The Coming Corporate State (British Fascism / INGSOC, 1938) [A. Raven Thomson] (NotebookLM Deep Dive)

View the Full Article Here

Click Here to Submit a Deep Dive Recommendation

This excerpt from "Coming Corporate State (British Fascism) (1938)" outlines the British Union's vision for a radical societal transformation, aiming to replace what it deems a failing "Financial Democracy" with a Corporate State. The document asserts that individual liberty, as understood in democratic systems, has led to economic disparity and ineffective governance, advocating instead for a system where economic and financial power are centralized and controlled by the government. This new state would be organized fundamentally around industrial or occupational corporations, rather than geographical regions, integrating employers, workers, and consumers to achieve economic justice, national prosperity, and cultural development, ultimately striving for an "organic purpose" that transcends individual interests for the greater good of the nation.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Welcome to the deep dive. Have you ever, you know, really
pondered what fascism actually meant beyond the usual
headlines? Especially when you look at it
through specific national lens like Britain?
Right. Our minds often jump to certain
images. Don't.
They they do. But what if we could sort of
peel back those layers and look at a really detailed blueprint,

(00:20):
a plan for an entire society, exactly as the people pushing
for it imagined it back at a specific moment in time?
Yeah, that's exactly what we're doing today, today.
We're diving deep into this really remarkable document from
1938. It lays out the complete vision
for a British corporate state. And our source material?
It's genuinely exceptional. For this deep dive, we're

(00:42):
looking at excerpts from a 1938 document literally titled Coming
Corporate State, British Fascism.
So not a history book about it, but the thing itself.
Exactly. It's not someone else's analysis
or interpretation from later on,it's a direct explanation from
the movement itself. You know, outlining their whole
proposed government, economy, society, the lot.

(01:02):
It really is a rare, unfiltered glimpse into a very specific,
very comprehensive ideology and it was presented back then as
the plan for Britain's future. OK, so our mission today is
clear. It's not about endorsing or
condemning anything here. It's really just about trying to
understand, right? Setting aside political

(01:23):
leanings. Absolutely.
It's about getting informed quickly but thoroughly.
We're going to pull out the mostimportant Nuggets of insight
from this foundational text. The idea is you can get properly
well informed on a topic that, let's face it, often stays
pretty hazy for most people. Yeah, it does.
We're basically stepping back into 1938, trying to see the

(01:43):
world through the eyes of the people who wrote this, well,
this compelling document. And what really jumps out when
you read it is just the sheer scope.
It's way more than just a political manifesto.
It gets into the nitty gritty ofhow industries would be
organized, how they'd be governed, the details of
banking, foreign trade. It even covers things like art,
leisure and the role of the Crown in this new setup.

(02:04):
An entire societal blueprint. That's what it is and its
supporters presented it as the raw truth for Britain, you know,
designed to fix what they saw asthe fundamental problems with
the system they had. OK, so given this really
ambitious vision, the big question has to be why?
Why did they think, according tothis text, that such a drastic,

(02:26):
well, revolution was necessary in the first place?
Yeah, good starting. Point Let's start there.
What was their diagnosis of problems Britain faced in 1938?
What was the argument for needing this massive change?
The why? Diagnosing democracies.
Failure and the promise of the corporate state.
Well, the document kicks off with a pretty start.
Claim democracy is failing all over the world just lays it out

(02:50):
there. No mincing words.
Not at all. And it blames this failure
mainly on what it calls a mistaken belief in absolute
individual liberty. OK, so too much freedom is the
problem. That's the core argument.
They say this unchecked individual freedom has negatived
all effective government and kind of ironically, actually
deprive the people of their essential freedom.
How so? How does too much liberty

(03:11):
deprive people of freedom in their view?
Because for them, unrestrained liberty just led to chaos.
It stopped society working for the collective good, which in
turn, they argued, limited real practical freedom for ordinary
people. Right.
And what's really interesting ishow the document tries to link
this supposed failure to actual historical events.

(03:32):
It points fingers particularly at the Liberals repealing the
Corn Laws and Navigation Acts back in the last century.
Yeah, that's a key historical anchor for them.
The argument seems to be that OK, people got political self
government, but at the same timeeconomic and financial control
slipped away. Slipped into the hands of, and
this is their phrase, a few irresponsible individuals who

(03:54):
then exploited their liberty at everyone else's expense.
So political freedom without economic control was basically
useless, an illusion. Exactly.
The text frames it as a massive betrayal of democratic self
government. It tries to illustrate this by
pointing out how, again and again since the First World War,
political parties made all thesepromises.
Social improvements. Fixing unemployment.

(04:15):
Right, all that, But then when in office, have been unable to
carry out their pledges. The document insists it's not
just bad politicians. No, it's the system which is at
fault. So the system itself prevents
good intentions from working. That's the claim.
It says with the best will, noneof the old parties can hope to

(04:38):
improve our economic distress solong as they uphold the
perverted tenants of individual liberty which deny them the
power to rule and condemn the bulk of the people to economic
enslavement. Wow, economic enslavement.
That's strong language and that leads them to their radical
solution then? It does.
The British Union, which the text often calls the Black

(04:58):
Shirts, demands the corporate state as the only means of
effective economic government. Without it, they claim, all self
government can be no more than an illusion.
It's a pretty complete dismissalof the whole existing political
scene, isn't it? Saying it just can't deliver.
Totally. The document is explicit.
They say they won't be satisfiedwith just the pomp and ceremony
of parliamentary procedure or the, you know, uniforms and

(05:20):
emoluments of high political office.
They want the real levers of power.
Exactly. They demand power to govern
power. Not merely to act as figureheads
run by civil servants, but powerto control and direct industrial
and financial organization. The goal was for the official
government to be the real government.
Empowered to actually do things.Right, empowered to fulfill the

(05:43):
wishes of the people, solve the big problems like slums and
unemployment by basically unleashing the productive powers
of the nation to lift everyone'sstandard of living.
And they position this corporatestate as the ultimate fix for
the chaos and disorder of the present economic system.
And there's that direct quote you mentioned, highlighting A
recurring theme. Yes, that it's designed to break

(06:05):
the hidden dictatorship of vested interests and alien
financiers who exploit present conditions for their own
benefit. That idea of unseen forces
pulling the strings seems reallycentral to their whole argument.
It is, and to really get their proposed solution, you need to
grasp its three parts. First, they present it as a
philosophic conception. The nation is seen as an

(06:25):
Organism of a higher order, transcending the individuals
within it. Almost a spiritual view of the
nation. You can say that it's
foundational. Second, it's an economic
organization. Industry gets planned and
developed along functional service lines.
Efficiency, collective purpose, that's the aim.
And 3rd, 3rd, it's a social order.

