What a world! Inequality gone mad! Democracy, a hollow sham! Quantitative Easing pours money in the pockets of the rich – and debt, debt, debt for the rest!
Corporations write the laws, finance politicians, call out tunes for the daily trudge! Arms industries feed terror and war – and our so-called ‘politicians’ are their bagmen!
Sixty per cent of citizens need drugs, legal or illegal, to get through the day! And millions in the U.S. are considering voting for a medieval devil straight out of Hieronymus Bosch, named Donald Trump…
Here in Brockley, South-East London, we are holding a Festival of Ideas for Change. No party politics, no celebrity twaddle, just GOOD ideas which could transform our world! If you don’t think we need change, keep taking those pills! Otherwise: Brockley today, tomorrow the world!
It’s a free event, but places are limited. To make sure you have a place, book FREE ticket(s) here:
Posts Tagged ‘Left’
Save Momentum from Saboteurs – Owen Jones. Statement by Momentum (External Faction, Majority ‘A’ Tendency).
People’s Front (British Left Training Manuel).
Before I begin this I note the following:
- When Momentum was set up there were discussions by long-standing left-wing activists, members of the Labour Party and/or Trade Unions, engaged in anti-austerity campaigning and a variety of social movements. The potential for small organised left groups to join Momentum, bathing in the reflected glory of Jeremy Corbyn, and use it for their own ends it was noted. One sectarian group, the Socialist Party even went so far as to try to set up its own front, called Trade Union Momentum, in order to recruit for their organisation (Steps towards setting up Trade Union Momentum. The Socialist. 9th of January 2016).
- The principal problem appeared to be the presence of groups trying to recruit for their ‘party building’. That is, to split off (as they call it) the ‘centrists’ and ‘populist’ left from the dyed-in-the-wool ‘reformists’ and get them to join their own ranks, either overtly or in classic ‘entryist’ style, through various ‘fronts’ (one might envisage something like the ‘socialist platform’ in Momentum.
- Leading figures in Momentum, notably Jon Lansman, were informed – repeatedly informed of these concerns. This is because the core of the original Momentum leadership are people we know and hardly unaware of this kind of thing. They were said to agree with us.
- Having expressed these views, and stated my own belief, that the Labour party should be encouraged to develop as a modern inclusive democratic socialist party, and not badgered from a half-in half-out group, I was encouraged by Momentum’s initial development. Notably its support for the Other Europe is Possible campaign, supporting a Remain Vote in the Referendum.
- I and many others from the European democratic left side have not been encouraged by the launch of an “our Brexit” campaign linked with Momentum without the members being consulted.
- I finally note that it the divisions in Momentum cannot be described as simply between “young idealistic” social movement types and older ‘Trotskyists’. The Trotskyists are battling ‘older’ people, and not all ‘Trotskyists’ are ‘old’, far from it. The way the decision on ‘Our Brexit’ ( just cited) was reached raises concerns wider than any of these splits.
It is, these points in mind, hardly out of the blue that the present crisis has happened.
Comrade Owen begins,
These are the things I want to write about, not the internal woes of the left. The left has had something of a reputation for turning infighting into an art form, immortalised by that People’s Front of Judea sketch in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. But an emergent crisis in Britain’s left is so serious that, sadly, it cannot be ignored.
Momentum – the grassroots movement set up in the aftermath of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership victory – is currently facing a takeover bid by Trotskyist sectarians. If they succeed, Momentum will be destroyed. The most prominent sectarian figures are embittered veterans of struggles from the 1970s and 80s, people who have only experienced defeat, and who won’t let an unexpected opportunity afforded by the seismic political developments of the last two years slip through their fingers. This is their last chance.
They jump from organisation to organisation, and are adept at manipulating internal structures for their own advantage: sitting out long boring meetings, coordinating interventions, playing victim when it suits. They’re not interested in say, door-to-door campaigning, but rather in debating their obscure pet issues with long-winded interventions at meetings on a Thursday evening.
The only point that really strikes home is the lack of ‘door-to-door campaigning’.
But this is not a fault unique to the ‘sectarians’.
One could argue that setting up a parallel organisation to normal Labour bodies is bound to divert energy away from this kind of grass-roots work.
