Chapter IX. Guild Socialism

CHAPTER IX GUILD SOCIALISM EVERYOne who has recognized the evils of the Capitalist system, and been forced to the conclusion that State Socialism, though it might cure some of these evils, could do so only at the risk of a great loss in productive output and by the establishment of bureaucratic control that might have deadening effects on moral and intellectual growth, must have been thrilled, as with the hope of spring, when he· or she heard ·that.a new school of Socialism was setting Gut to make things better by means of National Guilds. The word guild is hardly associated with freedom, having, as hitherto used, generally implied a nlore or less close corporation, very jealous of its privileges. Nevertheless, it had a pleasant l11ediaeval sn1ack on the mental palate, 'and everybody but the mostunconlpromising econ01l1ic l"'ories turned to· the study of the literature of the new faith with a hopeful n1ind, Inost ready to find salvatiQn, if it \-vas really to be had.

189 190 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM Before we entered on this study. we had probably heard from conversation with its disciples a rough outline of its doctrines economic freedom to be secured by the abolition of the wage· system, every industry to be organ ized into a great· watertight blackleg-proof union including all the ,yorkers by hand or brain, the capitalist to begot rid of, the great new unions to be the new Guilds, which were to give the worker freedonl~and a new com munity to be founded on ·the basis of" organi zation by function." From this sketch, which proved on ex amination to be very near the ,mark, itappeared that there was much ·in common between Guild Socialism and Syndicalism~ which has hitherto had little support in this country. Concerning it l\Ir. Snowden tells us, in his book on Social -ism and SyndZ:calisn~, page 205, that "there is no authoritative and definite statement of its philosophy or its policy or its aims by those who profess to accept it. Syndicalisln is one· thing according to one of its exponents, anq some thing very different according to another.)) This of course is inevitable in the case of a new doctrine that is developing ~ itself, andM~.

Snowden was nevertheless able to tell us that Syndicalism "proposes that the control of GUILD SOCIALISM 191 production shall be exercised by the workers in the various ·industries-···. that is, that the railways shall be managed by the railway workers, the mines by the miners, the post office by the postal servants, and so with regard to other industries and· services. Syndicalists have now repudiated the claim that these .. industries shall be owned by the workers in t~e separate industries. . . . 'the Syndicalist, like the Anarchist, repudiates the State,and would make the· social organization of the future purely an industrial one." As we shall see, it is chiefly in the matter of their attitude to the State that Syndicalism and Guild. Socialism differ, since the latter has, apparently, to leave a good deal to the State. Certain obvious difficulties naturally came into the mind of anyone who took a first draught from the Guild Socialist fountain as above described. How, one wondered, could economic freedom be secured for the producer except at the expense of himself as a consumer?

And as everyone, as a ruleJ producesone, or a fraction of one, article or service and consunles thousands of them, is the sum total .of the freedom of each likely to be· furthered by this process? How are the Guilds to solve the question ofvalue-·.. that is, on what basis are they' 192 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM to exchange their products? State Socialism could solve this problem by the Prussian process of rationing, leaving no freedom of choice to anybody, either in what they make or what they consume. But how are the Guilds to solve the question? Would not enterprise and initiative be checked under Guild monopoly almost as seriously asunder State control? Who is to' decide as to right of entry to a Guild?' Would the guilds1nen really work, better for a Guild than for an ordinary employer? What would happen if any of the Guilds, exercising, as they .. would, a. watertight nlonopoly, started the game-, at which all could play with differing degrees of success-of mutual exploitation?

Andthis strange new formula about H organi zation by function "."";'what did it mean ? If a man is to be a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker first, and a citizen of his country, or a member of the human brotherhood, second, it seem's to be a rather material standpoint. It would surely tend to produce a. selfish and sectional outlook, very different from the con ception of each as, a member of a, great com munity, in which divergent interests are, or might be, attuned by co-operation and com petition into a cheerful and inspiring harmony. A study of Guild Socialist ·1iterature, in spite of GUILD SOCIALIS11 193 the evident earnestness and sincerity of its writers, does not remove these difficulties.' State Socialism we found to be theoretically possible. With an efficient bureaucracy, and a docile people ready to work hard and to be told what to produce or consume, the system might work well, though only by elinlinating the surprises and ,failures that give life much of its zest and most of its discipline. But it is difficult to see how the schenles of the Guild Socialists could be fitted into a system that could work, without the sacrifice of most of the objects that they hope to secure.