(06:46):
This is designed to maintain thefamily unit but also allow
freedom of self-expression and initiative within the multitude
of reproductive family units. So it really is a total
blueprint for society, not just an economic fix.
And they have a specific order for putting this all in place,
don't they? Authority, prosperity.
Freedom. Exactly.
Authority comes first, that's the tool to keep the state

(07:09):
together as a social entity. Then prosperity achieved through
this functional organization of the economy, and finally,
freedom. But freedom, the text says, is
something the individual realizes only after they've been
freed from political corruption and economic hardship.
So freedom is the result, not the starting point.
Precisely. And this ordering, they say,

(07:29):
differs materially from that of democracy.
Fascism, according to this text,does recognize individual
freedom, but it doesn't put it before all others, as does
decayed democracy. Because individual freedom can
only follow economic liberation in their view.
That's what they explicitly assert.
They argue that liberty, adoptedas an overriding principle, must

(07:50):
inevitably generate into the capitalist system.
Or you use your. Ocracy.
Yeah, it basically means a system dominated and exploited
by financial power, by lending for profit.
And this really raises a key question for us, doesn't it?
What does it actually mean to think of freedom as a
consequence of state imposed order and economic security
rather than a fundamental inherent right?

(08:10):
It completely flips the usual liberal understanding.
It really does. So how did the British Union
plan to actually achieve this? What were the steps?
3 clear steps once they got power.
First established central authority by an enabling bill
empowering the government to rule by order in council.
So immediate concentration of power.
Step one, take control, right? Step 2.

(08:31):
The government will establish prosperity by planning both
production and distribution. Economic planning kicks in.
And Step 3. Step three.
With authority and prosperity supposedly secured, the
individual will gain for the first time that economic freedom
which he has been denied by the liberal capitalist system,
security of work and wages, homeand happiness, life and leisure.

(08:54):
The text talks about creating a healthy correlation between the
individual, their functional group and the nation.
And they make it clear which aspect gets tackled first.
Yes, very clear. Of the three aspects, political,
economic, cultural, current, theeconomic one comes first.
That's where the most drastic changes must be made.
Which makes sense given their diagnosis that economic chaos

(09:16):
was the root of all the problems.
Material well-being first, then everything else follows the.
Economic blueprint. Corporations and centralized
control. Exactly.
OK, so with the why laid out, let's dive into the core
mechanism of this new constitutional form, the
corporate state's economic structure.
It all kicks off with something called the corporations.
How do they picture these actually working?
Right. This is where their vision

(09:37):
really breaks from traditional government.
The corporate state is fundamentally built on
industrial or occupational organization rather than the
regional or geographical method of government used today.
So your job defines your political unit, not where you
live. Pretty much.
The text explicitly says this vocational basis runs through

(09:58):
the whole system, both of government and representation.
It's foundational. Instead of an MP representing,
say, Manchester, they'd represent the textile industry
or engineering or whatever. So we're talking about
governance by industry effectively.
Precisely, the document says thecorporate state endows
industries and occupations with new powers of self government.

(10:19):
Self government like little industry parliaments.
Kind of. These powers are exercised much
like local authorities operate today, able to pass bylaws
binding upon the industry as a whole.
And this is a huge shift because, as the text points out,
previous attempts at industrial planning often have broken down
because of the difficulty of compelling an industry to

(10:39):
fulfill agreements. So these decisions would have
legal teeth. Exactly.
Under this corporate system, decisions made by a corporation
would be legally binding and anybreach will be punishable at
law. Compliance is built in.
And the document actually lists these proposed corporations,
doesn't it? That list really shows the scale
of their thinking. It does.

(10:59):
It's sweeping, covers everythingfrom primary products and then
agriculture, mining to industrial sectors like
engineering and textiles, right through to distributive
services, transport, retail. And even includes things you
might not expect, like banking, insurance, domestic workers,
even pensioners. Yes, what's really striking is

(11:19):
how they imagined every single part of economic life, from the
biggest factory down to the individual household, being
brought into this corporatist structure.
It just shows how all-encompassing their ambition
was. And how would representation
work within each of these corporations?
You mentioned it wasn't meant tobe adversarial.
Right, It was structured, they claim, to foster collaboration

(11:39):
between the various industrial factors, not by their mutual
hostility. As opposed by the Manchester
School of economists. You know, classical free market
thinking. So collaboration not conflict.
How? Each corporation would represent
three groups, employers, workersand consumers, and crucially,
with equal representation and equal power, that means no

(12:02):
single group could be outvoted by the other two.
Equal representation? That's interesting.
How would that actually work? Who gets elected by whom?
OK, let's break it down quickly.Employers, representatives,
they'd be elected by the owners,partners, directors, managers,
executives within that industry.And every business would have to
join an employer's federation. Compulsory membership.
Yes, then workers representatives, elected by all

(12:25):
employees except managers. They'd form a trade union,
embracing every worker, but confined entirely to these.
So the principle of trade unionism is entirely retained
and advanced to 100%. But, and this is key, it would
be stripped of their obnoxious and irrelevant political
activities. So unions exist, but only for
workplace issues, not wider politics.

(12:46):
What about consumers? They're harder to organize.
Yeah, the document admits that you can't really elect consumer
representatives easily, so the government, acting as
representative of the nation, would nominate reputable persons
to represent the general consumer interest.
Nominated, not elective. Right.
And for cases where one industryconsumes another's products,
like steel using coal, representatives would be

(13:08):
nominated by the corporations controlling those specific
industries. The whole point, the text
emphasizes, is to give all members of every industry a
direct share in the control of the great economic factors of
their daily life. They determine their own
conditions of their daily work, the remuneration for their
service, and the planning and regulation of their own trade or
profession. OK, so you have all these

(13:30):
individual corporations each supposedly self governing, but
how do you stop them just becoming battlegrounds for
industrial conflict? Or as the text itself worries
about exploiting the community, what keeps them in line?
What's the central control? That's a critical question, and
they do address it. The document actually says the
system closely resembles syndicalism, you know, the idea

(13:51):
of worker control of industries.But it explicitly flags
syndicalism's weakness, insufficient allowance for
central government. So they saw that potential
problem. Yes, and their solution?
The corporate state may be defined as a syndicalist system
upon which has been superimposeda powerful central government.

(14:13):
Those consumer representatives we mentioned are key here.
They act as a check and control,warning about unfair price hikes
or output restrictions. They're basically delegates of
central authority embedded within each corporation.
There's not just a loose collection of industries doing
their own thing, there's an overarching body coordinating it
all. Absolutely.
This central control is embodiedin the national corporation.

(14:34):
It's described as a general economic council with
representatives from every individual corporation.
It's explicit job is to centralized the administration
of the whole system, coordinating everything in the
interests of the national welfare and membership would be
weighted by how important each industry was.
And its function is described asexecutive and administrative,

(14:55):
not legislative like the House of Commons.
Yeah, so it's not making laws, but it's settling disputes,
acting like a judge for industry.
Yes, it has that judicial capacity for settling disputes
within and between corporations,but it also has a much, much
bigger job, which is the task ofindustrial planning on a
national scale will be vested inthe national corporation.

(15:18):
It's responsible for balancing consumption to production by its
control over wage rates throughout the country.
Imagine that. It's supposed to have the best
executive brains of industrial and professional life advising
the minister of Corporations. Wow, controlling wage rates
nationally to balance the economy.
And the document specifically mentions the huge issue of the
time overproduction and unemployment.

(15:40):
How does the corporate state plan to fix that?
The tech says that's the first task of the national
corporation, solving this economic quandary.
It flat out rejects the idea that unemployment is just an
inevitable result of rationalization or new
technology calls those views modern defeatists.
They believed man could master technology for the common good.
And they use that analogy right,the Pacific Islanders.

