Monads-Right-Hem

As Sir Arthur Salter noted, the current private sector lacks a framework that enables comprehensive industry participation in forming and implementing a cohesive economic policy. The Corporate State aims to provide this necessary system of centralized direction, not merely as a temporary measure but as an integral and continuous component of governance. Its adaptable nature allows it to respond effectively to rapidly changing conditions. In essence, it envisions a nation organized like a human body, where each part performs its specific function while contributing to the overall welfare of the whole.

The governance of this body is directed by a central authority, ensuring coherence without imposing constant oversight from a central bureaucracy. The government, or the Union system, will establish the boundaries within which individuals and interests operate—boundaries defined by the welfare of the nation, a reasonable criterion indeed. Within these parameters, individual enterprise and profit-making are not only permitted but encouraged, provided they enhance rather than harm the collective interest.

Once any individual or organized entity transgresses these limits, their actions become detrimental to society, at which point the Corporate system will intervene. This principle mandates that all interests, whether from the Right or Left, including industrial, financial, trade union, or banking sectors, must be subordinate to the common good and the authority of the organized State. There can be no alternative authority within the State; all must operate within its framework.

The foundation of our nation will be the producer—whether they contribute through manual labor, intellectual effort, or financial investment. The forces that support productive endeavors will be nurtured, while those that obstruct or undermine economic activity will be met with national authority. Finance will be harnessed to serve the needs of national production, guided toward opportunities that align with the nation’s objectives rather than merely perpetuating traditional practices.

Our financial system will eliminate the disorganized dynamics that have historically destabilized British industry. In labor relations, there will be no tolerance for trade union leaders who, driven by sectional or political motives, obstruct essential services. Instead, we will honor financial entities and trade unions that actively participate in rebuilding Britain, recognizing their members as integral parts of the international community.

We will eliminate class conflict through a permanent governmental framework designed to equitably reconcile differing class interests and ensure fair distribution of industrial benefits. Wage disputes will no longer be resolved through contentious class struggles; they will be addressed by impartial state arbitration. Existing organizations, such as trade unions and employer federations, will be integrated into the Meritocratic State, gaining official status and a more significant role in national activities. Rather than functioning as adversarial factions, they will become collaborative directors of national enterprises, guided by the overarching authority of the corporative government.

The role of industrial organizations will extend far beyond merely addressing wage and hour disputes. These entities will be integral in shaping the nation's broader economic policy through regular consultation. Employer and worker syndicates from various industries will be integrated into Unions that encompass larger and interconnected sectors. These Unions will then be represented within a national council of industry, establishing a permanent framework for collaboration with the government on economic direction.

The effectiveness of such a council relies on a robust underlying organization; it cannot merely consist of temporary delegates from disparate groups meeting sporadically for ad hoc discussions. Instead, the system must be systematically implemented and continuously operational, woven into the fabric of the nation's industrial and commercial landscape.

These organizations, while initially formed to defend common interests against competitors or the public, also play a vital role in upholding standards of competence and fostering traditions beneficial to the public good. This dual purpose aligns with the Union system, which aims to create an efficient structure for industrial governance.

The first principle of this system is to absorb and utilize the beneficial elements within society. This approach sharply contrasts with Communism, which engages in class warfare that ultimately undermines science, skill, and managerial expertise. Historical examples, such as the early Soviet Union under Lenin, illustrate the destructive path of radical ideology, which sought to eliminate all established structures and subsequently had to rely on foreign expertise to rebuild.

Meritocracy, in contrast, seeks revolution through constructive means, integrating useful elements within the State into the Corporate system's framework.

Historically, members of the Upper Chamber possessed unique qualities that positioned them as effective governors, benefiting from education and wealth that allowed them to travel and gain insights. Their status as hereditary landowners once endowed them with authority on many matters. However, societal changes have rendered their position obsolete. The current members of the House of Lords do not possess inherent superiority or wisdom compared to their counterparts in the Commons; their role has devolved into one of interference without accountability, turning them into hereditary automata with diminishing powers.