A book on the subject of National Guilds from which I have already quoted freely, is 5;elj-Gover1Z1JtClltitt 11ldustr)!) by G. D. }-I. Cole. On page 4 he tells us : " I am putting forward in this book some general suggestions for industrial reconstruction. These suggestions are based upon the idea that the can tro1 of industry should be deillocratized; that the worker.s thenlselves should have an ever increasing measure of power and responsibility in control, and that capitalist supremacy can be overthrown· only by a system of industrial denlocracy in which the \vorkers will control industry in conjunction with a denl0cratized State. This is the systeln of National Guilds; N 194 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM and its dominant idea is that· the individual worker must be regarded not simply as a " hand," .a decreasingly important adjunct to the· industrial machine, but as a man among men, with rights and responsibilities, with a human soul and a desire for self-expression, self-government. and .personal· .freedom."

This dominating idea is cherished by most of us in these ·days. But is it likely to becichieved by the establishment. ofa. group of great monopolies? It is rather disappointing-after the bitter criticisms of State control-and bureau cratic tyranny expressed· by Guild Socialists, especially by Mr.Cole~~tofindthat thecot1trol of industry by the workers is to be .. exercised "in conjunction with a democratized State. " Perhaps, however, theword H democratized" is expected to cover a multitude of blessings~and perhaps it· might actually do S()~ Mr. Cole continues a little later (page 6): "Recognizing the paramount need for destroying the wage system and giving the producers the fullest possible share in the control of their life and work, National Guildsmen saw also the true function of the State and the municipality as the representatives of the· consumers, of ·all those who had a common interest born of neighbourhood and common use of the means of G·UILD SOCIALISM 195 life. They set out therefore' to devise a system by which the control ..··. of industry. might be shared between the organizations of producers and. 'C0nsumers, so as to safeguard. the interests of the community of consumers and atthe same time to give the workers freedom to organize production for themselves." And on page 63 he tells us again: "I n the first place National Guildsmen ·clearly .know what they want.

Their aim is a partnership" between State and Labour, accompanied by the abolition of the system of capitalist production." It' thus appears that, under the National Guild system, the much-abused . State is to exercise extrenlely' important functions. I t is to represent the consumers and safeguard their interests, but at the same' time the workers are to have freedcHn to organize production for themselves. ·How far is this freedom ·possible? And what does it mean? Does it mean that the workers are to be .free to turn out whatever article they like, irrespective of the wishes of consumers with regard to the kind of things they would like.tobave and enjoy? And if so, if the workers happen to produce an article which nobody wants, how are they to be paid for their work? In other words, what right will they have to any of the goods vihich 196 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM other people are producing? In another part of. his book, as we shall see later, Mr. Cole says that the workers must be freed "to choose whether they will make well or ill," the con sumer being apparently invited to take the article made or leave it. But production will have to be dominated, under .a system of National Guilds as under every other, ·by the needs of the consumer--:.either expressed by himself by his purchases in the market, as under the present system, or as expressed, as is conceivable under State Socialism, by the decision of a bureaucracy as to what sort· of articles it is good for the community to enjoy.

In whatever way the decision is arrived at, the producer, if he is to justify himself economi cally, has to produce what is wanted. Ifhe does not produce what is wanted, his product has no economic value, and his freedom in pro duction simply reduces him to a useless parasite working for his own enjoyment, instead of for the satisfaction of the needs of the community. Until we go back to the state of theprimi tive savage supplying all his own wants, it is the inevitable lot of all workers to meet the wants of somebody else. We thus see at the outset that in thjs proposed partnership between the State and Labour there are seeds of a GUILD SOCIALISM 197 good deal of discord and friction which might lead to serious economic inefficiency. That is to say, unless the Nadonal Guilds representing the producers, and the State representing the consumers. work in complete harmony, the strikes and friction which are so serfous a clog on the economic machine under our present system, might be replaced by even more bitter contests, more bitter because they would in volve the whole society through its political machinery.

