"THEN WHAT DO WE DO?"

FRANK MARTELL offers a blue-print for the future nationalist economy

THE bottom of the economic pyramid will be governed by the free market, with small firms being owned by entrepreneurs and larger firms being owned by worker cooperatives. The government will own those industries that tend toward monopoly or which are critical to the fate of the nation - utilities and energy, mass transportation, telephone, post office, weapons, and most importantly, banking and finance.

There will be a progressive income tax and estate tax to help share the wealth and to limit the concentration of wealth to keep the political system free of its influence. A negative income tax, which provides direct reimbursement to all those who fall below a generous minimally acceptable income, will ensure that all live well. The negative income tax will be tied to a full employment programme to ensure that those few who are unwilling to work will not receive support from the government. As the aged and all who are willing to work will be sustained in a middle-class standard of living there will be no need for extensive social security and national health care programmes, with their attendant huge bureaucracies.

Rewards for contributions

There is more than enough wealth for the negative income tax. At present the Gross National Product in the US, for example, is $7.5 trillion per annum, representing $30,000 per year per individual or $120,000 per year for the typical family of four were it shared equally; That, of course, should not be our intention, since greater effort and a greater contribution to the commonweal deserves greater reward.

But there is a huge difference between giving proper incentives and just reward 'for talent and the present situation, where the top 1 per cent control 40 per cent of the wealth, and the top 10 per cent control 63 per cent of the wealth, while 15 per cent of the populace live below the poverty line (about $16,000 a year for a family of four) and fully one out of every five children have to deal with hunger, and all the disease that malnourishment causes, on a regular basis.

The government will become the investment banker, or venture capitalist, of small business. Private venture capitalist enterprise will also be allowed to exist and would provide an alternative source of capital to those who do not qualify for government investment, for example to those whose ventures are considered too risky.

The government will invest money with entrepreneurs in return for a percentage of the profit generated by the firm over a long term - say 25 per cent of the profit made over the first 25 years. This long-term partnership would cause government to provide the company not only with sufficient capital and follow-on loans, but to provide the advice and technical support that it needs to establish a niche in the market. It also allows the government access to the workplace and books of the firm to prevent the sort of fraud and corruption that now is endemic in business, small and large.

If the venture succeeds, the government not only reaps its percentage return but also receives income tax from the employment generated and avoids payment of the negative income tax to those no longer unemployed. If the venture fails, the government loses its capital investment and any follow-on loans, loses potential income tax and must pay negative income tax to the unemployed; these are strong incentives to help small businesses through the tough times that they initially face in the first 3-5 years, and onto the list of successful enterprises.

The small business administrators in the government who are good at this will be promoted and rewarded while those who are not will be shifted to other less stressful and lucrative areas of government employment. The officers of the small business administration will be a combination of retired entrepreneurs and of graduates of the government's Academy of Economics, who have gained business experience in government-run business. This simple programme will release, direct and make productive the enormous creativity and energy that lies dormant in capitalist society, as capitalism is geared to the destruction of small business and the subsidy of large business. The programme will return profit to the government over time, both to cover its initial outlays and to help relieve the general tax burden.

Large enterprises, that is those with over 100 employees, will be converted to worker cooperatives. At present most of these companies are in the hands of stockholders, individuals or institutions who are not interested in either the company or the workers of that company, but rather in its quarterly returns.

Treason from greed

If these returns are not sufficient then the stock will be sold to a new set of 'owners' who are similarly motivated by short-term profit. If it is thought that more money could be made by closing down a factory, firing all its employees and moving the plant to Mexico or Taiwan, then this is done, with no concern for the long-term interests of the nation or for the interests of the workers. This is how the US, for example, lost its consumer electronics industry and its steel industry to foreign competition. And this why the capitalists want the free flow of money, goods and people across international borders, the so-called 'New World Order'.

In this way they can plunder a country and then move on with their money, investing it wherever they get the highest return, without regard to racial or national loyalty; after all, the central myth of capitalism says that if everyone follows the path of his own self interest then everything works out best in the end -- by some unseen mechanism that Adam Smith dubbed 'the Invisible Hand'! And this system does work, for the elite, as the wealthy have all the cards in the game of individualism, but the race and nation eventually pay the ultimate price.

Once the financial elite (much of it impeccably Anglo-Saxon) had plundered Britain, turning class against class in a struggle that undermined not only national unity but social cooperation and the work ethic itself, it shifted its wealth, beginning in the 1920s, to greener fields, first in the US, then in Canada and Australia. Britain's rapid decline from the most prosperous to one of the poorest of European countries in less than a century was not an accident; it resulted from the betrayal of the country by its leaders in their pursuit of ever greater personal profit and power

Now the capitalists want the right to shift their profit, power and themselves freely across all borders so as to continue to pursue the maximum return and to escape the social and national destruction they leave in their wake. And this is why, when we take back control of our own destiny, they must be denied the ownership of our large companies and be limited each to the ownership of one small company, with under 100 employees.