Owen strays into perhaps excessive prose in the following,
Their opponents are younger, idealistic, campaign-oriented and pluralistic, lacking Machiavellian strategic ability – all of which the sectarians exploit. The sectarians smear their opponents as rightwingers, Stalinists, bureaucrats, as having ulterior and sinister motives (this article will be dismissed as the work of a rightwing establishment careerist in the service of a Guardian conspiracy to destroy the left). Everything goes wrong, they believe, not because of their own almost farcical strategic ineptitude, but because of the betrayal of others. Momentum offers hope to young people who have long been demoralised by politics. Those wrecking Momentum – if they succeed – could destroy that hope, and that is unforgivable.
It is wrong to call these forces “Trotskyist sectarians” as if there is a common unity amongst them.
This is not classic ‘entryism’: there are very diverse groups. Some of them work well with other people on particular objectives – such as promoting a social Europe, or, say defending secular democratic demands in Iran. It is true, in a very general sense, that many of them refer to the Russian Revolution and Lenin (something I personally cannot empathise with). Others – I am thinking of former members of Left Unity – have more in common with 1970s New Left radical groups than with the kind of moribund organisations at present hanging on as the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party. Some of the opponents of the Momentum leadership have their own personal agenda, which appears to derive more from identity politics than the left, sectarian or not.
These are small groups, groupuscles if you will, or just alliances of affinity. There is no common unity – just cite the words Israel and Zionism, and, hey, see! – except on organisational issues within Momentum.
It is therefore not just false but highly speculative to claim that,
the sectarians are highly disciplined, highly organised, and highly experienced. The interests of their own sects are far more important than any movement. Only their sect, they believe, has the correct politics: everybody else’s are fatally flawed. They have no faith in the Labour party. Momentum, for them, is an embryonic political party. The prize is Momentum’s contact data, containing the details of tens of thousands of people. At an opportune time, they will walk away from Labour and found a new party, which will get 300 votes in a byelection. They will triumphantly hail these as 300 votes for socialism.
The ‘new party’ line, which is the decrepit Socialist Party’s objective, is too marginal even to bother with.
Having said this I must say that the following struck home:
Take the barrister Nick Wrack, one of the sectarian leaders. Last year he stood for the catchily named Trade Union and Socialist Coalition in Camberwell and Peckham, and secured 0.6% of the vote. There’s no life for the left in the Labour party, he told me in 2014.“Time for [a] new party that stands for socialism,” he lectured me before the general election. I was right to call for more working-class representation, he tells me, “but it won’t come from Labour,” he tells me, after Labour’s defeat.
Owen forgets: membership of the SWP, Respect, the Socialist Alliance, the Independent Socialist Network, and a host of other groups……
And, “Nick worked as a journalist for the socialist newspaper Militant. He became its editor in 1994.”
But surely these are sectarian points?
And is this a fair summary of the other side?
The younger Momentum protagonists aligned to Lansman – who himself has gone on a political journey away from top-down structures – are known as “movementists”: those who dislike hierarchies and who are attracted by social movements.
There are problems, which Owen chose to ignore in his introduction to this book, about ‘movementist’ democracy. In Podemos: In the Name of the People’ by Chantal Mouffe and Íñigo Errejón (foreword by Owen Jones) Jones celebrated this party’s success. But its own “democracy on-line” has worked to consolidate the party leadership. Critics, whom we have covered at length on this Blog, have asserted that Podemos is now organised on a “Pyramidal” “vertical” basis. It is said to have led to the withering away of the “circles” at the base of Podemos. It has, to put it simply, not been able to create structures – to many critics – that are markedly better than the old system. Podemos is now undergoing its own internal ‘factional battles, though one has to recognise that it’s on a healthy basis, that is, with real policy alternatives at stake.
I am not a member of Momentum, to the reasons I outlined at the start. Some elderly local people may be.
But it would seem that some kind of synthesis between these systems could be devised.
This would surely be preferable to this call for Armageddon:
….Jeremy Corbyn. An intervention by him would stop Momentum being taken over, allowing its rebirth as an open, campaign-focused movement. Without that, the sectarians will win. They must be stopped in their tracks. So much hope, so much optimism. We can’t let it end in rancour and betrayal.
Reports on Saturday 3d December Momentum Meeting Round-Up – Clarion.
….rigorous and effective political discussion is not some self-indulgent distraction from the ‘real work’ – be that getting a Labour government or nudging up attendance figures at some demonstration. The great promise of Momentum is that it provides an opportunity to fight for political clarity among greater numbers of people….
Labour Party Marxists: Momentum: Fight for political clarity
Before beginning this post on Saturday’s Momentum Steering Committee meeting, we note that there is no mention on the Momentum aligned The World Transformed plan to hold events on the theme of “our Brexit” and “a Great Britain that takes power back from the economic elites Trump and Farage belong to.”