(16:02):
Yes, it's quite vivid. Imagine 20 families working 8
hours a day to feed themselves with basic schools.
Then they get a plow and suddenly only 15 families are
needed. What happens to the other 5?
Under the current system, they'dbe unemployed.
Right, which the text calls the Way of Western Civilization.

(16:22):
But even the most primitive savages, the text claims, would
figure out that by a readjustment of the hours of
work to six a day instead of eight, all would have employment
and would enjoy more leisure. So the point of the analogy is
that the problem of rationalization is a problem of
organization. Yeah.
Technology isn't the enemy, it'show you manage its benefits.

(16:44):
That's their core claim. Modern science can bring greater
wealth or greater leisure, or a same combination of both, and
the planned state would achieve this mainly through largely
financial methods, higher wages and salaries, and putting a
larger volume of currency and credit into free circulation.
This means ditching the gold standard, setting up a managed
currency, and they claim there'sno real danger of inflation in a

(17:07):
planned and disciplined state. A big claim.
Huge. The document basically promises
the corporate state will releasethe full powers of modern
production for the benefit of all sections, and gives an
absolute guarantee that the problem of unemployment will be
finally and permanently solved. You can see how appealing that
would sound in the depths of the1930s depression.
Absolutely. So going back to the individual

(17:29):
corporations, beyond just havinga say in governance, what are
their actual day-to-day duties? What's their job description
once they're set up? The document neatly divides
their duties into three types, regulative, planning, and
social. Let's take the regulative
function first. Its main goal is to stop the
conflict between employers and workers, the opposing armies as
they call them. No more threatening each other

(17:51):
with destructive, antisocial weapons of the strike and
lockout. So strikes and lockouts are just
banned? Outlawed.
Neither can be tolerated in thisplanned state.
Instead, the national corporation makes each
industrial corporation draw up legally binding codes of wages,
hours and conditions of work. And if they can't agree?
The consumer representatives step in as mediators.

(18:12):
If that fails, the national corporation intervenes and the
final backstop is a labor court for compulsory arbitration.
And what about prices and competition between businesses?
Also regulated. Yes, those issues are also meant
to be settled by mutual agreement within the
corporation. Again, the consumer reps are
crucial. They're there to stop employers

(18:34):
and workers ganging up, to restrict production and extort
unreasonable profits and wages. They can appeal to the national
corporation if needed. Even dividends the return on
capital. Even that the return upon
invested capital in the form of dividends would be regulated.
A national Investment board would publish A guiding figure
for a fair return on secure investments just to keep things
stable. OK.

(18:55):
That's the regulating part. What about the planning
function? How do they guide the industry's
future growth contraction? The corporations themselves
decide whether their industry needs to expand or contract
based on demand. If they want to expand, they
apply to this investment board for capital, which actively
encourages new businesses. Worker reps sort out getting
trained labor. Consumer reps advise on

(19:17):
marketing. It implies this new partnership
where workers and consumers planalongside employers.
And if an industry is declining,maybe because of new technology?
Then contraction is managed withthe minimum of hardship.
Obsolete factories, redundant plant get closed down, the
owners get compensated and the displaced workers get retrained

(19:37):
by the government and move to other expanding industries that
need people. A managed transition then, and
the third function social. What does that involve?
Here the document looks to examples from Italy, the Doppler
Voro, or after work recreation schemes and Germany's Strength
Through Joy program. So organizing leisure time.
Yes, it proposes coordinating and expanding existing

(19:57):
companies, sport clubs, libraries, social clubs into a
general system for everyone in the industry promoting fitness
and social life. It also mentions better
industrial insurance and pensions superannuation that
wouldn't be lost if you change jobs, unlike some private
schemes back then. And the overall justification
for this whole structure. The text argues it's the only

(20:19):
means of realizing the advantages of such a system
without the destructive, antisocial features of the class
war which are so repugnant to all fair minded Englishmen.
Collaboration over conflict, basically.
This detailed structure leads usinto a really well, fascinating
and, let's be honest, controversial area.
Their concept of economic justice.

(20:39):
It starts with a pretty harsh critique of the existing legal
system. Yeah, it claims the legal system
is biased in favor of the owner of property and acts as a
bulwark erected by bourgeois society to protect the interests
of those who have. Strong stuff.
So what do they demand instead? They demand economic justice,
justice as between the various factors of industry.
It slams what it calls financialdemocracy for having low morals,

(21:03):
describing business competition as basically eat or be eaten.
This really brings up the question of their underlying
views on human nature and economics, doesn't it?
It does. And then there's that
particularly stark and deeply problematic claim.
We should stress we're reportingdirectly from the source here.
Yes, absolutely. It's crucial to be clear about

(21:24):
that. The text claims Darwinian
survival in the realm of nature may have tended to improve the
species. Economic survival in the realm
of commerce seems to degenerate the race.
And then it adds, the predominance of Jews is not
surprising. They possess the attributes
suitable to survival under theseconditions.
That's a direct quote. A direct quote from the 1938
source. It reflects A deeply troubling

(21:46):
and anti-Semitic viewpoint prevalent in some circles at the
time. And we include it solely because
it's part of the historical documents content.
We're not endorsing it in any way.
Understood. So moving beyond that specific
ugly point, how would this corporate justice fundamentally
change property rights? It's not just about protecting
ownership anymore. No, it goes much further.

(22:06):
Corporate justice, the text says, would lay down the
conditions under which property may be owned.
It states flat out a man may by no means do what he likes with
his own. Owning wealth comes with a grave
responsibility that that wealth is used to the public benefit.
That's a massive shift from the liberal idea that pursuing
self-interest automatically helps everyone.

(22:27):
A complete rejection of it. The document dismisses that idea
as liberal atavism, like a throwback to a primitive state.
They were explicitly advocating for the laws of man to replace
what they saw as the laws of thejungle in the economy.
So if the corporate state is about this kind of economic
justice, what happens to things like strikes, which are banned,
and competition itself? Well, as we said, strikes and

(22:49):
lockouts are prohibited. They're seen as crude resorts to
force where justice should hold sway.
The analogy they use is if you can't use force in a property
dispute, why should you be allowed to in a wage dispute?
So workers would sue their employers instead.
Yes, sue offending employers in special courts using ordinary
legal means. Similarly, prices and the terms

(23:10):
of competition are negotiated within the corporation.
No industry can just force up prices beyond what is a fair
return, and undercutting rivals or engaging in unfair
competition actually becomes an offense you could be arraigned
before an industrial court for. So justice extends beyond wages
to fair business practices, too.And even further, the Code of

(23:32):
economic Justice covers social insurance, child welfare,
superannuation. It's about safeguarding
individuals against economic mishap, making sure an honest
Workman dismissed through no fault of his own, doesn't just
sink lower and lower in the social scale of despair and
misery. OK, let's switch gears slightly
to foreign trade. The document tackles a concern

(23:52):
that actually sounds quite modern, doesn't it?
The fear that paying higher wages at home might make exports
too expensive and mess up the balance of trade.
It does address that head on andit basically dismisses the fear.
It argues, look, other countriesare already trying to make their
own stuff anyway, so British export trade is falling
regardless. So don't chase exports, focus
inwards. That's the solution presented

