The Greater Britain

by Oswald Mosley

The publication of the first edition of 'The Greater Britain' coincided with the formation of the British Union of Fascists by Oswald Mosley in 1932. It provided hope and inspiration for tens of thousands of British men and women seeking an end to the Great Depression - and an alternative to communism and capitalism. In this important book Mosley set out his plans for a new economic order - and a new system of government to implement it. This would involve Britain's withdrawal from the chaos of world markets into a self-sufficient trading area based on Great Britain and her Empire. It was argued that this alone could free the people from exploitation by International Finance which used cheap labour in Asia and the Far East to undercut British and Empire workers - resulting in the destruction of our major industries. The book also outlines an alternative to 'sham democracy' and its replacement by a British Corporate State. Under this proposal all working people would share the profits they helped to create and they would be empowered by voting along vocational rather than 19th. Century geographic lines. Other chapters deal with 'The State and the Citizen', a new concept of public service, and 'Fascism and its Neighbours', the new movement's attitude towards foreign relations and defence. Any understanding of what the Modern Movement really stood for in Great Britain is incomplete without having read 'The Greater Britain'.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History

140 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1932

About the author

British politician and world war one veteran who founded the British Union of Fascists and the Union Movement.

Mosley seated in the British parlement first for the Conservative Party and later for the Labour Party. Dissapointed in both parties he founded the New Party which later became the BUF.

Mosley was jailed during the second world war. After the war he started propagating an united Europe.

Oswald Mosley is the father of Max Mosley the head of the FIA.

Reviews

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is no question that Sir Oswald Mosley was a very clever man. This book was basically his manifesto for the British Union of Fascists, which he led. Mosley did speak a lot of sense, especially in relation to the failure of Libertarianism (he used that word) to secure true liberty for the ordinary person to live a normal, natural life. Where I believe he went badly wrong was in his proposals to centralise power in the government at the expense of the parliament. I understand that, as a man of action, he was frustrated with old procedures, but, as recent events in Britain have demonstrated, these exist for wise reasons.

While Mosley did believe in a dictatorship, he advocated an elected dictatorship to fulfil the will of the people. This notion is problematic, as parliament is supposed to scrutinise legislation not give in to the whims of the government. Some Brexiteers, in order to ram through certain deals without proper procedure, have tried to argue that the government is directly accountable to the people, not to the parliament. Such a concept of government is thoroughly unconstitutional. (I voted Leave and would do so again, but the ends do not justify the means.)

Perhaps surprisingly, Mosley was very opposed to what we would now call the nanny state. He believed that the state should regulate the economy in the national interest, but he did not believe that it should micro-manage everyone's personal affairs. How odd that a Fascist had a greater understanding of limited government than those who call themselves democrats. American readers may be intrigued to learn that Mosley regarded the United States under FDR's rule as essentially Fascist. In conclusion, if you want to learn more about the ideology of British Fascism, you may as well go straight to the horse's mouth.

[ryan newton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm reluctant to give this a high review because while I did 'enjoy' it and have a good interest in British fascism. It's hard to separate this from the fact that a large part of the fun is that these ideas are wacky to say the least. While some of Mosley's original economic policies may have worked such as vast investment in public works projects, he also spouted a far larger amount of racist nonsense that discredits the notion that he may have been a visionary. If you have an interest in in fascism as a subject to study then I recommend reading this and Mosley's other books to learn about it. If you find yourself agreeing with Mosley a bit too much then I suggest you put the book down and look in the mirror for a few hours.