The motivation of the typical worker is very different from that of the typical plutocrat. If politically well-led by an honest and self-
sacrificing leadership, the former sees himself as part of the nation, whereas the latter sees himself as something special -- distinct from and superior to the masses and thus deserving of all the prerogatives and privileges that his wealth bestows upon him. if the plutocrat did not see himself as above and beyond, then he could not psychologically rationalise why he should have an easy life with so much and the ordinary man should have a hard life with so little. Thus, generally speaking, the more one has, the weaker grow his psychological ties to his people and the nation, and the less he can be trusted to do the right thing for the whole.

Moreover, the worker knows better than anyone else what goes on the shop floor and knows before anyone else if changes need to be made, or what can be done to improve efficiency. The clerk who deals with customers on a daily basis knows better than anyone else what the customer is thinking. Yet, in the conventional capitalist company, the opinion of the employee is usually not solicited and, where it is, it is studiously ignored. For example, Ford Motors institutes only one per cent of the suggestions it receives from its workers, whereas Nissan Motors (where full employment is guaranteed and workers share in the profits of the company through a bonus system) institutes sixty-six per cent of its employee suggestions. You can judge for yourselves which of the two sets of workers is more likely to work hard and work smart for their company.

Motivation

In sum, the workers (who, naturally, include managers) who are close to the business and strongly motivated by personal interest which goes beyond a weekly pay packet, are a better choice than a clever stock manipulator to elect the board of directors, which board then selects the executive officers of the company. This is proven by the track record of employee-owned companies in the US which have done remarkably well, despite the fact that they are usually enterprises that have failed under capitalist management and are then sold to the workers who think they can turn things around (and are often correct in this.)

In terms of structure, each full-time worker in a co-operative will receive one non-transferable share of common stock, allowing him one vote for the board of directors and entitling him to a percentage of the yearly dividends declared by the board of directors. So, for example, if there are 100 employees, then each is entitled to 1 per cent of the declared dividend, and if there are 200 employees then each is entitled to 0.5 per cent of the declared dividend.

In order to avoid the exploitation of part-time employees, who usually work without benefits or employment protection, part-time workers will also receive partial shares in proportion to the amount of time they work and will also be entitled to a share of the dividend. For example, if a man works 20 hours per week then he will receive a half share of common stock. Part-time work will be especially encouraged for mothers such that they can arrive at the workplace after the children are in school and be back home before the children return from school. The board of directors will determine how many full - and part-time employees the management may hire. Furthermore, no employee may be fired without the consent of the board of directors; and if an employee is dismissed (or dies) then his share of common stock must be redeemed at the going concern value of the company as established by an outside auditor provided by the government.

This will give workers a measure of protection from the ebb and flow of internal company politics, allowing them to speak more freely than they otherwise would. The board of directors will also determine how many bonds and shares of non voting preferred stock the company will issue to raise money for ongoing operations or future investment.

Once an entrepreneur approaches the point where he has 100 employees, he must then decide whether he wishes to hire that 100th worker and convert the company to a cooperative, or to maintain his workforce below this level and maintain his ownership. Should he decide on the former, the new worker cooperative will purchase the company from him in regular monthly instalments over a period of 25 years at a going concern value established by an outside auditor. He could then continue to work for the co-operative as a salaried manager, start a new company, work for another firm, or work for the government as a small business administrator, or retire.

Human nature dictates that few of the younger ones will choose the last option. The ideal would be for these businessmen to start new companies as this is what they do best. Government investment capital will be made readily available for such proven entrepreneurs, while the media would be encouraged to give them public recognition for their outstanding contribution to national prosperity. We certainly do not want to kill initiative by denying the talented the status and acclaim that is their due.

No uniformity

The third sector of the economy will consist of government-operated businesses. Here there will be no uniformity, due to the wide variety of businesses, except that all the officers of these industries will be educated and trained in the government's Academy of Economics, which will teach its cadets the principles and practices of business, finance, management and economic policy. The secret of a successful economy in the modern world lies in the application of science and technology to economic affairs, the education and empowerment of those with managerial talent, and the unity of management and labour in actual business practice. For decades now, the Japanese in particular have combined these factors more effectively in their management doctrines and business practices than the British and Americans, largely because their social order is still essentially nationalist, allowing for better cooperation between workers and managers, and allowing for greater authority and freedom of manoeuvre on the part of business leaders.