(24:13):
Turn Britain's productive capacity to our own benefit
instead of to the enrichment of international financiers.
How? By raising purchasing power and
living standards at home, and this is crucial within the
British Empire, the Imperial Dominions.
The Empire is a self-contained economic unit.
Very much so. It leans heavily on the Empire

(24:34):
for raw materials and food, evenciting Lord Beaverbrook's view
that relying on foreign sources is either negligible or could be
made temporary. And how does this translate into
bargaining power with other countries outside the Empire?
The claim is the corporate stategives Britain bargaining power
and never before realized. Why?
Because Britain's huge buying power over 40 million consumers,

(24:55):
the core principle becomes Britain buys from those who buy
from Britain. And they insist this will be no
empty political slogan, but willbe effectively enforced.
How Enforce? Through a Foreign Trade Board
set up by the National Corporation.
This board regulates all foreigntrade.
Importers can't just buy from anywhere anymore.
They must place orders with countries that provide a market

(25:17):
for British exports. The goal is effectively balanced
trade based not upon maximal exports, but upon minimal
imports. Minimal imports and they weren't
worried foreign suppliers would just refuse to sell under those
conditions. Apparently not.
The text expresses confidence, arguing foreign producers are
suffering from overproduction themselves and would rather sell

(25:39):
something to Britain, even if itmeans buying British goods in
return, then just burn them or dump them in the sea.
It's all about using economic muscle to enforce respect on
world markets. Another major target in this
document is what it calls the hidden dictatorship of finance
operating from the City of London, blamed for a lot of the
economic decline. What was their plan to deal with

(26:00):
the city? This gets to the heart of
controlling capital, doesn't it?The text accuses the great
financial houses of the City of basically neglecting Britain of
directing immense resources intoforeign investment detrimental
to the interests of our own industries.
And there's that recurring mention of aliens again.
Yes, it specifies many of alien origin taking advantage of

(26:22):
freedom to export capital, whichthey claim starved British
industry of funds. The corporate state's aim was to
break this perceived financial tyranny.
How exactly? What's the mechanism?
They propose setting up an investment board to control and
regulate all future flotations, meaning new issues of stocks and
shares. Its members would be trusted

(26:42):
government officials, representatives of banking and
insurance and the patents office.
And its job. To review every single new
flotation or application for credit, it would issue a
license, and without that license, appealing our public
investment would be illegal. And crucially, all further
foreign lending without special sanction will be prohibited.
Britain, the document says, has wasted enough money in that

(27:04):
direction, often funding future competitors abroad.
So tight control over money leaving the country?
What about money within the country?
That too, even domestic investments would need a
license. And the board wouldn't just
check financial reliability, it would also ask if the investment
is in the public interest, consulting the relevant
industrial corporation. Going even further, regulating

(27:27):
saving itself. Yes, another duty was
controlling the volume of savingin the community for future
investment. They actually argued current
saving was excessive. Why?
Because of personal insecurity, people saving for a rainy day
and the excessive reward extorted by capital, the board
would manage saving and spendingaccording to the needs of the

(27:49):
nation and its resources. And tackling usury.
Right usury in the form of a fixed rate of interest on loans
and debentures without risk willbe discouraged.
The aim was to lift the load of debt upon nation and industry.
Loan capital would be repaid, sure, but it would have no
longer permitted to accumulate an interest charge which is
entirely unearned by service. And this board also had a role

(28:10):
in developing the empire. Yes, participating in the
planned development of Imperial resources linking investment
directly to emigration of British labor into the dominion
in question to provide workers for the new projects funded by
British capital. OK, moving to a very specific
grievance raised in the document, the supposedly

(28:31):
scandalous treatment of British inventors, often driven abroad,
it claims, because they couldn'tget funding.
Why did the text think this was happening?
It points to what it sees as grave defects in our system.
First, apart from the Patent Office, there was no official
body of trained technicians and scientists to decide on the
value and practicability of the invention.

(28:53):
No proper vetting system. Second, the banks get criticized
again, called mere bureaucratic money lenders on security,
unwilling to take a risk on unproven inventions in 3rd, 3rd.
Support for inventions usually only kicked in once they were
already a practical, marketable proposition, not during the
crucial early experiment mental stage.
And inventors themselves are portrayed as often both poor and

(29:15):
unbusinesslike, making them vulnerable.
Vulnerable to exploitation. Yes, at the mercy of private
financiers or big industrial companies combines who could
strike most unfair bargains, leaving the inventor with
practically nothing. And there's even an accusation,
isn't there, that some useful inventions were deliberately
held back? A serious accusation, the

(29:36):
document claims inventions have been used merely as instruments
for the extortion of vast sums from vested interests which
would suffer from their development.
Big companies are accused of buying up and suppressing many
patents that could have benefited the nation but would
have made their existing large stocks of goods and machinery
out of date. It says quite bluntly, scarcely

(29:59):
anybody of men have suffered so severely from corruption as have
inventors. So what was their proposed
solution for inventors? A2 Part plan.
First, establish a board of scientific research linked to
the patents office to investigate and advise on new
inventions. Second, use the investment board
we just talked about to actuallyfund inventions right from the
experimental stage to the point where a public company could be

(30:21):
floated. Giving them help much earlier
on. Exactly.
Giving inventors direct assistance at a much earlier
stage and freeing them from dependence on those finance
years, although private investment wasn't rolled out
entirely all. Right, let's circle back to
finance more broadly, then. The document argues that this
idea of functional responsibility, that every
occupation has a duty to society, has broken down most

(30:45):
obviously in finance. What exactly do they mean by
that? It really gets it back to the
fundamental purpose of money. The text makes this comparison.
A manufacturer knows shoes are for wearing right, but purveyors
of money have apparently no thought for the use of money,
but only for its negotiation. They've forgotten it's real job,
which is It's sole function, according to the text, is to

(31:08):
facilitate the exchange of goodsand services and thus to
distribute production. Simple as that.
But bankers, it criticizes prioritize the security of his
depositors and the profits of his shareholders over the actual
development of industry. Seeing money is separate from
the real economy. Exactly thinking of money as a
thing apart. And the text accuses them of
actually thriving during the Depression by enforcing A

(31:31):
drastic restriction of money andcredit, which is strangled
industry and trade. So another direct attack on how
banking work then? What was the British Union's
goal for finance? To bring banking and finance
back to a proper concept of a functional responsibility
towards the community as a whole, monetary policy must
ensure there's adequate money and credit to finance the

(31:53):
exchange of goods and services. To fix the situation where you
have warehouses and stores choked with goods, millions of
men and women offering their services without response.
That mismatch of supply and demand.
Yes, the document promises to break this artificial stringency
and release sufficient money andcredit to assure the sale of

(32:14):
unsold goods and the employment of unused services.
It even gives a nod to famous credit reformers as Major
Douglas, who promoted social credit ideas.
And again, tackling that fear ofinflation if you just print more
money or issue more credit. Right.
The text acknowledges the fear. It says under democracy it would
probably lead to inflation. But they claim a planned and

(32:35):
disciplined state under British Union could handle it.
It would transfer the stability to the economic structure as a
whole because they plan the whole economic system, brings it
under scientific control and renders it immune to depression
and panic. And they weren't planning to
nationalize the banks. Interestingly, no British Union
does not contemplate nationalization.