This has lost Momentum a lot of good will.
In the light of the Richmond Park by-election result, we await clarification of this idea, “Targeting marginal constituencies and areas with high Ukip support with a string of local events discussing Brexit to “Take Back Control”. How this will tie in with the decision to ” to fight for migrants’ rights and to defend and extend free movement, and fight for Labour to do the same.” when the events are intended to involve not just opponents but “supporters of Brexit” (“bring together leave and remain voters“) remains to be seen.
But Momentum had other business to discuss than the details of most important issue in British politics today.
Ed Whitby, Northern (North East and Cumbria) regional delegate
Today’s Momentum National Committee (3 December, Birmingham) was long overdue – no meeting for seven months, due to repeated cancellations of the NC by the Steering Committee – so the agenda was absurdly full with proposals about how to run the forthcoming conference, how delegates should be elected, how motions will be decided, etc, as well as motions on other issues.
The left, more radical, pro-democracy wing of the NC won on some democracy issues including the structure and powers of the upcoming national conference, passing policy for a conference of delegates from local groups that can meaningful decide Momentum’s policy and plans; as well as on some other issues (eg defending freedom of movement and migrants’ rights, and fighting expulsions and suspensions). But the more conservative wing managed, by one vote, to block holding a new election for the Steering Committee, even though it was elected seven months ago, before many events, debates and controversies.
The key votes:
• The NC voted for a sovereign national policy-making conference, representing members via local groups with most of the time committed to motions and debate, as well as political education.
• That this conference should make policy and establish a constitution.
• We voted down the proposal from the SC majority that we could only discuss three key areas.
• We voted that the conference would be on 18 February, 25 February or 4 March (25 February clashes with Scottish Labour conference).
• We voted for a composite from the Northern, London and Midlands regions advocating motions can be submitted one each from local groups, liberation groups, students and youth, affiliated unions, the NC and regional networks; three weeks before conference; with compositing, an e-forum to discuss motions and an online priorities ballot.
• Two delegates for every 100 members or part thereof (at least gender balanced and groups sending more than four must send at least one young person).
• Those not covered by a group can send at same rate elected by ballot.
• If not covered by a group 30 people can submit a motion.
• Liberation groups and students and youth can send delegates, to be agreed by NC in consultation with these groups subject to verification of structures and elections.
• We elected a Conference Arrangements Committee of seven people: Alec Price, Huda Elmi, Josie Runswick, Delia Mattis, Lotte Boumelha, Jackie Walker, James Elliott.
• We voted against complicated formulas for voting and instead for simple delegate voting at conference.
• We voted that group delegates should be elected at face-to-face local Momentum group meetings.
This seems like major victories for democracy. The risk is that the incumbent Steering Committee will try to void or get round these decisions. We must urge them not to do so.
….many good proposals were won, but the failure to re-elect the Steering Committee, and the fact that the NC was stuffed with delegates elected on a dubious basis or not really elected, leaves many issues of democracy unresolved. On the other hand, given that, the victories the left won were even more impressive. However, there is a real risk the democratic gains achieved today will be overturned. The membership must fight to stop this happening.
• For Momentum Youth and Students’ proposal to fight for migrants’ rights and to defend and extend free movement, and fight for Labour to do the same. This could be very significant indeed.
• A national housebuilding programme.
• The North West region motion for action against suspensions and expulsions from Labour and in defence of Wallasey, Liverpool Riverside and Brighton and Hove Labour Parties.
No votes were taken on censuring the SC, on basic accountability, on the Momentum company structures.
This shows the, very low, turn out, for the on-line elections inside Momentum.
So, we know one thing clearly: there are some people who consider that there is a continuing battle between left and….right in Momentum.
There are also individuals, apparently on the Conference Arrangement’s Committee, publicly making the traditional virulently sectarian remarks about opposing factions present at this meeting.
We look forward to seeing how they run this Conference.
Whether it will be a force to win a Labour Party that fights for and wins an alternative to neoliberalism” remains to be seen.
But, as Red Flag, the group formerly known as Workers Power (League for the Fifth International) comment,
Diane Abbott: Labour Should Hold its Nerve Against Racists Who Say: “‘What are you still doing here? We voted for Brexit.’”
What has happened to the “People’s Brexit“, or, as the leader of the Stop the War Coalition, Lindsey German, called, “a chance to shape the future of British society along egalitarian lines” ?
The Carnival of Reaction continues.
The latest news is that this individual had been elected to lead UKIP.