On this subject Mr. Cole does not seem to have thought the matter out very clearly, and here again one must admit that it is no just criticism of National Guildsmen to tell them that they have not got a cut-and-dried scheme to cover every possibility. He tells us (page 86) ., that the various Guilds will be unified in a central Guild Congress, which will be the supreme industrial body, standing to the people as producers in the same relation as Parliament will stand to the people as consunlers. . . . N either Parliament nor the Guild Congress can claim to .be ultimately sovereign: the one is a supreme territorial association, the other the supreme professional association. In the one because it is primarily concerned with con sumption, governlnent is in the hands of the 198 .THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM consumers;· in the other where the main business is that of production, the producers hold sway."

Again he says, (page 87): "Where a single Guild has a quarrel with Parliament, as I con ceive it may well have, surely the final decision of such a quarrel ought to rest with a .body representative of, all the' organized consumers and aU the organized producers. The ultimate sovereignty in matters industrial would seem properly to belong. to sonle joint body repre sentative equally of Parliament and of the Guild Congress. Otherwise, the scales must be weighted unfairly in favour of. either con sumersor producers. But ifonsuchquestiQhs there is an .appeal from ..·Parliament and from the Guild Congress to a body more· representa tive than either of them, the theories of State Sovereignty and Guild· Congress Sovereignty must clearly be abandoned, and we must look for our ultimate sanction to some .body on which not merely . all the citizens, but all. the citizens in their various social activities, are r~presen.ted. FunetionaI associations must be recognized as necessary expressions of the national life, and the State must be recognized as merely a functional association - ' elder brother,'· 'pr£mus £nterpares.)' The new social philosophy which this changed conception of GUILD SOCIALISM 199 sovereignty implies has not yet been worked out; but if Guild Socialists would avoid trip ping 'continuallyover their own and other writers'terrninology, they would do well to lose no time in discovering :tndformulating clearly a theory consistent with· the Guild~idea, and with the social structure they set out to create."

What a.11 this'means, will perhaps· be clear to people of exceptional intelligence. The ordi nary plain '. reader can only see that Mr. Cole thinks it very likely that a Guild may have a quarrel with Parliament-'"wherein we heartily agreew.ith him. Further, that Mr. Cole con cludes, that the ultimate sanction must be provided by somebody, superior both to Par liament and the ,Guild Congress, representing both of them, and also representing not,merely all thecitizehs, but aU the citizens in their various social activities, and he is left wondering what that means. Also that the State must be recognizec1 merely as a functional association, and he is still more bewildered, and he will fi~ally agree very earnesdy,vith,Mr. Cole that the Guild Socialists should formulate a clear theory on thesuhject, and tell us how this queer conglomeration' of ruling bodies" could possibly work in harnl0ny or with anything like practical efficiency.

200· THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM In the meantime if the consumer is to have any voice in the question of what is to be pro duced~ and if, under the system of National Guilds, the State is to represent the consumers, it would seem that the freedom which is pro mised to the workers by Guild Socialisnl; will be very seriously qualified by State control. On a later page (page 106) Mr. Cole tells that the State "has no claim to decide producers' questions, or to exercise direct control over production; for its right rests upon the fact that it stands for the consumers, and that the consumers ought to control the division of the national product, or the division of income in the community." If the consunlers are thus to decide concerning the division of the com mupity's income, it is clear that the producing Guildsnlenwill have to work according to their wishes, and in return for pay provided by them.

And the freedom of the Guildsman seems to be narrowed down to mere control of .the (( conditions under which work is carried on" (page 107). " The workers," says Mr. Cole on page 108, "ought to control the normal conduct of industry; but they ought not to regulate the price of con1ffiodities dt will, to dictate to the consumer what he shall consume, or, in short, to exploit the community as the indiGUILD SOCIALISM 20I vidual profiteer exploits it to-day." Under competition the "profiteer" can only "exploit the community" by selling it sonlething that it chooses to buy. How the constlrtlers are to express their wishes under the Guild system is not clear. Presumably it would be by the votes of the majority-a cheerful prospect for those whe ,like their clothes and boots comfortable rather than fashionable,. and whose taste in other things happens to be eccentric. It is on the subject of the wage system that Mr. Cole is most interesting and illuminating.