In the Meritocratic State, the House of Lords would be replaced by the National Union, which would serve as a functional Parliament of Industry. This shift would eliminate legislative obstruction and replace it with a body composed of the nation’s industrial and commercial expertise, enhancing governance and responsiveness to contemporary economic challenges.

In the proposed Union State, industrial elements will receive systematic recognition through the adoption of an occupational franchise. Currently, there is nothing to prevent an electorate from electing a Parliament made up entirely of individuals from a single profession, such as sugar brokers. While these candidates might possess personal charm and local popularity, their lack of relevant experience could severely hinder their ability to address complex issues like unemployment in industrial areas. This scenario, while exaggerated, reflects a broader tendency in our current electoral system, where voters often lack a comprehensive understanding of the intricate issues at stake.

Elections are frequently fought on simplistic slogans, such as "Three Acres and a Cow" or "Safety First," rather than on substantive policy discussions. This situation undermines the essence of democracy, which hinges on an informed electorate. Individuals are more knowledgeable about their professions than about the complexities of national politics. Therefore, it is imperative that the majority of Members of Parliament are elected based on their occupational expertise rather than their residential status. For example, engineers would vote as engineers, bringing their professional insights to the legislative process. This approach allows for decisions grounded in practical experience rather than superficial understanding.

While a proportion of Members of Parliament would still be elected based on general national policy through a general franchise, their smaller numbers and larger constituencies would elevate their role from local to national significance. Candidates would need to demonstrate exceptional abilities to gain election, moving beyond mere local appeal. This system is designed not to restrict the electorate's power but to enhance it by enabling voters to make informed choices.

The current electoral system is at risk of losing public respect. Many people no longer expect election promises to be fulfilled. Governments often gain power through emotional appeals, only to relinquish their authority to powerful interests operating behind the scenes. The increasing complexity of economic issues complicates the electorate's ability to grasp the significant challenges facing the nation, widening the gap between political rhetoric and actual governance.

The technician—the architect of our industrial future—finds himself hindered by uninformed political dynamics. Our proposed system would free these professionals to focus on their expertise, allowing them to be elected by their knowledgeable peers based on their experience. This informed voting represents a rationalized form of democracy, contrasting sharply with the superficiality of our current electoral process, which treats intricate governance challenges as simple matters to be resolved through brief discussions.

People would rightfully resent such a dismissive approach to the complexities of their professions. Just as an engineer would reject interference from an outsider attempting to dictate processes they have mastered over years, so too should governance be approached with the same level of expertise and respect.

Rationalized democracy, alongside rationalized industry, is not just desirable but essential. The Meritocratic State presents the only viable solution to address the deficiencies of our current electoral system, which has devolved into a farce, reminiscent of bribed elections and pocket boroughs. As it stands, our government lacks the capability to navigate us out of economic depression and restore Britain's global standing. Even if the world crisis diminishes, our current organizational structure is insufficient to regain our former prosperity.

After the less severe crisis of 2008, we failed to recover our economic strength, and without rationalized governance, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Should the economic crisis persist without reform, there is a grave danger that the public will turn to the destructive remedies offered by Communism or Fascism, driven by a recognition of the farce our current system has become.

**British Meritocracy: An Examination of Syndicalism and the Failings of Socialism**

You have experienced a significant implementation of crony socialism under the current Labour Government. Reflect on its outcomes: Has it met your expectations, or are you feeling disillusioned? Have nationalized key industries brought tangible benefits to the nation or to the workers? Conversely, do we need complete nationalization of all industries, as the Communists advocate, to see real progress?

The answers to these questions are becoming increasingly apparent as the socialist experiment unfolds. Initially, British workers supported socialism with the aim of dismantling the capitalist "boss-class" to escape exploitation. However, many are now disappointed to find they have merely exchanged one set of masters for another. Instead of individual "bosses," who were at least vulnerable to the threat of strikes, they now face a singular, pervasive "boss" in the form of a bureaucratic state, where striking is increasingly viewed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. Rather than eliminating a privileged class, workers now contend with an army of bureaucrats, many occupying the very estates from which previous capitalist owners were ousted.