People in my family, where I live in Hackney, have been shouted at in the street and told: ‘What are you still doing here? We voted for Brexit.’ Brexit has become a euphemism for anti-immigrant feeling. “I’ve got friends on the South Coast, which is not ‘left-behind Britain’, and yet people are shouting at them on the bus: ‘Why are you still here?’”
Says comrade Diane Abbott in the I’ today.
..the shadow Home Secretary, argued that the party should “hold its nerve” and appealed to its huge membership to confront “toxic” arguments over immigration. “It’s as if the Brexit vote has given people permission to say they things didn’t feel able to say before,” she said in an interview with i.
Ms Abbott’s appointment by Jeremy Corbyn, and her decision to take personal control of immigration policy, has dismayed some Labour MPs who fear the party’s failure to take a tougher stance on the issue will make it vulnerable to Ukip. But she has no truck with that argument, insisting: “I don’t think there’s any way forward for the Labour Party electorally from sounding Ukip-lite. “If you are attracted by Ukip arguments, you are going to vote Ukip. And in areas where they are not so upset about migration they are going to be baffled about what we are actually doing.”
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington added: “What some of my colleagues don’t seem to bear in mind is there are
people out there who are genuinely frightened by the turn this debate has taken.” Ms Abbott blamed anti-migration feeling in many Labour-loyal areas which voted for Brexit on disaffection in post-industrial Britain and a “cry of loss for a world which isn’t coming back”. She accused New Labour of taking those areas for granted on the mistaken assumption that there was nowhere else for its natural supporters to go. Ms Abbott argued Labour’s 500,000-plus membership should take the initiative in campaigning on the continuing economic boost from migration.
It was a tough task “in the era of Farage and Le Pen and Trump” but was the right thing for the party to do, she said. “If you were a Corbynista you would feel very let down if we said anything else. “We’ve now got the biggest social democratic party in western Europe, and we have to respond to it almost conversation by conversation, but at the same time being seen to address the real concerns people have about the NHS, job security and so on “I understand how high feelings run, but I just think we have to beware of a downward spiral in the debate.”
The Independent reports,
Some Labour backbenchers are furious with Diane Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary, accusing her of trying to stamp on any debate about immigration which could see Labour trying to “outdo Ukip”.
Crisis-Riven Momentum Shifts to National Populism: “This our Brexit”, “Taking back control is not the preserve of the right.”
Momentum to Narrative Farage and Brexit Back Under Control.
Momentum is undergoing a major crisis, amidst factional fighting and personal antagonisms.
This git so bad earlier this month that it appeared in the mainstream media (How Momentum entered the crisis zone . Momentum was the engine of Jeremy Corbyn’s victory. Now a civil war is tearing it apart. New Statesman)
Some of the exchanges are far worse than have been made public to a wider audience.
The latest has been an interminable dispute about its national structures.
It began with this, “MxV, an innovative digital democracy platform to enable Momentum members to shape the organisation’s purpose, ethics and structures.”
An on-line consultation resulted, we hear, in more suggestions for how the group should be run than a debate on how many angels can dance on the head of pin (see: Democracy denied: Momentum’s online democracy platform.)
Or, the classic Left Unity conference debate on such issues.
Now Momentum is set to collapse into further in-fighting as the pro-Brexit – that is Lexit – Populists take the initiative.
We observe that this ‘initiative’ has not been discussed with the Momentum membership at all.
‘Taking back control is not the preserve of the right.
Momentum has announced it is to host a series of nationwide events and debates to coincide with Government’s triggering of Article 50 in 2017.
Alongside The World Transformed the organisation – set up in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s victory as Labour leader – will launch a series of political and cultural events in local communities across the country.
The events will run under the name ‘Take Back Control’ – the political slogan used by the Leave campaign during the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
Emma Rees, one of Momentum’s national organisers, told The Independent: “After the success of The World Transformed in Liverpool, ‘Take Back Control’ is a series of exciting events that will bring together leave and remain voters to debate the terms of Brexit, the future of Britain and give a platform to voices too often left out of political conversations.”
Lotte Boumelha, a Take Back Control organiser, *added: “Theresa May claims ‘Brexit means Brexit’. But this empty phrase has been used to hide the fact that the government is in chaos. Many people, both leave and remain voters, have felt dis-empowered since the referendum and shut out of the debate.
“Take Back Control will be about reclaiming the narrative and opening up the negotiations. This is our Brexit. We should get to decide what it means and what it will look like. And while Theresa May has only a majority of 14 MPs – she will have to listen to us.”