(32:58):
Instead, they place banking, finance and insurance under a
financial corporation, which would be responsible to the
government. This corporation directs policy,
putting the national interest before personal or sectional
interests. That's how they'd solve the
problem of financing both consumption and new industrial
development. And that specific point about
the gold standard again? Yes, very specific present money

(33:19):
issues are inadequate for financing the high standard of
life rendered possible by modernscientific and technical
accomplishment. So British Union government
would break any connection with gold and base currency upon a
commodity basis. The Bank of England would be
brought under strict state control to issue this new
currency in accordance with productive capacity.

(33:40):
And the rationale for this strict government control over
finance? To prevent monetary affairs
falling back into the hands of what they call a selfish and
irresponsible minority, largely alien or bound up in alien
interests, which at present dictates Financial Policy, money
power, the text insists, must bein the hands of clean and
responsible government. OK, all this focus on economic

(34:01):
justice and making different parts of the economy serve the
nation brings us to maybe the most detailed section on
workers, the Charter of Labor. The goal, it says, is a balanced
system of cooperation to replacethe current conflicts.
It's a very powerful statement of what they wanted to achieve.
It calls for completely getting rid of liberalism, with its
hideous doctrines of greed and self-interest poorly disguised

(34:24):
as liberty, equality, equality and fraternity.
Replacing them with. Replacing them with cooperation,
service and patriotism, making sure no citizen may permanently
enrich himself to the detriment of the nation.
The text aims to unite workers, small traders, even honest
producers against the perceived tyranny of high finance, arguing

(34:45):
employers and workers actually have common interests.
And it uses that striking analogy.
The lion analogy Yes, we must make it clear that we have
trimmed the capitalist lions claws and pulled his financial
teeth. The class war, they argue, can
only be ended by a Treaty of peace, and British Union would
be the mediator to achieve that.And this charter of Labor itself

(35:06):
is incredibly specific about theprotections and new structures
that we create. Let's maybe run through some of
the main points. Absolutely.
It starts with a philosophic principle emphasizing the United
corporate nation where everyone,employer and worker alike, owes
a duty of service and gets an assured and just reward in
return. I think it's into organizations

(35:27):
and negotiations. Right establishing employers and
workers organizations with full power to negotiate national wage
and hours agreements for each industry.
That's the 100% trade unionism idea, but again stripped of
political activity. It also mandates judiciary
bodies to settle disputes, whichallows for the consequent
abolition of all strikes and lockouts using judges helped by

(35:47):
industry experts, trade assessors.
And the specific list of worker safeguards is quite long and
detailed. It really is.
The Charter insists on compulsory weekly and yearly
paid holidays, compulsory overtime pay and limited
standard hours. Regulating piece work rate so an
average worker can earn at leaststandard wages.
Election and recognition of shopstewards in larger workplaces.

(36:09):
Compensation for long serving workers if dismissed or upon
death before retirement. Equal pay for men and women
doing similar work and importantly, no dismissal just
for getting married. Also specific provisions for
mothers. Yes, holiday on full pay for
mothers when a child is born andfinally workers wage claims get
preference if a company goes bankrupt.
Beyond those individual protections, there's also a

(36:31):
section on joint organization byemployers and workers doing
things together. Right.
This covers things like special labor exchanges run by the
unions for each industry, craft training to improve quality and
efficiency, pension schemes, superannuation based on the
status you reach like civil service pensions, pooling all

(36:52):
the company recreation schemes and developing them through the
corporation. Educational and holiday schemes,
especially for young people working in unpleasant
conditions, and housing schemes linked to where jobs are,
especially in new industrial areas.
And finally, state-run insurance.
Yes, state conducted insurance for unemployment and health
benefits would depend on your status and industry.

(37:12):
Crucially, no means test. The only reason you'd be
disqualified is refusing work attrade union rates, and there'd
be no time limit for benefit. Plus a special national medical
service focused on industrial diseases with generous
compensation. And the document makes a point
of not mentioning the minimum wage.
It does. It calls the minimum wage, so

(37:33):
beloved of class war socialist, just a defensive weapon against
exploitation, which wouldn't be needed anymore in the corporate
state. Instead, workers would
supposedly enjoy full partnership in industry, taking
their full share of profits in the form of advancing wage
rates. And what happens to things like
unions restricting output, oftena source of conflict?

(37:55):
Those trade union restrictions upon production would be
removed. Why?
Because they're seen as defensive measures that become
absurd once the unemployment problem is solved.
If workers are true partners, the text argues, they'll realize
efficient production is in his own interest, and they'll
naturally use every endeavor to increase output and prevent
waste. So the claim is this whole

(38:16):
package transforms adversaries into partners, solving the root
causes of conflict. The political structure.
Reimagining governance. That's the core idea, yes.
OK, so we've explored this massive plan to rebuild the
economy, but that kind of radical economic change needs an
equally revolutionary political system to support it.
The document pulls no punches, saying democracy has proved a

(38:38):
complete failure, even in politics.
So what's their alternative to the democratic system we know?
Right. This is where they really attack
the foundations of modern democracy.
The heart of their argument is rejecting the unnatural
principle of equality, which hasled to the absurd institution of
the universal franchise. Unnatural principle of equality.

(39:00):
Yes, the text flatly states men are not and never will be equal.
And it argues this inequality isn't so much about birth, but
about how environment finding out and accentuating minor
differentiations of character and ability in the service of
society. So for them, the key question
becomes who should govern? The answer is those with
specialized knowledge, not just everybody.

(39:22):
And they use some quite pointed examples to argue against
everyone having an equal vote, don't they?
They do, the document says. It's insulting to tell a sailor
that a farm worker's opinion on shipping is as good as his or
the other way around for farmingissues.
Universal franchise, it claims, makes no allowance for
specialized knowledge, but counts all noses alike.

(39:42):
So their solution? British Union distinguishes
between a seaman and a farmer, adoctor and an engineer, and will
not regard their opinions as of equal value upon every subject.
Instead, the corporate state extends the vocational principle
to politics. They propose an occupational
franchise for Parliament. Meaning you vote based on your

(40:03):
job or profession, not where youhappen to live.
Exactly that. Members will be elected to
represent definite trades and callings.
A farmer will vote for a farmer,a miner for a miner, and so
forth. Smaller related trades would
combine to elect joint members. The text even lists 25
occupational groups which mirrorthe economic corporations.
We talked about farmers, fishermen, coal miners, owners,

(40:24):
doctors, lawyers, even housewives, domestic servants.
Housewives and domestic servantsget a vote based on their role.
Yes, specifically included. Some groups might have subgroups
for more specific representation.
The overall aim is a parliament representative of the people,
but as a true cross section, as a functional community, not a
cross section of the windbags ofthe nation.