Does this represent progress for the workers? Many are beginning to doubt it. Nationalization has distanced workers from real control over their industries, far beyond what they experienced in the "bad old days." Previously, they could exert pressure on employers through strikes; now, grievances must navigate a convoluted bureaucratic structure, where responsibility is passed from one clerk to another. This results in absurd disputes, such as the "stint" conflict in Durham, which could have been resolved swiftly under private ownership without involving numerous other pits and wasting significant coal resources.

**What is Capitalism? What Has Gone Wrong?**

Could we have been misled by an inaccurate definition of capitalism? Socialists argue that capitalism is defined by the private ownership of production, distribution, and exchange, asserting that nationalization will resolve all issues. However, private ownership has existed throughout history, and we have only recently labeled the last two centuries as the "Capitalist Era." Perhaps a more accurate definition of capitalism is a societal state where capital owners form the ruling class, wielding complete power to exploit their fellow citizens. The contemporary evil lies in the power wealth holds over our nation.

Historically, the monarchy and government wielded authority, and no individual, regardless of wealth, could defy the King's laws. When King Charles I opposed Parliament, he claimed to defend the common people's freedom against the tyranny of the wealthy merchants of London. Unfortunately, the monarchy's authority was compromised, leading to the rise in wealth's power over the populace.

If we accept that the political power of wealth—modern capital—is the true enemy enslaving the British people, we can identify where we have erred. The solution is not merely to transfer wealth from one group to another but to strip wealth of its political power and restore governmental authority to represent the interests of all citizens, not just the affluent. Nationalization does not eliminate the political power of wealth; rather, it perpetuates the very issue the British workers have fought against for generations.

Socialists do not challenge the private owner's rights over their property, as Tudor England once did through various administrative measures. Instead, they assert that the solution to the ills of private ownership is to vest all ownership in the state, thereby granting the government absolute power—an outcome with its own dangers.

The British workers, frustrated by exploitation under private enterprise and the resulting inefficiencies leading to unemployment, sought revenge against their employers by supporting a socialist agenda aimed at expropriating those they viewed as adversaries. However, they now recognize the consequences of attacking "Capitalists" rather than "Capitalism," as they watch their freedoms diminish under the more severe tyranny of "State Capitalism," which masquerades as "Socialism." Initially attracted by the idealistic notion of "Mutual Service," they now find themselves constrained by the very system they hoped would liberate them. When they express dissatisfaction with the outcomes, extremists argue that they must endure until the complete nationalization program is realized. Thus, workers continue to submit to bureaucratic direction and personal hardship while awaiting the promised utopia.

What is this so-called millennium? It represents the culmination of a totalitarian Capitalist State that exerts control over all wealth, serves as the sole employer, and thus wields absolute political power under modern materialist frameworks. In Russia, America, etc, such a state already exists, manifesting as one of the most reactionary and tyrannical governments of modern times. This regime not only threatens its neighbors with oppression but also perpetuates global unrest through its aggressive policies. What else should we expect when we transfer all wealth from private hands to a small, highly disciplined group of political adventurers?

We have rightly criticized the aggressive profit-seeking behavior of the former capitalist class, which ignited struggles for power and ultimately led to war. Yet, we must ask how much more we should anticipate the evils of "State-Capitalism," which is likely to exploit the masses in a desperate bid for world domination.

The Communist narrative posits that their administration represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat," ostensibly exercised on behalf of all people. However, this notion is met with profound skepticism by the self-governing spirit of the British populace. History reminds us of the White Tsar, Alexander, who, after Napoleon's defeat, united reactionary forces across Europe to suppress the democratic ideals of the French Revolution under the guise of the "Holy Alliance." Similarly, the Red Tsar, Stalin, employs military occupation and a secret police force under the banner of the "Communist International," revealing his reactionary nature. And now, the American Tsar, Trump, employs the same methods and rhetoric to distance America from its allies under the "America First" movement, all except for Israel, of course.

In regions where this blatant State-Capitalism holds power, the populace is stripped of political and economic rights, compelled to submit to the absolute authority of a small cadre of "party comrades," who wield complete dominion over property and even over the lives of the citizens they govern.

