Roots of Radicalism

Industrial Ownership and Racial Nationalism


“THE OWNERSHIP of British industry must be vested with members of the British Nation.” This is one of the fundamental premises upon which any discussion on the ownership of industry in a Racial Nationalist society must be based.

For this reason, the problem of large sections of British industry being owned and controlled by international capitalism will have to be solved.

All British assets which are nominally 'owned' by the multi-national corporations will have to be seized and British industry will have to be freed from the influence and control of international finance. All foreign investment in Britain and all exports of investment capital must be stopped. A state-run banking system that will issue low interest loans into the economy will have to be established, and all private banks and insurance companies will have to be nationalised.

These objectives can only be achieved by the severing of links with all internationalist agencies and financial institutions. Only when this independence from international sectional interests is achieved will further industrial reforms be possible.

However, the eradication of internationalist influences on British industry will not be enough to ensure the evolution of a truly just industrial system. A nationalist state will have to ensure that its sovereignty is not undermined by any powerful sectional interests, national or international. Consequently, all nationally-based but privately owned industrial and commercial monopolies will have to undergo fundamental changes of ownership, control and operation.

In a nationalist society there must be no room for large industrial and commercial concerns owned by a small number of immensely powerful individuals. Neither must there be any room for so-called 'public companies'.

However, in order to be able to extirpate these, it will become necessary to completely dismantle the existing industrial framework.


Fundamental to this dismantling operation will be the dissolution of the Stock Exchange and the immoral 'investment' system it represents.

The purchasing of stocks and shares through the Stock Exchange gives to public companies an anonymity which leads to commercial instability. It also results in situations where the identity of the people running the company bears little if any relation to the ownership of its stock. This leads to a loss of incentive and responsibility with regard to the management of the company's affairs.

Furthermore, the system of evaluating a company by the current Stock Exchange share price level is subject to many abuses, including financial corruption, speculation and manipulation. In fact, as a result of Stock Exchange movements a perfectly healthy and profitable company can be ruined.

The overall long-term effect of this system has been an increase in the control that high finance wields over industry.

The dissolution of the Stock Exchange, therefore, is fundamental to the building of a socially just and economically successful industrial system.

But if public companies, large privately owned firms and monopolies have no role to play in a nationalist economy, what exactly is going to replace them?

Firstly, it must be stated that the National Front doesn't subscribe to either of the established 'choices' as regards the ownership of industry. The NF neither upholds the view of the 'right' which believes in a laissez-faire economy where privately-owned monopolies are allowed to flourish at the expense of smaller firms, and where financial speculation results in enormous profits for a handful of parasites. Nor does it uphold the view of the Marxist 'left' which believes in the nationalisation of all industry, leading to a State Capitalist system whereby a small number of powerful bureaucrats control and effectively own the means of production.


In fact the National Front would state that both systems are inherently similar. They are both monopolistic in nature and they both exclude the populace as a whole from any control over the production, distribution and exchange of the wealth they produce.

Under a nationalist system, however, everybody ― the entire working population ― would be involved in the ownership and running of industry. Unlike the two 'choices' mentioned above, where the ownership of industry is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of privileged individuals, in a nationalist society the ownership of industry will be extended to the people as a whole.

This will be achieved through the revolutionary restructuring of British industry. Production will be split into three varying types of industrial modus operandi: small privately owned enterprises, nationalised concerns and workers' cooperatives.

Ideologically, the racial nationalist approach to the ownership of industry can be summed up in the phrase “small is beautiful”. Consequently, wherever possible, large public companies and monopolies ― the legacies of capitalism ― will be sub-divided into small, family and privately owned enterprises.

However, where sub-division is not possible, the individual concerns will be socialised and handed over to the workforce in the form of workers' cooperatives. This would apply in cases where economics of scale necessitate a large sized production operation.

Finally, nationalisation will take place whenever it is impossible either to subdivide or to socialise. Nationalisation, however, will not normally be desirable, requiring as it does enormous bureaucratic machinery to keep it running.

THE STOCK EXCHANGE: The investment system it represents is immoral

This system of industrial ownership has two major and important advantages over the current system and other systems being proffered by the Marxist left. Firstly, it will eradicate completely any powerful sectional interests likely to wield subversive politics power within the state. Secondly, it extend the profit motive and the right of private ownership to all members of the community.


Any political system, however, must take into account human nature. For this reason safeguards will have to be introduced to ensure that capitalist-minded individuals aren't able to re-start the monopolism process. There will have to be legal limits to the size of industrial concerns in private hands because ultimately wealth means power. The ideal situation, in this regard would be a state of affairs where people can satisfy all their material wants but where they can never acquire so much wealth that they become a subversive political force. Industrial and commercial mergers must be actively discouraged and even prohibited except where either a valid reason is given or where necessity dictates.

These problems should not arise to any great degree though because the main driving forces behind monopolisation will have been neutralised. It is the current, corrupt industrial and financial system which is the motive force for monopolisation. Once the power of international capitalism, the private banks and the multi-national corporations has been destroyed, many of the problems afflicting our society will b destroyed with it.

These revolutionary changes in the ownership of industry will change the whole face of industrial Britain. For the first time British workers will be involved in the ownership and control of the places where they work. For the first time the basic right of private property will be extended to the whole community. For the first time everybody will benefit from the profit motive. And for the first time the British people will be free from the chains of international finance, multi-national corporations and industrial monopolies.