(40:46):
This occupational franchise sounds like it would completely
dismantle the traditional party system.
Was that the intention? Oh, absolutely, the document
says. It's completely opposed to the
present party system. You wouldn't represent your
trade just because you belong toa certain political party.
The voter, they argued, would care more about electing someone
with sound sense and real knowledge of his occupation than

(41:09):
about their political label. How did they view political
parties then? Very negatively.
At best, parties represent only a roughly defined philosophy.
At worst they're just corrupt associations for distributing
the spoils of office, a poor instrument of self government,
especially if you're trying to run a planned state.
So under their system, candidates wouldn't run on party

(41:30):
platforms. No, they'd stand on concrete
policy for the industry itself. It would bring forward new men
as protagonists of new ideas of industrial and social
organization who make their names through constructive
administrative work instead of intrigue.
And who gets to vote in this system?
What about women? Anyone with one year standing in

(41:52):
the industry gets a vote, employed or not.
Voters get a free choice with a vote for each seat available.
Employers, directors, managers, etcetera vote directly.
Shareholders have indirect control through electing
directors. And importantly, women will
possess equal rights both as candidates and voters.
Equal rights and they expected women to get more representation

(42:14):
this way. Yes, they argued, women would
get special representation wherethere was a sufficient block of
them in an occupation, guaranteeing them much larger
permanent representation than under so-called democracy,
particularly, they mentioned, for housewives and domestic
servants. And how would voters even know
these candidates if constituencies are based on
potentially huge industries spread across the country?

(42:35):
The text claims it wouldn't be aproblem.
Candidates would be a member of the electors own trade or
vocation, probably well known tohim by repute, and they could
use things like trade popers, the post meetings at technical
centers, and judicious use of the wireless to campaign.
OK, turning to Parliament itself, the document is pretty

(42:56):
harsh about the existing one calls it hopelessly incompetent.
How did the British Union plan to restore Parliament as a
useful instrument of government?Their main strategy was to
fundamentally change its job, mostly by reducing the work it
is required to do. All those detailed industrial
regulations, like the Spindles Bill they mentioned as an
example, wouldn't go to Parliament anymore.

(43:17):
Where would they go? To the self governing industrial
corporations we discussed earlier, they're seen as far
more competent to handle that stuff.
This frees up Parliament from getting bogged down in petty
fogging detail. So Parliament becomes more of a
high level strategic body. Exactly, it's very important
function would be to decide all general questions.

(43:38):
It concerns itself with fundamentals, laying down the
principles upon which governmentand the executive organizations
will act. The actual detailed
implementation is left to others, with the judiciary
making sure it's done properly. And this occupationally elected
House of Commons would be suitedfor that.
That's the argument. Even if it's not handling the
detailed administration, having experts in the Commons would be

(44:00):
extremely valuable for understanding the effect of
general principles upon particular industries.
The example given is if you're debating public health, the
doctors and nurses representatives would speak and
the House would actually listen to the experts on that specific
subject. Rather than just party politics
dominating. Right beyond the expertise, the
occupational franchise is meant to put an end to the evil system

(44:23):
of political parties. M PS could then act as his
intelligence and conscience may direct no more party ties to
bring about unsatisfactory compromises and corrupt deals
behind the scenes. So Parliament becomes a true
sounding board of public opinion.
That's the goal, relieved of day-to-day administration, but
keeping the authority to set theguiding principles procedures

(44:45):
will be simplified and those best qualified to speak on any
issue would give preference in debates.
This, they claim, would be an immense advantage over the
present puppet show at Westminster, with its strings
manipulated from the City of London.
OK, what about the other House, the House of Lords?
The document calls it a completeanachronism that lost its way.

(45:06):
It does. It argues the original point of
the Lord's was actually useful. You know, great land owners and
church leaders advising the King.
Land ownership back then impliedresponsibility towards tenants
and a function of service. But that changed.
It deteriorated. The Texas new Lords got
appointed often just for donating to political parties
without those old feudal duties,so it's prestige declined.

(45:28):
So under British Union, the House of Lords gets scrapped
entirely. Yes, completely replaced by a
new Chamber of notables, people who've given great service in
their own lifetime. Appointments would be made by
the Crown, but only for life. Who would be in this new
chamber? Some existing members would stay
the spiritual Lords, bishops, the law Lords, and any land

(45:49):
owning peers who are genuine leaders in agriculture locally.
But new appointments would look for men of outstanding ability
in fields like literature and the arts, the diplomatic
service, the defense services, science and invention, medicine
and public health, social and public services, a real range of
expertise. And the purpose of this new

(46:11):
upper house, it's not just an honor.
No, it's meant to be practical, a way of having expert advice by
outstanding men readily available for national
administration. It wouldn't just mirror the
Commons, its focus would be different.
How so? It would concentrate on the
cultural, philosophical, and moral aspects of legislation,
whereas the Commons would deal more with the primarily material
aspects. It would also represent

(46:33):
organized cultural and religiousbodies not at present considered
leaders of learning societies, local cultural groups, even
other religious denominations besides the Church of England.
And specific expertise in certain areas.
Always. It would always include experts
in naval, military, air and foreign affairs, plus
representatives from the dominions and colonies for

(46:53):
handling imperial matters. These peers would essentially
form a panel from which the government could select expert
advisors upon any difficult problem.
They could attend debates on specific legislation where they
had expertise. The aim again is to restore the
original functions of these institutions and make them vital

(47:13):
again. This whole reorganization goes
right to the top. Then the British Union
government itself would operate differently, with a
concentration of authority and responsibility in fewer hands.
How would the smaller governmentwork?
Well remember a lot of the detailed administration gets
pushed down to the self governing corporations.
So many government departments, even whole ministries could be

(47:34):
combined. The document suggests only about
a dozen ministers might be needed.
Prime Minister, Home Secretary would also cover health and
local government, Foreign Secretary and Imperial Secretary
covering dominions, colonies, India, a Minister of Defense,
combining army, Navy, Air Force,a minister of corporations
handling all the economic ministries, Minister of

(47:55):
Education and Fine Arts, Chancellor of the Exchequer and
the Lord Chancellor for legal stuff.
Much leaner. And this idea of an inner
cabinet seems important too. Very much so.
A small inner cabinet of just three or four ministers without
portfolio, meaning they don't run a specific department, would
sit with the Prime Minister. Being free from day-to-day
administration allows them to plan national affairs as a

(48:18):
whole. Gives them time to actually
think out the problem. And decision making power.
Supreme power rests with this small executive cabinet.
They can take a wide view and the final decisions lie with the
PM and this inner council, supposedly unobstructed by
administrative red tape. Ministers would automatically be

(48:38):
members of both Houses of Parliament to maintain contact.
But the document rejects the absurd idea that ministers
should be chosen only from amongmembers of parliament.
Just being an MP doesn't mean you're qualified to run a
ministry, they argue. OK, but this raises a big
question. If the government is kind of
divorced from popular representation in parliament
like this, how does the public actually control it?

(49:00):
How do they hold it accountable?That's a key point.
Remember there are no pro or anti government parties in their
ideal parliament. M PS vote on the merits of each
case, so accountability works differently.
A British Union government wouldhave to submit itself to a
direct vote at regular intervals.
A referendum on the government. Itself at least every five
years, people vote simply for against the government.

(49:23):
This, the text presents, is the most direct control imaginable.
But what about the argument thatsuch an election wouldn't be
fair if there's no organized opposition allowed to campaign
against the government? The document anticipates that
criticism, and it counters it bysaying essentially, we prefer to
believe that the British people are quite capable of recognizing

(49:45):
a bad government when they experience it, without a lot of
interested politicians pointing out its defects to them.
A rather optimistic view of voter perception, perhaps?
Perhaps it also expresses a preference for continuity of
governmental policy rather than the repeated swing of the
pendulum between parties. But it does assert that if there
was any grave abuse of office, the people could dismiss the

(50:07):
government through an adverse vote in this plebiscite.
It's really fascinating, though,that this revolutionary plan put
such strong emphasis on a very traditional institution, the
crown. What role does the king play in
all this? A surprisingly crucial 1 The
document explicitly recognizes the traditional dual sources of
sovereignty in our national life, king and people.