In March, to coincide with the Government’s anticipated triggering of the exit process from the EU, The World Transformed will work with local Momentum groups, constituency Labour parties, and trade union branches to “bring together leave and remain voters, open up the Brexit negotiations and discuss how we can take back control from economic elites and establishment politicians.
How on earth these meetings are going to ‘take control’ of any negotiations, elites and politicians, is as clear as mud.
Anybody, anybody, who talks about “reclaiming the narrative” with Farage on the loose amid the Carnival or Reaction, is a kenspeckle fool.
What are they going to do: story-tell it all to sleep?
The New Statesman comments,
While The World Transformed is “definitely” part of Momentum, according to Todd, its exact relationship remains under discussion, as does its relationship to the wider Labour party.
To repeat, nobody seems to know how the hare-brained initiative was decided on (certainly not by Momentum membership, or any accountable body, then by whom?), who controls it, and, as for its consequences…..
Anna Chen says,
Brexit: Poll provides evidence, says Counterfire, for how right Counterfire and the Brexit Left‘s strategy is.
Kevin Ovenden – now with Counterfire – on the Actuality of the Brexit Revolution.
Writes Kevin Ovenden for Counterfire.
(Note some of the wording has been, in the interests of clarity, abbreviated)
- Just 22 percent of people are in favour of ignoring the referendum outcome or holding a second one and blocking the Brexit process.
- Brexit is the top issue both for those who voted Leave and for Remain.
- While there is clearly an urgent need to develop campaigning and struggles against the government on a range of issues (the health service and housing stand out, alongside racism and xenophobia), strategically and politically for the left and labour movement the question of Brexit cannot be evaded. NOTE: Ovenden sees no link between these issues and the Brexit he backs.
- support for carrying through the referendum result is overwhelming.
- That is terrain upon which the labour movement can provide a credible and radical alternative to the Tory Brexit.
- When people are asked to choose between reducing immigration or doing what is best for the British economy (with the two counterposed) – 65 percent choose what’s best for the economy and 35 percent to reduce immigration. Among Leave voters, the figures are 44 percent and 56 percent.
That shows the greater salience of the anti-immigration argument among Leave voters. But still 44 percent of them would choose to prioritise the economy over reducing immigration.
So people prefer the economy, and will let immigration remain in second place.
They are merely second preference racists.
Ovenden dialectically deduces from these figures the following (and I have omitted no intermediate stage).
In a choice between Britain controlling its own laws and British companies having access to other markets, the figures are 62 percent for controlling laws and 38 percent prioritising companies’ market access.
Taken together these support a strategy for the left on these questions which is 1) for an economy which is geared to people, not to companies, 2) on that basis (as well as others) challenging the anti-immigration arguments, and 3) firmly rooted in an expanded notion of popular democracy.
I will, ignore the idea of an “economy geared to people”, since in the realm of cliches and meaningless assertions this has few rivals.
Instead we might ask: what exactly that expanded notion of “popular democracy” (no doubt opposed to unpopular demcoracy) is, we leave it to theorists to discover.
People believe there should be Brexit. They think it is the democratic thing to do. They have no confidence in the government’s handling of it. They are uncertain about the outcomes or what it should look like. When forced to choose, they will put economic well-being above anti-immigration propaganda and some notion of democracy and self-rule above the global fortunes of British companies.
Again ‘economic well-being’ is no doubt counterposed to economic ill-being.
As for the “democratic thing to do” and “self-rule”, does this mean, a decision-fired parliament, greater assertiveness fnational sovereignty, backing a populist party to carry out their wishes? Or – simply urging the Tories to get on with it.
He seems to think, nevertheless, that because many people want Brexit, that the Tories are finding it hard to get through the legislative process – he does not even bother mentioning negotiations with the European Union – they will turn to something different, something that the left might favour, an “expanded notion of popular democracy”.
Expanded into what?
New forms of law-making, Web democracy, consensus decision-making, voting by hand-signals, demonstrations, occupations, or perhaps…. soviets…..
Ovenden fails to elaborate.
On this he is sure.
In that context, there are good grounds for the left counterposing our Brexit to the Tories’.
Next stop… the People’s Brexit writes Lindsey German.