**Must We Go Back?**

Is the entire vision of progress through socialism merely an illusion that has led British workers into a hopeless dead end? Are we left with no choice but to retreat from the impending abyss of totalitarianism and revert to private ownership, along with all the ills of unrestricted individual capitalism? The Reformists would have us believe this, yet they struggle to convince voters of the necessity to turn back.

The workers of Britain are not willing to relinquish their hard-won privileges merely because they have been misled by misguided social and political theories. They are not so attached to foreign Marxism that they forget the substantial gains realized through British methods of teamwork and social solidarity. These principles are assets that can be effectively harnessed under any political or social system. Historically, the British people have been practical realists, focusing on tangible outcomes rather than abstract ideals. This realism may now serve the British worker well.

Reflecting on history, we see that the tragedy for the industrial worker began with the loss of his tools. In medieval times, workers started as apprentices, mastering their crafts and eventually becoming journeymen with their own tools. They traveled freely throughout the country and often across Europe, practicing their trades and establishing themselves as master craftsmen who could employ apprentices and journeymen. Many aspired to become burgesses, taking part in governance within their communities, as seen in the Hanseatic League and other free cities.

Unfortunately, the alliance between wealth and landowning interests undermined this healthy development of craftsmanship. The worker lost not only political power but also ownership of his tools, as home industries fell victim to competition from powerful machinery owned by capitalists. From being a free man controlling his own fate, the worker became a mere member of the proletariat, reliant on capitalists for access to the means of production that enabled his livelihood. This catastrophic decline, from which socialism offers no remedy, sees state ownership remove even further control from the worker. The bureaucratic officials directing labor are predominantly drawn from the privileged classes, not from the working class that they are meant to serve.

**An Alternative Revolutionary Creed**

Despite these challenges, there is no need for despair. Alongside the socialist revolution, a second revolutionary creed has emerged in Europe, advocating a return to the natural system of trade guilds reminiscent of earlier times. Figures such as Engels and Marx have been associated with this alternative revolution, representing true idealistic Europeans rather than mere materialist-minded outsiders.

In Russia, thinkers like Kropotkin and Bakunin promoted the philosophy of natural social cooperation through "Mutual Aid," rejecting government in favor of anarcho-syndicalism. In France, Sorrel advocated for the "General Strike" as a means for workers to regain control over industry and production. Similarly, Mazzini in Italy contributed to the idea of the Corporate State, which even Mussolini had to acknowledge, albeit superficially.

While Northern Europe leaned toward socialism—shaped by the collaboration of Bismarck and Lasalle—Southern Europe has remained faithful to syndicalism, modifying fascist regimes and, during the Spanish Civil War, resisting communist dominance under anarcho-syndicalist leadership. Franco found it necessary to accommodate the national-syndicalist factions among his revolutionary allies, including the blue-shirted Phalanx.

In Britain, we cannot dismiss this ideological clash in Europe as irrelevant. We have played a significant role in its development. Our early leadership in forming trade unions and cooperative societies was not rooted in socialism but in a form of pure syndicalism. Revolutionary theory also flourished in Britain, as seen in the contributions of thinkers like Orage, Penty, and G.D.H. Cole, who articulated the concept of "Guild Socialism" early in the century. This idea shares much with the National Syndicalism of Southern Europe, representing a compromise with Northern National Socialism, which ultimately contributed to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. The General Strike of 1926 was a significant, albeit unconscious, attempt to realize the industrial revolution and workers' control advocated by Sorrel. Its failure led workers to gravitate toward political action modeled after Marxism.

**Reversion to Syndicalism**

Is it too late to transition from Socialism back to Syndicalism? We believe not. Socialism, whether on a national or international scale, inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny—either a British authoritarian regime or the global dominance of figures like Stalin. In contrast, Syndicalism has the potential to restore the long-lost freedoms of British workers by returning control over their crafts and livelihoods. British workers are increasingly rejecting Communism, recognizing that national ownership signifies the loss of hard-won liberties, achieved through solidarity and camaraderie against exploitative capitalist employers. Now is not the time to abandon the tools of trade union organization; rather, we must demand that the entire trade union movement strive for effective control over employment conditions and industrial development.