[Michael Martinez · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is easily the most sound economic plan I have ever read, and not only for Great Britain, but for the United States of America and other large powers perfectly capable of such a system of national insulation. What Sir Oswald Mosley wants to set up economically is a way by which private society can organize to set a general economic policy that bypasses sectional interests. Fascism is what gives the necessary national machinery for this, as it replaces the chambers of Parliament with representation along occupational lines, thus allowing a more suitable way for the will of the people to be represented, as engineers will vote as engineers and so forth; there will be other parts of the national government such as something like a Commodity Board by which the interests of the producer and the consumer are both represented, which benefits for example consumers who consume certain products which they need for their own prosecutions. Another part of this plan is to have the Colonies and the Dominions represented as well. The whole scheme here is to keep wages high, and prices low. To do this a nation needs progress and stability, and the problem with the “Old Gang” is that they always sacrifice one for the other, but both are mutually necessary for the other; the man who does not adapt with the changing currents will drown, thus stability needs progress, and progress needs the order and authority of stability in order to actually move forward, and not be so weak as to be pushed by any gust of wind in any chaotic direction, nor frustrated by post hoc committees after each crisis in which non-experts argue endlessly about technical matters that they have no idea how to settle. Fascism is the way by which a nation can survive and prosper in the age of plenty. Sir Oswald Mosley strongly believes that in an age of plenty and dynamism that strong leadership is necessary, and thus he supports dictatorship, and by that he means leadership in which government can actually do what it is entrusted by the people to do, rather than be frustrated by gridlocks and other debilitating mechanisms of democracy—this is why he supports replacing the local MPs with those of the Fascist Party, so that they do not frustrate the national will at the local level. Under the Fascist system there will no longer be representation by political sectarianism in which one works to undermine the other, but of every sphere of national life working in cooperative unity—the engineer qua engineer is less likely to want to undermine the doctor qua doctor. The economic theme which cuts right through the whole of this book is that of comparing the economics of poverty against the economics of plenty. Oswald Mosley rightly points out that the economic system of Great Britain in his time (and in many other nations I might add) was out of date, as it was built for a pre-industrial society in which it was not possible to produce most of you want and need in your own land. For example, the Bank of England once served in the vital role of ensuring foreign products which Britain could not produce herself by lending to other nations which would then export those products to Britain, but in this time of plenty, this has done nothing except build up the economies of foreign nations at the expense of Britain (as they invest more in other nations than in Britain, claiming that doing so would harm the financial system of the nation), and so only the financial elite benefit from this system as they get money from interest, while the average Brit is undermined by increasing foreign competition; the reason that this does not even out as it once somewhat did under the economics of poverty, is that these nations no longer need from Britain what they once did at the same level as before, for they have been able to produce a lot of these things themselves (through British financing), and so British private society suffers as these nations no longer import as much British goods as the statistics ostensibly demonstrate—the result is that these foreign economies are built up while the British economy shrinks. This would be less of a problem if that usurious money that these bankers got was then reinvested into the British economy, but it hardly ever is, and so Fascism suggests that bankers would be brought on to a National Investment Board in which investment in the domestic economy would be prioritized over investment in foreign nations, thus subordinating the interests of finance to the interests of the nation, which is to say that no state within the state is going to be permitted under Fascism, which is the context of what this phrase means—some erroneously interpret this as statolatry, but this is nonsense, it is said in the context of sectional interests that serve themselves at the expense of everyone else, which harms the state and thus the well-being of the nation; a state certainly has the prerogative to say that it will not be a slave to a small minority. What would certainly happen as a result of this is that the British international market will decrease, but as Sir Mosley points out, there is no rational reason to believe that this is more important than the home market in an age of plenty; what he suggests is a tradeoff—the building up of the home economy which benefits the nation as a whole, over building up the international market which mostly just benefits a financial minority. Fascism says that if the choice is between those who have invested in foreign nations, and those who have invested in their own, that one ought to choose the latter. This follows from the Fascist principle of liberty in private activity, and duty in public activity, which is also why anyone destroying their public capacity to act will not be tolerated; Sir Oswald Mosley opposes a nanny state, but does support some kind of economic punishment through taxation on those idlers like usurers or inheritors of wealth who produce nothing; he thinks that we ought to reward producers with lower taxes, and punish idlers, thus this way we incentivize the children of rich men to produce as this is what will allow them more of their wealth.