The key to these advanced management doctrines lies in getting the ordinary employee to identify with the company as his protector and benefactor; the worker will then invest his time, effort and ideas in the company to a far greater extent than in the typical hierarchical capitalist enterprise where the management is trying to get as much work out of the employee with as little pay as possible, and the employee is trying to do as little work for as much pay as possible.

Good management doctrine demands that the worker be trained to be flexible, and to be retrainable above all things, so that the workers and the company can adapt to constantly changing circumstances. Training and retraining for multiple roles and giving the worker more input into management decisions not only demonstrates trust in the worker, it also relieves the deadening effect of workplace boredom that eventually undermines morale and effectiveness.

Chiefs of staff

The best of the officers of the Academy of Economics will gain practical experience in the running of government businesses and will then go on to high-level financial and economic policy-making posts. They will comprise the chiefs of staff to the politically-appointed heads of the financial and economic ministries.

Government-run enterprises will operate at minimal levels of profit in order to provide cheap energy, transportation and communication for the benefit of private industry, but all parts of the nation will have access to the best facilities and will thereby be economically and socially integrated into the whole.

Government will also encourage and direct, if necessary, joint research and development projects amongst companies in important new areas of product creation. It will break up companies that threaten monopoly or oligopoly, as competition is what drives the efficiency of the free market and is what keeps prices down. The government will also protect
the national economy with various tariffs and trade barriers, so that we can become self-sufficient and end our dependence upon foreign trade for our prosperity.

Such protectionism worked well for America and Germany in the second half of the nineteenth century when these countries were trying to shield their infant industries from being undercut by foreign (primarily British) competition. Japan's trade barriers were key to its rise to the status of economic giant in the past few decades, though the Japanese have
become altogether too dependent on foreign trade. As a result, they now find their domestic policies being dictated by the US, which has, for instance, demanded that Japan open its borders to foreign workers (particularly from the Philippines).

The government will also subsidise pure scientific research through the universities, and will control or direct the exploration and development of the seas and of space. Such exploration is in the nature of our kind. The Chinese and Japanese will move into space for fear of being left behind, but such ventures, along with pure science are - for good or bad - our birthright.

The greatest challenge

As Whites, we cannot resist the temptation and challenge of the unknown. "It is better to know where to go and not know how, than to know how to go and not know where," says the black protagonist to his white enemy (played by Marlon Brando) in the stunning film Burn, succinctly summing up the difference between the two races. We will go to the stars because we can and because we must, and government largesse and co-ordination will be required for this gigantic adventure. The Mongoloid races will tag along for the ride because they also have the necessary ability; but, as the Western trained Japanese scientist Leo Esaki recently worried to the press:-

"The spirit of science started with the Greek natural philosophers. Democritus. or the mathematicians, Pythagorus and Archimedes. They enjoyed the knowledge itself. But that kind of science doesn't exist in the Orient. Science is not part of Japanese culture."

Which brings up one further necessary reform. Our inventors - and white inventors are by far the most creative in the world - must be freed from the present tyranny of the conventional patent system. It is quite common, indeed the norm, for small inventors and developers to be cheated out of the profits engendered by their ideas by large corporations which regularly peruse patent office records for inventions they can steal and use. The theft is done by adding modifications to the wanted design and claiming that the concept was derived independently. Then the original inventor is worn down in long and complex litigation by expensive patent lawyers.

As a result, many inventors are reluctant even to patent their ideas, hoping to raise the development capital on their own. This is usually a pipedream, so valuable ideas are lost or needlessly delayed. The solution is simple: The inventor registers his patent and, if that idea is used in a later product (regardless of knowledge of the patent) the inventor is awarded a royalty for each item sold by the selling company. Thus marketable ideas would immediately be converted into products, with the inventor getting a fair return - say 1 per cent of the selling price - which would not be so burdensome as to discourage development and production.

Three different options

Under the nationalist economic system outlined above, the ordinary worker would have three different types of employment available. If he wants security, then working for a government-run business would be most appealing. Individuals interested in the challenge of playing an active role in the management of a company would find work in a co-operative more suitable. If, on the other hand, a worker prefers the atmosphere of the small workplace, or wants to gain experience in this area preparatory to seeking venture capital to start a new business, then working for an entrepreneur would be the best bet.

Such variety would allow workers to move, through both good and bad experiences, towards the type of employment for which they are best suited, creating greater job satisfaction than is the norm at present. Even more important, this system will release the energy and creativity of those who have little prospect of achievement and recognition under the present capitalist monopoly: the worker committed to his enterprise, the small entrepreneur and the inventor.

While there would still be plenty of scope for people who are happy simply to draw a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, the general tone of economic life would be set by the greatly increased proportion of the population with an active stake in their workplace. Thus, by curbing capitalism, with its proletarianisation and class war, we would restore the greatest incentives to work, productivity and responsibility: well-distributed private property in the means of production, and genuine national unity.