The Coming Corporate State by Alexander Raven Thompson - British Fascist Economics

archive.org/details/pdfy-Xm3KNoxQuBK9mHlX/page/n5

THE Corporate State is based upon industrial or occupational organisation rather than the regional or geographical method of government used today. This feature runs through the whole system, both of Government and representation, and must be grasped as a fundamental before the real nature of the Corporate State can be appreciated. The regional administration of Democracy is largely replaced by functional industrial organisation on a vocational basis.

...the Corporate State endows industries and occupations with new powers of self-government. These powers are exercised in the same manner as those of local authorities today. In the position of the borough council we have the industrial corporation, which possesses the right to pass by-laws binding upon the industry as a whole, just as the council can pass by-laws for the borough.

Hitherto all attempts at industrial planning have broken down because of the difficulty of compelling an industry to fulfil agreements. In the Corporate system decisions arrived at by the corporation will be legally binding, and any breach will be punishable at law.

Within the Corporate State every great industry, and groups of smaller industries and professions, will be controlled by such a Corporation giving the industry powers of economic self-government.
The following is a list of Corporations, which would be required to control the economic system.

A - PRIMARY PRODUCTS.
1. Agricultural.
2. Fishing.
3. Mining and Fuel.
4. Iron and Steel.
5. Metal Trade.
B - INDUSTRIAL.
6. Engineering.
7. Printing and Paper Trade.
8. Shipbuilding.
9. Textiles. :
10. Leather and Rubber.
11. Glass and Pottery.
12. Chemicals.
13. Woodworking and Furnishing.
14. Clothing.
C. - DISTRIBUTIVE.
15. Building.
16. Public Utilities.
17. Transport.
18. Shipping and Docks.
19. Wholesale and Retail Trades.
D. - ADMINISTRATIVE, ETC.
20. Banking and Insurance.
21. Civil Service.
22. Professional.
23. Art and Entertainment.
24. Domestic.
25. Pensioners.

These Corporations would, in their turn, be split up into smaller groups functioning in single industries within the main category, but would represent the whole industrial section in relation to the central government.

We now turn to the typical Corporation, and see in what manner it is organised and how it will function. There will be represented on the Corporation employers, workers and consumers. Each group will be given equal representation and equal power, and may not be outvoted by the other two.

Sane functioning of the nation as a whole can only be attained by collaboration between the various industrial factors, not by their mutual hostility, as supposed by the Manchester school of economists.

(Cont.)

Attached: Ive+already+made+a+couple+but+the+more+the+merrier+_d8e36db17daf8aacdd9ebaeffd53fd3f.jpg (680x578, 100K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/100QuestionsAboutFascism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The employers' representatives will be elected by the owners, partners and directors in the business enterprises of the industry, and by those engaged in a managerial capacity or in executive office. They will represent the organising side and will form an employers' federation. Association to this employers' federation will be compulsory upon every business enterprise, which will contribute a yearly subscription proportional to the number of its employees, and submit itself to the disciplined control of the federation.

The workers' representatives will be elected by all employees, whatever their function, including clerical staff (excepting only those engaged in a managerial capacity mentioned above). They will form a trade union embracing every worker, but confined entirely to these. The principle of Trade Unionism is entirely retained, and advanced to 100 per cent. Stripped of their obnoxious and irrelevant political activities the Unions will play an essential part in the organisation of the Corporate State.

The consumers' representatives cannot be elected like the others, as consumers may very well be scattered broadcast. Actually the nation itself is the ultimate consumer in the case of most products and, therefore, the Government, as representative of the nation, is best fitted to nominate the consumers' representatives. Reputable persons will be chosen to represent the interests of the ultimate consumer, and these will hear the grievances and suggestions of anyone who is affected by the working of the industry in question. In many cases other industries are big consumers, when the Government will appoint representatives to be nominated by the Corporations controlling these industries to watch over their interests. It is through these corporate institutions that a rationalised expression of opinion will be realised in keeping with the modern age. For the first time all members of every industry will have their share in the control of the great economic factors of their daily life. By electing trustworthy representatives they will choose not some vague general Party policy - to be conveniently forgotten by politicians in office - but will determine, in common with the other factors of production, the conditions of their daily work, the remuneration for their service and the planning and regulation of their own trade or profession.

