and leftist movement. Louisiana once had a socialist governor and I needn’t mention the work of the Trade Unions to fight against monopolies and for better standards.

This is just my opinion though, I’m not even from America so their may be some other influences which I’m not fully aware of. Add your opinions below.

~ Mod Connolly