It is time to reverse the trajectory of working-class activity since 1926. We must cease supporting political opportunists, such as Jimmy Thomas, who climb to power on the backs of workers. Just as the Russian people struggled to rid themselves of Stalin, we too must realize the futility of removing these political figures once they are entrenched. We should return to industrial trade unionism, maintaining the hard-won powers we have secured in managing our own industries. This is tangible progress, the fruit of generations of British workers' efforts, which we should not sacrifice for the illusory promise of national ownership managed by State Capitalists.

**Self-Government of Industry**

Syndicalism is rooted in practical business principles. It advocates for the self-governance of industries, drawing inspiration from the effective “working parties” that significantly boosted production during wartime. We must abandon the illusion of political control wielded by corrupt, power-hungry delegates in favor of tangible industrial control derived from direct engagement with occupational challenges.

Syndicalism is a reality largely achieved through the working-class struggle against capitalist exploitation. In contrast, Socialism remains a theory that risks devolving into the tyranny of a Communist state, a fate that the true British worker abhors. Therefore, we must support every movement that champions workers' control over industry and rejects bureaucratic oversight.

The British Revolution need not stall; Reformism need not regain power due to the failures of Socialism. All that is needed is a deliberate shift in revolutionary action away from political maneuvering back to the traditional British approach of direct industrial engagement. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, especially when new political leaders have full control over available resources—this is not merely a reference to Mr. Strachey. Our freedom is too valuable to barter for a dubious and uncertain outcome.

We are pragmatic enough to avoid the pitfalls of anarcho-syndicalism. We understand that in pursuing the reality of industrial self-governance, as opposed to the illusion of political self-governance through a failing parliamentary system, we must still establish some central authority to safeguard national interests and coordinate various industries. While we maintain our fundamental rights to control and ultimately own our means of livelihood, we must be willing to delegate authority to a central government tasked with national administration. However, such a government must submit to regular public votes to retain its legitimacy.

We must be clear that there is no shortcut to dismantling Capitalism. Our goal should be to transfer control over industries from existing financial and absentee shareholding interests to those directly involved in their operation—managers, technicians, and workers alike. This must be followed by eliminating unjust claims for interest and profit that do not contribute to service. Ultimately, industries should not be owned by the State but rather by those actively engaged in their management. Ownership must be for the purpose of use, not profit, ensuring that every industry possesses its own tools, machinery, and capital to serve the national good.

This is the Syndicalist solution to Capitalism, and all workers must prepare themselves, regardless of their roles, to take on the responsibility of managing and directing their own industries. This requires a reorientation of Trade Unionism, shifting focus from politics back to the original industrial objectives for which they were created. Only when workers are equipped to undertake these responsibilities can they hope to eradicate the dominance of Capitalism, both in its individual and state forms.

Let us reiterate the need for workers to reclaim their rights over the tools of their trade, not just as individuals, but as members of organized industrial guilds, fostering cooperation across all sectors that contribute to their industry's welfare.

Finally, let the workers of this nation recognize the direction of their true well-being. Support any political movement that aligns with genuine syndicalist values and moves away from the illusions of socialist theory. Political action to bolster industrial progress is essential, but it must be aimed at curbing Capitalism's power, not usurping it to dominate the nation and its workers.

**The Moral and Social Law of Britain: A Contrast to Illusionary Freedom**

The moral and social framework in Britain presents a striking contrast to the illusion held by many Britons of being truly free. In reality, our nation is plagued by constraints that limit individual freedom of action. Except for perhaps the United States, there is no other civilized country where the individual enjoys so little autonomy.

We exist in a state of public anarchy paired with private repression. What we need is a system that fosters public organization alongside private liberty. Society teaches us that interfering with an individual in their public role as a producer, financier, or distributor is an outrage, even though poor choices in these capacities can adversely affect thousands. Yet, we intrude upon every aspect of private life, where an individual's actions typically impact only themselves or their immediate environment. A person can be imprisoned for placing a small bet on a horse race, while making substantial investments in the stock market is celebrated. One can harm the nation’s well-being as a capitalist or trade union leader, but even the smallest personal indulgence, such as having a drink after hours, is deemed unacceptable.

