It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corporatism, fascism and Great Britain

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Benito Mussolini quotes (Italian dictator, 1883-1945)

In 1932, an ex-Conservative and former Labour government minister created the British Union of Fascists. Sir Oswald Mosley believed the British parliamentary democracy system should be replaced with corporatism, which would involve replacing the House of Lords with a chamber consisting of executives from major industries. Sticking to the theory of corporatism, Mosley believed the corporation should have direct control over the social and economic influence/control over the region it represent. Creating innovation and developing skills of the labour force. In the case of the British Union of Fascists, it would of been the United Kingdom and the rest of the British Empire under corporatism.

The Battle of Cable street in October 4th 1936, East London destroyed the movement thus resulting in a ban in 1940. Poor election results, and the outbreak of World War II, showed that Britons would never vote or support a Fascist party or movement.

Or would they?

When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007 he promised change and reform. We were informed of a delightful package of constitutional reforms and foreign policy, he even showed how well he can handle a crisis.

But this statement on the 28th June went unnoticed;



I am today announcing the creation of a new Business Council for Britain to assist the Government in putting in place the right strategy to promote the long-term health of the UK economy.

The Council will comprise senior business leaders from a range of sectors, able to provide clear, independent advice on the reform priorities to enable business to compete in the global economy.

The Council will meet twice a year, chaired by a senior business person. It will report to the Government and to Parliament. Secretaries of State will attend meetings at the invitation of the Council.

The Council will:

* examine the progress the Government is making to improve the business environment in areas critical to the future of the economy;
* advise the Government on its ongoing policies and priorities;
* conduct its own reviews on the areas it believes will determine the future economic well-being of the UK; and
* where issues are particularly important, the Council will have the power to establish Special Commissions to make recommendations for reform.


Written statement to the Commons

Didn't the British Union of Fascists plan for a Corporate body which would have influence over policy? Maybe I am reading it wrong, the Prime Minister cannot be combining business and the state?



To lead this work, I am today announcing the formation of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR).

The new Department will be responsible for creating the conditions for business success, developing deeper and more effective engagement with business, with the ability to promote the competitiveness agenda across critical areas of Government policy. It will provide support for the new Business Council.


A new government department for business and if we read on we see a Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills too. The former Director-general of the Confederation of British Industry is now Lord Digby Jones, a government minister for Trade.

In other words, Mosley's dream of a British government mixing the power of business and corporations into the State is now a reality. Our Prime Minister is currently on a trip to China and India, which he has decided to take a host of leading UK business CEO's with him. But this isn't new. Brown's policy for Iraq is a "economic shared future" in which Iraqi's businesses will be in charge of delivering wealth, social and economic needs to Southern Iraq. Which the Iraqi federal government supports and has passed legislation on.

What we thought was defeated at the Battle of Cable street has successful performed a coup d'etat without us even knowing.

sources:

Prime Minister's statement 28 June 2007
Corporatism
British Union of Fascists
Oswald Mosley
New economic plan as Brown flies to Iraq

[edit on 20-1-2008 by infinite]




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Excellent post man! It seems like the general direction that all Western governments seem to be moving toward...

I don't know much about other governments, but here in the US politicians are literally bought, and it seems that the new legislations are written more for the profit of the corporations than the wellbeing of the people.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   


Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot highlights the takeover of Britain by big business.

Look around, read and research government economic policy. Small business in the UK is dead, the English hight street owned by families is finished.

Corporations rule our economy.

And whys that? Britain is the most open free market country in the world, we don't do protectionism. If you have money to invest the UK government will be ready to meet you at the airport.

Some will say it's a good thing because it means all this investment by foreign corporations will help us avoid a recession this year. But it comes at a price. These organisations become "lobby groups" and put pressure on the UK government to give them either contracts or op-outs when it comes to legislations.

Many have argued that Tony Blair's New Labour is a fascist movement and has a hidden agenda when it comes to the economy, especially privatisation. Evidence shows that some businesses, who made donations to the Labour Party, received "rewards" from the government. Mostly million pound contracts.

Is that what you expect from a democratic government?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


But who would you prefer to run the country?
The same old, faceless, senior civil servants who have wielded excessive influence exceeding their defined role for far too long, or these successful business men who, as a rule, have actually achieved something tangible?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The people.

That is the general idea of a democracy. Government by the people. I personally think we should ban political parties and have independents in our Parliament. The partisanship has destroyed our country and our constitution.

Allow parliament to appointment the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Let's have a true democracy, not a corporate state.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I agree. The people.

It's a wonderful dream.
I'm all for increased electorate involvement but there are a couple of problems.

1. The people increasingly don't want to be involved.
Turnout's for general elections are decreasing www.psr.keele.ac.uk... , I believe it was as little as 38% for the last round of local elections.
The majority of people just don't care anymore; they have become either disillusioned or disinterested with politics and politicians.

2. With our current electoral / governement system it's irrelevant.
Both leading parties are just a slightly different shade of blue.
Regardless of which party is elected the same old unelected Civil Servants remain in place. The majority of whom are part of the public school network whose primary concern is maintaining their disproportionate level of influence and control.

Indeed I think it's generally accepted that there are significant links between these unelected Senior Civil Servants and the Corporate Executives who may now be "visually" advisisng the government.
Isn't this in fact just a public admission of something that most of us already know; Big Business has a big say in government.

Democracy?
Don't make me laugh.
Don't mistake the notion that a once in a five year opportunity to vote for a party whose policies are hidden in double speak and are not binding is democracy.
At present politicians, once elected, view it as an opportunity to partake in sleeze of every shape or form whilst moralising and imposing their own agenda's on the very people who have elected them.
I personally think we've got it arse first.
Surely we the electorate should elect someone to parliament who is there to do our bidding; not to go to parliament and then tell us what to do.

Sorry for the rant but I have a very poor opinion on our version of democracy.
Is there a better version?
I don't know, I only ask questions, I don't have many answers.

[edit on 20-1-2008 by Freeborn]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by Freeborn]



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join