(50:30):
And the King's role becomes vital if the government loses
that plebiscite we just discussed.
If the people vote against the government, the Crown then
assumes responsibility for continuity of government.
The King finds new ministers, forms new government, and then
submits that government to another plebiscite.
This, they claim, actually places a much greater
responsibility upon the Crown than does democracy.

(50:52):
And they wanted to bring back some older ideas about the Crown
and land ownership, too. Yes, they wanted to restore the
good feudal principle that land is held directly or indirectly
of the Crown for service. They insisted that no land is
held an absolute right. Land owners owe a futile duty of
service to the Crown and, through the Crown, to the
British people. Service that used to be military

(51:13):
but now is. Now it's economic and will be
strictly imposed upon every owner of land.
Land ownership becomes a social obligation.
Land owners are expected to leadtheir tenants in using the soil
well, manage their estates personally and actually live
among the people they're responsible for.
And if they fail in this duty? If there's obstruction or
failure, the Crown will resume occupation of his estates and

(51:36):
pass them to some loyal subject or subjects better fitted to
administer them in the public interest.
It's presented as a traditional control over the uncontrolled
ownership of land, which they saw as a dangerous and
obstructive monopoly. Any other changes around the
crown? The Privy Council gets
abolished, replaced by a Grand Council composed of the leading

(51:58):
personalities who have been instrumental in the great
revolutionary change, appointed on the advice of the
revolutionary leader. The overall effect, the text
claims, is the Crown regaining aposition of leadership and
futile responsibility. It is not enjoyed since Charles
the First was executed by the 1st Democratic Parliament of the
rapacious merchants of the City of London.
Wow. So given this highly centralized

(52:20):
political system and these powerful industrial corporations
taking over many functions, whatactually happens to traditional
local government, councils, mayors, etcetera?
The document admits it's a centralized political system,
but also stresses the self government given to the
corporations. It concludes that local self
government must eventually be largely superseded by industrial

(52:42):
self government because the latter is more efficient and in
keeping with the specialization of modern knowledge.
Superseded eventually. So what happens in the meantime?
Initially, a British Union government would work through
the existing local government bodies, but it states bluntly it
will never tolerate local authorities dominated in
opposition to the party in powerat Westminster.

(53:05):
They have to toe the line. So local councils operate, but
under supervision. Strict supervision During the
first British Union Parliament, Black shirt MPs would oversee
local authorities. They'd ensure personal
responsibility will replace anonymous committee management,
tracing any mismanagement or obstruction back to specific
individuals. This is supposed to help push
through great public works on roads and reclamation, rehousing

(53:28):
and town planning. And after this initial phase,
once the occupational franchise is fully in place.
Then the new MP's elected by occupation wouldn't be regional
anymore. Local administration would shift
to officials with grand traditional titles, like Lord
Lieutenants of Counties, who would have considerable
responsibilities and powers of local administration.

(53:49):
Law and order would become a hierarchy reporting up to the
Crown, mirroring those feudal principles of land ownership
again. So what's left for the actual
local councils to do if most services, roads, utilities,
housing, health are run by the corporations and police and
education are centralized? Their functions become much
modified. They'd still exist, perhaps

(54:09):
elected by local occupational, cultural and recreational
groups, but mostly as advisory councils.
They'd be channels for local opinions and grievances, but
their most important remaining role maybe would be to encourage
local cultural traditions and handicrafts, local sports and
amenities, a way to try and counterbalance all the
centralization. The cultural vision, leisure,

(54:31):
art, and organic purpose. OK, we spent a lot of time on
the economic and political nuts and bolts of this proposed
corporate state. It's incredibly detailed.
But the document also talks quite a bit about culture,
doesn't it? Specifically, sections on the
problem of leisure and patronageof art.
What was their vision for how people would actually live and

(54:51):
express themselves in this new society?
Yeah, it's not just about work and voting.
This raises that really interesting question of how a
society deals with technologicalprogress and potential
abundance. The text predicts that even if
they solve unemployment initially, it'll be temporary.
Why? Because science endows us with
ever increasing powers of production.
Machines will keep displacing labor.

(55:13):
Leading to a superfluity of Labor.
Right. But crucially, in a properly
organized state, this doesn't mean more unemployment.
Instead, it means shortened hours, lengthened education and
earlier retirement. So the problem of unemployment
actually becomes transformed into a problem of leisure.
What do people do with all this free time?
And the document seems quite critical of how leisure was

(55:35):
being used at the time, especially by the wealthy.
It warns against just copying them.
Very critical. It dismisses the argument that
the rich already had leisure, calling their use of it a crying
scandal, that futile succession of events that constitute the
London season. It warns the newly emancipated
masses against just imitating these dismal trivialities.

(55:57):
So leisure needs to be organized, managed.
That's exactly it. A serious obligation of the
corporate state will be the organization of leisure.
Remember those corporations? Each one would be responsible
for organizing recreational facilities for its members.
They'd pool existing resources, libraries, playing fields and
social clubs supplied by prosperous and progressive firms

(56:19):
and open them up to everyone in that industry.
The focus seems to be very much on active participation, not
just watching entertainment. Oh absolutely.
The British Union will not be satisfied until every worker has
facilities to enjoy his favoritesport and follow his own
recreational hobby. It really laments seeing young
men watching football instead ofplaying it, watching horse races

(56:41):
instead of training as athletes themselves.
It sees that as a bad sign. And most ominous sign, it says
it draws a parallel. It is the difference between
Greece and Rome, between the athlete and the gladiator,
active participants versus passive spectators.
It even invokes the bread and circuses of ancient Rome as a
warning, keeping the population distracted and docile.

(57:03):
So physical fitness becomes almost a national duty.
Exactly. The British people must be LED
back to the playing fields. They must learn that physical
fitness, apart from being a pleasure to themselves, is an
obligation which they owe to thenation.
This vision includes industry specific sports grounds,
swimming pools, inter industry team competitions.
And it wasn't just about sport, was it?

(57:24):
What about other forms of recreation?
Yeah, and social issues like drinking.
No, not just sport. Less strenuous things like
music, dramatics, literature, debate, and indoor games of
skill would also be encouraged. It makes an interesting point
about pubs claiming the public house is popular because it is
often the only center of social recreation available.
Implying that if you provide better alternatives.

(57:45):
Then British Union centers of athletic and cultural recreation
will complete the process and reduce drunkenness to its
pathological minimum. Leisure isn't seen as a curse,
but a massive opportunity. But it can't be left to
democratic method of anarchy andchaos.
It has to be directed by authority into channels that
will benefit both state and people, improving physical

(58:08):
well-being through ordered athleticism and raising cultural
standards through organized recreational activity.
It even contrasts this vision with the perceived decadence of
Berlin before the Nazis took power.
Now, the document also tackles the criticism that a fascist
state would stifle culture, thatit's inimical to culture because
it restricts artists as freedom.How do they counter that?