A big argument in this book is his argument against free trade. I extrapolate from his arguments that international free trade can only work if everybody agrees to it. The way of the “Old Gang” is to attend international conferences in which they essentially beg other nations to set policies which do not harm Britain by way of tariffs and the like, that somehow Britain must wait for all other nations to agree to help them out before she begins building up herself. So long as some nations play dirty, or are just at different developmental levels, then under international free trade, there are really only two options and they both wreck the national economy. In order for a business to compete in the international market with businesses that undercut by cutting wages, they must themselves cut wages in order to sell at such a low price, which thus shrinks the economy as it reduces the purchasing power of their own nation, which enslaves Britain more and more to other nations. If they do not do this, then they are simply run out of business, which also decreases the economy as there is now less production and less people in work with good wages to consume the production which is left. Tariffs certainly work to mitigate this, but without the national machinery of Fascism to check undercutting domestically (which results in one of the two of the same consequences as mentioned before), this only goes so far in checking the shrinkage of the national economy. For instance after the British crisis of 1931, the government went from the free-trade enthusiasts of the Labour Party, over to the Conservative Party (who had long abandoned their role as the party that represented the interests of land, as they now represented the interests of finance), who imposed tariffs, but could not stop domestic undercutting. Something which Sir Oswald Mosley suggests is insulating the agricultural economy from the competition of the world, since it is simply not necessarily to trade for foreign foodstuffs, and so under a 3-year plan the British agricultural economy would be self-sustaining through an assured home market, and with the overall rise of wages, this will assure a way for consumption to keep up with production. Wages will be kept high through protectionism, and through the national machinery which descends with force upon antisocial activity like undercutting. Some think that in order to keep prices low for trade, that low wages are necessary, but as Sir Oswald Mosley rightfully points out, those like Henry Ford have proven that only a high rate of production (accomplished mostly through rationalization) is what is necessary for low prices, and with fewer laborers to compete with through national insulation, wages are kept high and prices low through an increase of rationalization, which is to say that rationalization helps one person produce more than he otherwise could (the book gives specific mathematical details of this). Rationalization does have the problem of displacing jobs, but this is only true when there is an overflow of competition due to the economy of the nation being tied to the shocks of the international market. Sir Oswald Mosley points out that the United States of America was able to achieve this equilibrium of high wages and low prices but only temporarily. What happened in the United States of America is that firstly due to stringent immigration policy, there was less cheap labor flooding into the country, so domestic labor got a lot more bargaining power and became higher in demand, so wages went up (this is why any socialist who feigns to care about labor, but simultaneously supports mass migration, is mostly likely just being dishonest as mass migration directly undermines the power of labor). Something else which benefitted the Americans was protectionist policies that helped insulate the American economy from outside shocks and completion. Another major benefit which the Americans had was the fact that they had the most rationalized machinery in the world, which coupled with the high wages from the two previous facts, led to both production and consumption being high as wages were high and prices were low (this was the Roaring 20s), but the danger to America came from within and the government was helpless to stop it as to did have the Fascist national organization to check the curtailing of wages by Wall Street after a major test to this economy, and their use of credit to only expand their own wealth, rather than investing that in the domestic market; this led to speculative practices which contributed to the economic crash of 1929. Fascist government distinguishes between good and bad uses of credit and acts accordingly; the libertarian economic anarchy of America shows how although this can by chance lead to economic booms, it is not insulated from economic crashes as it has no way of checking antisocial activity. Capitalism is a better system than Communism as it at least allows for these possible economic successes, but Fascism is better than Capitalism as it keeps the good of Capitalism, and checks that which undermines the good of it, and so Fascism finds the middle-way between supporting private enterprise and supporting regulations in favor of the public interest. This is one way in which Fascism is different from Communism according to Sir Oswald Mosley; he says that the Communist seeks to uproot everything which came before it simply because it came before it, but that the Fascist takes the more reasoned approach of keeping what works and replacing what does not. The free trade argument is ridiculous since other nations are determined to industrialize and produce their own things, thus pushing Britain out of their markets more and more; they also set up tariffs to protect their own national economies, so waiting for other nations to play ball is just suicidal as they are trading up their domestic economic security for an international risk they are not winning. To put it another way: there are artificial barriers in place preventing Britain from benefiting in exports. Sir Oswald Mosley still has a way of trading with other nations though, and that is the simple rule that Britain will trade with who trades with Britain; this can be done through the effective united power of Fascist government as all the occupations of Britain will trade as a united front, rather than as sectional interests up against each other—by this mechanism Britain can force her way into markets which need her and thus then have beneficial returns for herself, and this also gives her much bargaining power as she can largely control what get in return from these nations that need British goods. Something which is specific to Great Britain at the time Sir Oswald Mosley wrote this, is of course her empire; this empire is very suitable for the autarkic system that Sir Oswald Mosley wants, and more specially India. He thinks that India can help Britain in a way that does not disadvantage India, and in fact he believes that India would be better under a Fascist government than under their own rule or the British regime of the time, which is probably true. He points out that India is over 200 different nations rather than one, and that if British left, the aggressive northern tribes would immediately descend upon the more docile southern tribes and brutalize them. Sir Oswald Mosley points out that it is Britain which brought most modern infrastructure to India, and that it is Britain maintaining it. Under the liberal regime that he is critiquing, the Indians are left in poverty as they ruled over by a small oligarchy of literate Indians who impose unnecessary restriction on economic growth through Hindu superstitions that prevent things like the rationalization of farming. Sir Oswald Mosley suggests a system in which all Indians will be represented, literate and illiterate alike, and a system in which British will act with authority and effectiveness to trample over superstitions when they interfere with good economic life which raises the standard of living, which is ultimately his goal behind the economic plan he sets forth in this book. There are many more things which I can say about this book, but I will it leave at that; I certainly recommend any intelligent person to read this short and concise plan for a better economic future.

[Eva]

I don’t see how one could rate this book without any underlying political bias, so I won’t. I did like the way Mosley writes; he has a way of putting down his ideas into concise but clear and easily understandable chapters. I think this serves as a great introduction to the intentions his party had, and would recommend it to anyone who wants to know more.

[Jordan Phizacklea-Cullen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically an extended riff on Mosley's earlier 'Fascism: 100 Questions Answered'; one of the key characteristics of fascism's attempt to appeal is it'll claim it's 'beyond politics' and neither left nor right, whilst employing leftist styles of rhetoric about 'the people' and promoting a hard-right minarchist approach to economics with some an-cap tendencies. This reads like a textbook in the above approach and can be demanding reading, but as an extended manifesto is at least relatively short. Good contemporaneous source for anyone wanting to gain a greater understanding to where mass movements in Britain were at in the early 1930s.

[Robert's reads · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5
I read this as part of my research for my Master's dissertation. Mosley was certainly a very interesting person. The book covers topics such as fascism's attack on parliamentary democracy, its replacement the Corporate State, the economic situation in 1920s/30s Britain, and the British Empire. Mosley appeared to believe that Britain's potential lay in its ability to harness it's Empire. Foreign trade would be greatly reduced and smaller nations would be bullied into trading by British power.
I certainly wouldn't want to live under British Fascism that's for sure!

[Finlay Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ummmm yeah I enjoyed it. Good insight to that era of politics.

[Aaron Harvey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boring at times but nice ideas

[w3rth34 (r3view_g0d) · Rating 4 out of 5]

did i just get redpilled on free trade or is this not really relevant anymore?