He tells us (page I 54) that "the wage system is the root of the whole tyranny of Capitalism; . . . there are four distinguishing marks of the wage system upon which National Guildsmen are accustomed to fix their attention. Let me set them out clearly in the simplest terms. " I. The wage system abstracts 'labour' from the labourer, so that the one can be bought and sold without the other. "2. Consequently, wages are paid to the wage worker only when it is profitable to the capita list to employ his labour. "3. The wage-worker, in return for his wage, surrenders all control over the organization of production. "4. The wage-worker in return for his wage 202 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM surrenders all claim upon the product of his labour. ' "If," Mr. Cole continues, "the wage system is to be abolished, all these four marks of degraded status must be removed." Let us look at. these" four marks of degraded status." The·· fact that a man's labour can be bought and sold without the Jaboureris surely some advance, as indeed is acknowledged by Guild Socialists, on what they. call chattel slavery (as distinguished from wage slavery), under which the worker and his labour were sold together, like so many cattle. The fact that a man sells his labour apart from himself, ifit be a mark of degraded status,. is shared by the labourer with all brain workers and members of· professions who· sell their skill· or their·· pro ducts to consumers. The fact 'that 'when I sell a copy of thisbuokI do not sell myself to my readers at the same time, seems tome to be rather an advantage than otherwise, both to me and' to, them~ But in a sense every man's work is a bit of himself, he puts something of himself into it, and the economic arrangement has enormous advantages by which a worker can sell bits of himself, that is to say bits of his work, in exchange for bits of other people, and so GUILD SOCIALISM 203 become, as producer and consumer, part of a great myriad-handed economic body in ·which all co-operat~ and contribute bits of. themselv~s to the common. good .

.This systenl has infinite possibilities of harnlonious development, but the modern' fashion in ·tho'ught seenlS to have decided· that there is something radicaHy wrong qbout it. Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., in a speech at 'an International Brotherhood Congress at· the City Temple on September 16, 1919, stated that the workers wanted "'a new method which would .bebasedon the recognition of funda mental principles hitherto disregarded. Firstly, that human labour was not a commodity or' article of commerce to be dealt with by the law of supply and demand as we now dealt with coal, or' cotton, or iron· ore, but I it was that' into which personality. entered· and through which personality was expressed." Can one w~th the best will in the world find any real meaning in this sounding phrase? Of course we aU express our personality in our work just as in .anything else that· we do ; but is that'any reason why we should not exchange it for· the. work of others by seUingit, and have it valued according to the extent to which others like it and want it, just as our other actions get social value from 204 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM the approval or disapproval of those whom they affect? The economic test of our work's value, like the social test of our other actions, is weakened by the bad taste and judgment of public opinion; but can \ve find a better, without setting up anecononlic and lTIoral tyranny, which, incidentally, is also quite likely to make bad n1istakes?

The second lTIark of degraded status is the fact that the wa.ges are paid to the wage-worker only' when it is profitable to the capitalist to en1ploy his labour. This degradation is also shared by the labourer with all other workers, including even the capitalist who lends for present production the products of work done in the past. The doctor and lawyer who work directly for their consuming patients and clients, . can only do so if they can find patients and clients to enlploy them. The capit~list .can only get interest on his money when it is invested in profitable enterprises or in the obligations and loan~)of comnlunities, Govern ments and municipalities, which are enabled, by the production of taxpayers and ratepayers, to raise the money necessary to pay the capitalist his wage~' The third mark of degraded status lies in the fact that the wage-worker has no control over GUILD SOCIALISM 205 . -the'organi~ation of production--'-in other words, he is freed from the risk and responsibility of an extremely difficult and delicate business in which \mistakes are often made causing loss to the capitalist, which the wage-worker is hot asked to share. And the same thing applies with even greater force to the fourth mark of degraded status, the fact that the wage-worker surrenders all claim upon the product of his labour. He produces something which is only econolnicall y justified if somebody else wants it and will pay for it enough to cover the wages of the labourer and manager, establishment charges, depreciation of plant, and interest on capital. 1'he business. of selling the product is now recognized to be one of the most difficult and costly items in the business of production.

If, as· many besides the Guildsnlenhope, the labourer proposes to undertake this very difficult job he can do it under the capitalist system and has already done it with marked success through his Co-operative Societies. Mr. Cole can hardly nlean that the labourer, having been paid to make a suit of clothes, can then expect to keep it, but this is what the phrase rather seems to imply. .However, Mr. Cole has ,decided that these marks of degraded status must be removed, and 206 1'HE CASE FOR' CAPITALISM that N ationa} Guilds must therefore assure to the workers at least the following things (page '155)·:-'. "I. Recognition and payment as a' hunlan being, and not merely as the mortal tenement of so much·· labour po\ver fOfwhich an efficient demand exists. "2. Consequently~ payment. in ,employnlent and in unemployment,in'sickness and in health· alike. "3. Control of the organization of production in co-operation with his fellows.