Attached: bf1.png (1761x770, 227K)

Refute it

Attached: Mosley.jpg (650x951, 54K)

nice thread op

Fascist economics is just Medieval/Catholic/Jubilee economics without the humility ... hence it cannot work, since that humility is an intrinsic part of such a framework. As George Orwell put it, "Fascism is socialism with the virtues left out." It is bound to fail because it hates too much and it escapes anomie through incessant, often pointless activity, usually consisting of fighting some opponent. It's a shit-tier ideology that you only need half a brain to through. It's resurgence amongst young people on the internet today is pretty pitiful. As long as we live in time, there can be no perfectly convergent political system as fascism envisions. It is always going to be conflict, it is always going to be discordant, it is always going to be a nightmare of Greek tragic proportions. Plato's Republic was a meme. Just participate in liberal democracy like a sensible person. I guarantee you you'll go further than you will posting on /r/DebateFascism about how bad feminism is

Mosley should have been hanged along with Churchill.

Where the fuck is humility in OP posts? Stop giving autistic answers by putting on your mental VHS about what fascism is and engage with the theory presented instead. Quotations are not arguments

>As George Orwell put it
stopped reading right there. Most assblasted "author" in human history after the Spanish civil war and Homage to Catalonia when he and his commie buddies got btfo by other commies.

thanks user
i hope we can discuss ideas ITT and not stereotypes

>Refute it
Allowing industries to regulate themselves seems like a bad idea. Giving employers equal or greater representation compared to employees seems like a bad idea.

archive.org/details/100QuestionsAboutFascism

8. How are you going to break down the barriers of class?

By establishment of the principle of no reward without service, and the consequent elimination
of the parasite who creates the barrier of social class. Functional differences will exist according
to difference of function, but differences of social classes will be eliminated. They arise from the
fact that in present society the few can live in idleness as a master class upon the production of
the many. Under Fascism all will serve in varying manner and degree the nation to which all are responsible.

This present conception of divided social classes invades even productive spheres. With the
abolition of a parasitic class by our proposals for dealing with hereditary wealth, this tendency
too, will be eliminated. The Managing Director of a business will perform a different function
from that which the Charwoman performs in sweeping out his office. But the difference will be
functional and not social. Outside the difference of function and of service the Fascist State recognises no difference between its citizens. The recognition of functional differences, however,
marks another difference between Fascism and Socialism. The equalitarian doctrines of the latter,
which are not only social but functional, lead logically to the performance of the Managing
Director's function by a committee of Charwomen.
We believe everywhere in the Leadership principle and the functional differentiation which
allocates definite responsibility to the individual. This principle rests on an obvious fact of human nature which Socialism ignores.

31. Would women be eligible as representatives on all Corporations, on any
Corporation?

They will be eligible on all Corporations representing their industry or profession. In addition the
great majority of women who are wives and mothers will for the first time be given effective representation by Fascism. A special Corporation will be created for them, which will have
special standing in the State. That Corporation will deal with outstanding women's questions
such as mother and child welfare. In addition, it will assist Government in such matters as food
prices, housing, education and other subjects, in which the opinion of a practical housewife is
often worth more than that of a Socialist professor or spinster politician.

32. Will the position of women be in any way inferior under Fascism?

Certainly not. Fascism in Britain will maintain the British principle of honouring and elevating
the position of women. We certainly combat the decadence of the present system which treats the
position of wife and mother as inferior. On the contrary, we consider this to be one of the
greatest of human and racial functions to be honoured and encouraged. But women will be free
to pursue their own vacations. Fascism combats the false values of decadence not by force, but
by persuasion and example.

Attached: ufdg4tltdg4z.png (1104x828, 1.19M)

Employers dont have greater representation. They must have representatives in the employers federation, adhere to the laws of the federation, and contribute a yearly subscription proportional to the number of employees.

Sorry about the wonky copy-paste. For some reason PDFs never paste properly.