Brockley Festival of Ideas for Change Sunday 20 November 2016, 10am-5pm. The Mural Hall, Prendergast Hilly Fields College, SE4 1LE 10:00 Registration Tea and coffee available 10:30 Festival opens Welcome Morning Chair: Anthony Russell Clare Cowen, Brockley Society Session 1: PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRACY Sean Coughlan – Broadcaster The future of education Ivo Mosley – Author A constitution for a genuine democracy Swetam Gungah – Mathematical Physicist: Sensible about science Camilla Berens – South East London Community Energy: Creating local energy Michael O’Keefe – Positive Money Change Money, Change the World 11:30 Questions and discussion 12:00 Session 2: A FAIRER WORLD Natasha Wort – Uniting for Peace How to save the world – A Buddhist’s Guide Tassia Kobylinska – Filmmaker, Goldsmiths College Film as social action Lui Smyth – Anthropologist Unconditional basic income for all 12:30 Questions and discussion 13:00 Lunch break View stalls at back of hall 14:00 Afternoon Chair: Clare Cowen Session 3: AN INCLUSIVE SOCIETY Gabriel Gbadamosi – Writer The creative community as a condition of multicultural society Andy Worthington – Journalist and activist Demonising ‘the other’: Tackling the rise of racism and xenophobia Rosario Guimba-Stewart Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network Refugees and their challenges Jacqueline Walker – Author From life to Action 15:00 Questions and discussion 15:30 Session 4: BUILDING A NEW ECONOMY Bruce Mauleverer QC – The International Law Association International law, to be read on his behalf by Bob Barrett Aeron Davis – Professor of Political Communication, Goldsmiths What has the financial system ever done for us? Helen Mercer – Lecturer in Economics The Private Finance Initiative: how to end the rip-off Oliver Lewis – Campaigner Bring back British Rail Anthony Russell – Cultural Historian An ethos for a social renaissance.
Ivo Mosley background, “Ivo Mosley is the grandson of fascist leader Oswald Mosley. His book, In the Name of the People, is an analysis of the non-democratic nature of Western democracies and, as it says on his website, “the strange lack of freedom that Western peoples experience in bondage to debt”.
Ivo Mosley on the “Money Power” without the anti-semitism, ” nowadays bankers are Anglo-Saxon, Chinese, African, Indian, Jewish, Christian, Islamic or whatever: assorted individuals who have no more consuming interest than to make lots of money.” (Ivo Mosley Antisemitism and Banking also see this: Guest Author on Positive Money).
Ivo Mosley is associated with this: Positive Money at the Labour and Conservative party conferences (Video)
- Positive Money does not act on the behalf of any particular lobby or interest group.
- Positive Money is not a political organisation. We don’t campaign for either a bigger or a smaller role for government. We campaign for changes to the money system which would benefit the economy as a whole, and which is therefore compatible with the aims of all political parties.
- Positive Money is not against privately owned banks. Privately-owned banks have an important function in providing payment services, a secure place for our money, investment opportunities, and to make loans.
- Positive Money is not against bankers. Most people who work in banks do not understand the money system and its effects, and are simply trying to provide a service for customers and earn a living. Undoubtedly some bankers have abused their power, but this is not the root cause of our financial crisis; the root cause is our current money system.
- Positive Money is not against lending, or charging interest on loans where an investor is lending their money to somebody else.
- Positive Money does not believe that regulation alone can solve the problems with banking or the money system. Regulation has been shown to be ineffective, and easily reversed, but furthermore it does not alter the root causes of the problem. What is needed is legislative change.
- Positive Money is not a campaign for general financial reform, alternative economics or complementary currencies. While there are many other reforms that also need to take place, Positive Money has a specific and narrow purpose – to change the national money system in order to create a fairer and more stable economy.
- Positive Money does not support the use of illegal or violent means to bring about change. We campaign for the money system to be changed with minimal social and economic upheaval.
Anthony Russell is a cultural historian, writer and artist. He has travelled much of the world combining painting with tour lecturing – principally to American university students on bespoke tours and the National Association of Decorative and Fine Arts.
He spent six years as a consultant for Luke Hughes advising on the furniture needs of prestigious buildings throughout Britain, including museums, palaces, schools and cathedrals.
Now based in London, he spends much of his time lecturing and undertaking research. At the British Museum, where he runs outreach events and hosts visiting lecturers, he has been described as “Hugh Grant meets the Dalai Lama.”
Committed to the ‘search for civilisation’ and as an advocate of nonviolence, he is the founder of the Chandos, on the committee for Uniting for Peace and a contributor to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy in Burma.
He is author of the book ‘Evolving the Spirit – From Democracy to Peace.’, commended by Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Laureate, as meaning a great deal to her. He is also Chairman of the Brockley Festival of Ideas and a Founding Advocate of Civil-isation.