(58:28):
What's their vision for art? They basically argue artists
already lack freedom in the current commercial age.
They're bound, the text says, bythe most sordid standard of
popular taste, and the only way they can escape is through
studied eccentricity to appeal to intellectual snobs.
This, they claim, is actually the harshest of tyrannies.

(58:48):
So commercialism is the real tyranny for artists.
That's the argument. True art, it says, is the
expression of the spirit of the whole community, or it is
nothing but neurotic self exhibit anism.
It's also critical of modern artpatronage, saying philistine
majorities are unfitted for thistactful undertaking.
It even suggests past aristocrats or wealthy Roman

(59:11):
patrons like Messinas were far more successful than
contemporary millionaires, whom it accuses of finding it
humiliating and subordinating artists of genius to be the paid
servants of the rich. So the corporate state claims it
will actually liberate the artist.
That is the claim, yes, the corporate state offers the
artist his own honored place in the national life.

(59:32):
There would be a special corporation just for artists,
giving them self governing powers to equip and train
himself and his fellows. Artists would enjoy special
protection and support from the state, aiming to rescue culture
from decades of neglect. And connect the artist more
closely with the people. Yes, fostering a much closer
contact between artists and people, encouraging the masses

(59:53):
through reduced prices, special facilities to actually go to
concerts, opera, theater, exhibition.
So the artist no longer lives apart as a bohemian rebel, but
is integrated into society. And what about amateur
creativity? People making their own art or
crafts does that. Very much so.
It links back to that organized leisure idea.
People would be given every facility to develop their own

(01:00:16):
amateur talents. The document laments that the
rise of the machine has ruined handicrafts.
British Union would fight this through recreational
organizations dedicated to restoring lost handicrafts.
So a distinction between machineproduction and handcraft.
A clear distinction. The ideal they paint is of a
worker tending an automatic shoemachine during the day, then

(01:00:37):
going home to his own last and turn out a handmade pair of
shoes as good as any made by medieval Craftsman.
It even suggests forbidding the manufacturer of any articles of
decoration by machine. Why?
Because machine produced decoration is killing artistic
impulse. Machines are for necessities,
handwork is for art and hobbies.The vision is that no longer

(01:00:59):
will the mantelpieces of the people be adorned with
Birmingham produced presents from Margate, but with the
products of the skill of membersof the family and their
neighbors. And they conclude this section
by rejecting the idea that fascism is anti culture.
Absolutely. Calling it culture's enemy is
absurd, the text says, given what it sees as the hopeless
decline of artistic accomplishment throughout the

(01:01:19):
demo liberal era. It expresses this hope that the
revolutionary urge that restoresthe national spirit of the
British people may well recover the Tudor atmosphere that gave
us Shakespeare a return to a perceived golden age.
OK, finally the document gets into the really deep philosophy
behind all this. It calls the corporate state an
organic form through which the nation expresses itself, not

(01:01:42):
just a mere mechanism of administration.
This takes us to what they call the organic purpose.
Yes, this is the real philosophical bedrock.
The document draws a sharp contrast between fascism and
communism. Communism, it says, is just a
materialist creed, only caring about the material benefit of
the masses. Fascism, on the other hand, is

(01:02:03):
presented as essentially idealistic.
Idealistic in what sense? In that it recognizes the nation
as an Organism with a purpose, alife and means of action
transcending those of the individuals of which it is
composed, like a person might sacrifice for their career or a
higher goal. The corporate state isn't just
about good government, it's the means of self-expression of the

(01:02:24):
nation as a corporate whole in the attainment of its national
destiny. The nation as an Organism with a
destiny, does that mean they sawthe state as divine in some way?
Interestingly, the text is careful to deny that this does
not involve a claim of divinity for the state.
Why? Because the very suggestion of
purpose debars any claim to divinity, for the divine is

(01:02:46):
perfect and cannot have a progressive purpose.
The state, being a human institution, is actually in
grave need of spiritual guidanceand must conform to the
universal moral law. By condemning the current state,
they argue, fascists are judgingit by absolute values that
transcend all states. So not divine, but guided by

(01:03:06):
higher moral values. And what about the individual
versus the state in this philosophy?
They claim there is no need for any conflict between individual
and the state as neither can exist without the other.
Progress comes from finding a true balance between them,
which, surprise surprise, the corporate states functional
organization best achieves. In this destiny or purpose they
talk about what is it? Here the text effects a little,

(01:03:29):
becoming modesty. It insists the purpose is not
merely preparing the nation for war, claiming sympathy for other
nations legitimate goals. Nor is it just about material
satisfaction for everyone. That's just a means to an end,
which is a means of releasing the people from sordid material
preoccupations to take part in the great adventure.
The ultimate goal to prepare a fitting vehicle for the

(01:03:51):
attainment of that destiny, to give the nation that organic
form instinct with life which will enable it to play its part
in the great events of future world history.
Preparing Britain for its great role in the world stage.
Essentially, and it concludes with these historical echoes, it
suggests medieval people who lived in hovels and built
cathedrals were nearer to a realization of the divine

(01:04:12):
purpose than we are today. And it points again to the Tudor
period as the high point of our own national life, finding
expression not just an exploration but in philosophy
and science and the poetry and drama of William Shakespeare.
The ultimate aim seems to be recovering that perceived age of
faith and the vital energy of Tudor England.

(01:04:32):
So there we have it. We've unpacked this incredibly
detailed blueprint for the corporate state as British
fascists envisioned it back in 1938, from completely reordering
the economy and industry throughthese corporations.
To creating a parliament based on occupation, not geography.
Reviving a powerful role for theCrown and even laying out a
cultural vision that redefines leisure and art.

(01:04:55):
It's, well, it's an incredibly comprehensive and frankly quite
startling vision for a total transformation of society.
It really is. And what's so fascinating, I
think, is that consistent tension running right through
the document. It keeps promising individual
security, liberation, a better life, but always through giving
up traditional individual liberties and democratic ways of

(01:05:16):
doing things. Security in exchange for
freedom, essentially. That seems to be the trade off
offered. It presents these decisive
solutions to what it saw as chaos and economic misery.
But the solution is always imposing this rigid, centralized
organic order from the top down,all framed within this idea of a
collective national destiny. And understanding a document
like this, it isn't just a history lesson, is it?

(01:05:39):
It's about seeing how these really challenging, sometimes
disturbing ideas can be packagedand presented in a compelling
way. Definitely.
It's about recognizing how appealing the promise of order
and efficiency can become when democracy is seen to be messy or
failing. This deep dive gives us a really
powerful case study, I think, inunderstanding the complete

(01:06:00):
holistic worldview of one particular ideological movement.
It lets you get properly informed quickly on a topic that
carries some profound historicalweight and raises big
theoretical questions. Which does leave us with an
important question for you, the listener, to maybe think about
in our own time, with all its complexities and information
overload. Where do you draw the line?

(01:06:21):
The line between wanting efficient organization, wanting
things to work, and preserving those individual freedoms.
Yeah. And how might those promises we
saw outlined here order prosperity, security?
How might they appeal to people today, especially in moments
when society feels like it's failing or in crisis?
Something to ponder, definitely.Thank you for joining us on this

(01:06:42):
deep dive. Until next time, keep digging,
keep questioning, and keep getting informed.