So they have equal representation, 10 employers, 10,000 workers.

"one may not outvote the other"

Oh, also, charging does by employee headcount incentives not hiring.

And thus you have less massive companies and more small business.

Right, so 10,000 workers can't outvote 10 employers. If that's what you're really after - bootlicking industrialists - give up the larp and just go and suck Elon Musk's dick like all the other redditors.

God I love this board

And 10 employers cant outvote their employees.
You denying the essential purpose of an employer is your problem not mine or economists.
As Oswald says, your kind of socialism leads to the management of the manager by a comitte of employees, which is just flipping the heirarchy upside down, not solving the issue of class heirarchy.
To instead eliminate the power imbalance and give both employer, employee, and consumer equal representation is obviously the fairest choice. Its far fairer than laissez-faire Capitalism and avoids the traps of equalitatian socialism that deny the importance of leadership.
This ensures fair leadership without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

WTF is my brand of socialism? I haven't advanced any such thing. I've just poked a few holes in your copypasta. Representation by industry is a bad idea tout court. I don't care if it's Mosley or the Wobblies advancing it.

Its blatantly obvious you're a socialist
Who else would have an issue with employers existing, lol.
>I've just poked a few holes in your copypasta.
You gave me your opinion you didnt poke holes in anything. You have yet to make an argument why its bad.
>Representation by industry is a bad idea tout court.
Why? It reduces beaurecracy and is essentially true democracy. You aren't voting for a charlatan who claims to have all the answers, instead you vote on a vocational basis according to your specific industry. Employees and consumers may outvote the employers. Its designed to reduce the power of big business. How is this anything but an objective improvement over laissez-faire Capitalism?
Please cool it with the autistic temper we're just having a civil discussion here.

You didnt even read did you

>Who else would have an issue with employers existing, lol.

When did I say that? I pointed out that employers would be represented far in excess of their numbers. Most people (not you, bootlicker, but most people) would have a problem with that.

>>Representation by industry is a bad idea tout court.
>Why? It reduces beaurecracy and is essentially true democracy. You aren't voting for a charlatan who claims to have all the answers, instead you vote on a vocational basis according to your specific industry. Employees and consumers may outvote the employers. Its designed to reduce the power of big business. How is this anything but an objective improvement over laissez-faire Capitalism?

You would need a larger bureaucracy in such a system. Because you would have to precisely measure the size and composition of industries for apportionment. Otherwise you would end up with legacy industries calling the shots and new industries frozen out. Even so, incumbents would find ways to protect themselves.

I believe your faith that this would do away with charlatanism is also misplaced. Silicon Valley believed in Theranos for fuck sake. And have you met some of the people who run industry associations? I have. Maybe they'd somehow be better under faith but I doubt it.

>When did I say that? I pointed out that employers would be represented far in excess of their numbers.
This isnt a mass democracy. Nor do we have that today. If you want to know why mass democracy is a bad idea consult Plato.
You also failed to understand that Employers are at a disadvantage. Not only are they restricted by the ethics of the federation, they can be outvoted 2/1 by Employees and Consumers.
>most people (not you, bootlicker, but most people) would have a problem with that.
Only Socialists have a problem with that and Socialists are a minority. You can stop using your Socialist buzzwords now. If I'm a bootlicker for wanting to take power away from big industrialists, then I guess we're all bootlickers.
>You would need a larger bureaucracy in such a system. Because you would have to precisely measure the size and composition of industries for apportionment.
That makes no sense. The industries self govern within their respective corporation. This objectively reduces the beaurecracy by a huge amount. The role of the government in economics is greatly diminished.
>Otherwise you would end up with legacy industries calling the shots and new industries frozen out.
Since its clear you didn't read the OP, industries are separate. Doctors dont get to vote on the industry of building and construction. They are separate corporations. Each corporation self governs.

>I believe your faith that this would do away with charlatanism is also misplaced. Silicon Valley believed in Theranos for fuck sake. And have you met some of the people who run industry associations? I have. Maybe they'd somehow be better under faith but I doubt it.
Who elects those people? Not employers and consumers. Hence the major difference between that and this examole.