GUILD SOCIALISM RE-STATED.*
Mn. G. D. H. COLE, the principal exponent of Guild Socialism, may well call his book a re-statement, for he has stated his principles several times with modifications and extensions. We imagine that most of the young intellectual bloods of the universities, and indeed most of the young thinkers everywhere who are craving for the millennium—God bless them, for we certainly appreciate their motives !—now enlist under the banner of Guild Socialism. It is the popular Socialistic movement of the day. The State Socialists are probably losing ground ; and as for Syndicalism, it has never obtained much hold in this country. The State Socialists no doubt have to thank the experience of the last few years for their unpopularity. Rightly or wrongly, people say : "We have already seen Fabianism in operation. We have seen bureaucracy supremo. We have seen the essential industries taken over by the State and managed by it, and the result has been inefficiency, public waste and the most intolerable set of regulations for the management of our lives from our up-rising to our lying down that we have over bad to endure. Away with it all " It is easy to say all that, but unhappily the bureaucrats are in possession. It is extremely difficult to dislodge them. Some of the condemnation which State Socialism has earned may have been accidental or incidental, but at all events it has been sincere and severe. State Socialism in the exact form in which it was preached by the Fabians for so many years is not likely to raise its head again. This accounts for the fact that when Mr. and Mrs. .Sidney Webb published a book lately sketching a Constitution for a Socialistic Great Britain they showed evident traces of having been influenced by Guild Socialism. Like the Guild Socialists, they want to prevent the State from becoming too absolute by distributing authority. They proposed that in the Common- wealth of their imagination there should be two Parliaments, the Political Parliament and the Social Parliament. The Political Parliament would deal with such matters as foreign policy and defence, and the Social Parliament would deal with everything relating to the industries and the well-being of the nation. But in such a dyarchy who would have the rower of the purse ? Mr. and Mrs. Webb assigned that power to tho Social Parliament. We need not dwell now on the probable, indeed we might say the inevitable, rivalry between these two Parliaments. Enough to repeat that the influence of Guild • (1) Guild Socialism Itc-ttated. By G. 1). H. Colo. London: Leonard Parson. las. not.}—(Z) Goa Sooioldo.: a Critical Bo:e.t.a:on. Hy U. 0. Meld. ILL, /Lao, London: Wells Gardner. Dattoa, and Co. las. wad Booialism has become apparent in Fabianism. The Guild Socialists, though they do not follow the Syndicalists in doing away with the State as a central authority and in allowing in effect a combination of Trade Unions to govern the country, do want to put obstacles in the way of bureaucracy. Their theory is the middle way between State Socialism and Syndicalism.
Under Guild Socialism all the industries and professions would be organized in Guilds. A workman in a Guild would elect foreman and shop stewards to control his work. Mr. Cole apparently has not made up his mind finally whether such elections should be conducted by a direct general ballot or by means of delegates chosen to elect the foreman and shop stewards, just as the Electoral College in America is chosen to name a President. In choosing his Own masters the workman would be acting in his capacity as a producer, but by the common consent of our latest Socialistic thinkers it has to be remembered at every point that the nation is divided into producers and consumers. There is a suggestion of a pretty rivalry in this fashionable division, and neither Mr. and Mrs. Webb nor Mr. Cole dispose of the danger. The Guild Socialist workmen would also elect Operative Councils and Collective Utilities Councils. In casting his vote for these bodies the worker would be acting in his capacity as a consumer. The different Guilds would be combined in a local Guild Council. But above the Local Commune, as the local organization is called, there would be Regional Communes, and above these, again, the National Commune. The National Commune would take the place of our present Parliament, though it would be quite unlike it.
Mr. Cole sweeps away our present Parliamentary system because he declares it to be not really representative. "All true and democratic representation," he says, "is functional representation." This idea lies at the root of Guild Socialism. Once accept it, and it follows that there must be in the nation as many separately elected groups of representatives as there are distinct groups of functions. As Mr. Cole says, Smith cannot represent Brown, Jones, and Robinson as human beings, for a human being, being variously composed, is fundamentally incapable of being represented. Brown, Jones, and Robinson, therefore, must have not one vote each but a number of func- tional votes corresponding to their interests in various questions. The main objection, however, to Mr. Cole's fanciful schemes is that he makes an enormous and, as it seems to us, a wholly unwarranted assumption. He assumes that the ordinary man will work not only happily but well if he be inspired by a desire to do public service and is wholly divested of any wish for private gain. Why Mr. Cole and his friends feel able to assume this so calmly we cannot conceive. All the evidence is against them. This question of the motive of the worker is tremendously important. It goes to the root of the whole matter. When the dockers' inquiry was in progress we heard a great deal from Mr. Bevin about the desire of the dockers for more cultural amenities. We only wish that his picture were true. If it were true we should see daylight in many directions where there is now darkness. But all the various Commissions which have sat upon wages have collected evidence to the effect that higher wages, instead of being spent upon cultural amenities or upon refiring the standard of living, are too commonly used in order to indulge in the pleasures of absenteeism.
To those who cannot possibly accept Mr. Cole's assumption, and who believe in the ancient mundane fact that those who work best do so because they want to "get on" in the world, It will not be of very much interest to examine Mr. Cole's explanation of how the transition is to be made from our present system to Guild Socialism. He accepts revolution as necessary, but he believes that revolution can be accomplished without violence. He thinks it possible that the workers will get com- plete control of the industries and form their Guilds without upsetting the whole machinery of our trade. Here and there he appears to be aware of the difficulties and the dangers, and he commits himself to the principle, as we understand him, that if Capitalism resisted the workers would have to meet the methode of Capitalism by similar methods, however violent they might be.
We advise those who read Mr. Cole's book to read also Guikl .90ciraism, by Mr. G. C. Field, Lecturer in Philosophy in the University of LiverpooL Mr. Field dwells upon the probability of the consumer's interest being subordinated to that of the reducer. He says that though Mr. Cole professes to hold the balance between the two interests, he has failed. Very apt is
his quotation of Plato's question, "Who is the best judge of a good bridle ? The man who makes it or the man who has to use it ? " If the producer became stronger than the consumer, groups of citizens would be stronger than the State. What a prospect I Let us quote Mr. Field :— " It seems that the stronger Guilds, at any rate, would be absolutely secure against any kind of interference or control by the State. But the matter goes further than that. For see may well ask whether the State would be equally secure against interference and control by the Guilds. The Guild socialists are constantly asserting that political power follows from economic power. If this is true, it is difficult to see why this should not apply to the Guilds, some of which will exercise an economic power far greater than that exercised by any individuals or corporations actually existing. It would seem logical to suppose that the Guilds will exercise political power in proportion to their economic power, which, as we have seen, will vary greatly for different Guilds. Would not the State be absolutely helpless against a threat of 'direct action' on the part of a Transport Guild ? "
Previous page