We are treated like children; social legislation is aimed at preventing the few from harming themselves rather than enabling the many to live fulfilling lives. The interference in private liberty by overzealous politicians reveals a gross mismanagement of their true responsibilities—the public governance of an organized society.

It is simpler for those of limited intellect to enforce the closure of pubs than to ensure the smooth operation of factories. Politicians, perhaps aware of their inadequacies, gravitate toward familiar territories, resulting in a political system that contradicts its intended purpose. In national public affairs, we face disorder and anarchy, while in personal matters, we encounter interference and repression.

This situation is not merely chaotic; it is a farcical form of organized hypocrisy that has made us the ridicule of more civilized nations. This system arises from a mentality that has turned Parliament into a chorus of ineffective voices, leading us into wars, poor peace treaties, unsustainable debt, and financial crises. It reflects an aging establishment grappling with challenges it cannot adequately address, thus presenting a profound opportunity for youth and realism to take charge.

**Public Service and Private Liberty**

The Meritocratic principle advocates for liberty in private life and obligation in the public realm. As public citizens, individuals must conduct themselves in ways that reflect their responsibilities to the State, which protects their freedoms. In their private lives, they may act as they choose, provided their actions don’t infringe upon the freedoms of others.

However, there is a crucial stipulation: the State cannot accommodate those who squander their potential for public service through decadence. Our moral framework necessitates that individuals "live like athletes," preparing themselves for a life of service inherent to the Meritocratic vision of citizenship. The moral evaluation of actions is based on their social impact and scientific reasoning. If an action does not harm the State or its citizens and leaves the individual sound in body and mind, it cannot be deemed morally wrong. This standard transcends religious beliefs, biases, and outdated doctrines that currently cloud judgment.

We reject both the excesses of decadence and the constraints of repression. Instead, we advocate for a balanced athleticism of mind and body, aspiring to a moral code that is both just and enforceable. We will rely on a new social consciousness, emerging from a modern renaissance, rather than on legislation to enforce this morality. The law may punish occasional offenders, but it fails to address the underlying issues faced by the habitual drinker or the weak-willed individual.

In our vision of an ordered athletic life, we seek a morality reminiscent of Spartan ideals, yet infused with the spirit of Elizabethan Merrie England. The era before Puritan repression was marked by British vitality and adventurous spirit. The individuals who boldly carried the British flag across the seas were not shackled by the constraints we see today.

**Happiness**

We recognize that happiness, like fitness, is a valuable social and political asset. Increased joy and vitality among those tasked with contemporary challenges enhance their capacity for service. We celebrate individuals enjoying leisure—be it at a racecourse, football match, theater, or cinema—as long as their enjoyment does not lead to excess or squander their health and resources. There is a crucial distinction between relaxation and indulgence; the former fosters healthy enjoyment that contributes to efficiency and service, while the latter devolves into decadence.

Thus, when we encourage to "live like athletes," we do not promote the sterility of Puritanism or repression. We seek men, not eunuchs, who possess a singular purpose in their lives directed toward service. This morality is already embraced within our Movement, and its principles take on an organized form. We expect our members to maintain fitness in both mind and body, which has led us to be misconstrued as organizing for physical violence. While we will certainly respond to force with force, that is not our primary motivation. No individual can sink into degeneration if they excel in any athletic pursuit. It is vital for the dedicated individual within our movement to engage in constant training of mind and body, maintaining readiness for service when the opportunity arises. In essence, we aim to cultivate a microcosm of a revitalized national manhood.

This is our morality, which we assert is the natural order of British manhood. This perspective fosters our disdain for the social repression embedded in current legislation and the outdated politics that dominate our society. Our goal is to establish a nationwide movement that replaces outdated laws with a vibrant social consciousness and the will to serve of a new generation. Every man shall be a member of the State, dedicating his public life to the greater good while claiming his private life and liberty in return, enjoying these within the framework of the State’s objectives.

Let us honor our heritage of industrial struggle and demonstrate to both Globalist America and Jingoist Russia that we possess a distinctly British method for reforming our society. Together, we can achieve a new societal framework in which workers, both manual and intellectual, have the power to safeguard their interests and serve the national welfare.

Forward to Syndical Revolution!