"4. A claim upon the product of his work,' also exercised in co-operation with his fellows." Very well then: what the National Guilds are aiming ·at is that everybody is to be . paid merely.becausethey·are alive, and not. because : they are" mortal tenements' of labour for which an efficient demand exists." To those of us who suffer from the aUuring.but at present unprofitable habit of slothfulness' this seems to be an extremely attractive programme. The right to be kept alive has of course beenrecog nized grudgingly by the Poor Law for many . centuries, but the Poor L~lW has dpled ··out subsistence under conditions which are ·gener ally admitted, to have been ·inhun1an. Now, if the National Guildsmen reconstruct society, GUILD SOCIALISM 207 everybody who is alive is to be made really comfortable, whether he or she works or idles; for presumably Mr. Cole when he says" pay nlent" means the regular pay of the Guildsman.

He does not deal with the delicate question as to whether this paylnent is to be made to those whose work is wanted, but who do not want to work, and here of courSe we come up against the great problem, whether under such schemes as these, anything like the same efficiency of work can be expected as is produced now by the system of priv~te gain. At present if a man will not work he has, unless he owns private means, to fall back upon the degradation of the workhouse, or outdoor relief, or lead a life of precarious penury. Would the ordinary average man, if the mere factthat he were alive gave him a claim appar ently to full payment, trouble to work much?" A large· nU1TI ber of people work, and work· very well, for the mere pleasure of working, apart from any question of paylnent. But as human nature is at present, it is safe to say that if the amount of work which everybody did were left to his own choice, and if everybody whether they worked or not, were to receive full pay ment out of the common fund of production, any such fund would dwindle so rapidly that 208 '[HE CASE FOR CAPITALISM the community would find itself on short com 111011S. In other words, before the National Guilds could be efficient as economic forces for satisfying the wants of men, we should have to have a new spirit and a new" heart" at work among us. This Mr~ Cole himself acknow ledges, for he says on page 1°5: ' Nothing is more certain than that both State and Trade Unioil if they are to form the foundation of a worthy Society, n1ust be radically altered and penetrated by a new spirit."

And on page 9 he observes that "in a sense, the war bas led men of all classes to make sacrifices;" but emphatically. it has not -led, among the possessing classes, to a change of heart which will bring nearer a Society based on human fellowship." So the possessing t:}asses,in Mr. Cole's view, have still got their old bad hearts. Has there been that change of heart necessary for bring ing nearer a Society based on human fellowship among the working classes? We seem to have heard of disagreemen ts between various trade unions and between the different classes of workers. That such things should arise under the strain ora war was most natural and in~vit able, but they certainly show that we have a long \vay to travel before the right of recogniGUILD SOCIALISM 209 don and payment for all as human beings, such payment being apparently the same for those who work and those who do not, would not be a very severe strain upon the economic efficiency of the cOlnmunity .

. And no,," let us see hovv, according to Mr. Cole, this great reformation is to be carried ~out" He tells us on page 117 that "out of the Trade Unionism of to-day must rise a Greater Unionism, in-which craft shall be no longer divided from craft, nor industry from industry. Industrial Unionism lies next on the road to freedom, and Industrial Unionism means not only 'One Industry, One Union, One Card,' but the linking up of all industries into one great army of labour. .. . . 1"'he workers cannot be free unless industry is managed and organized by the workers themselves in the interests of the whole community." H In the interests of the whole conlmunity" seems to be slightly inconsistent with the ideas put forward. in other parts of Mr. Cole's book. W·ehave seen from quotations given above that· the workers are to organize industry,· the interests of the community being looked after by .the State, the State being. considered as merely a "functional association, H whatever that tnay mean. But now the workers are suddenly 210 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISM told to organize theolselves in the interests of the whole cOln111Unity,though a few pages later (page 12 I) we find that" we can only destroy the tyranny of machinery-. \vhich is not the same as destroying nlachineryitself-by giving into the ha.nds of the workers the control of their life and work, by freeing them to choose whether they will make well or ill, whether they will do the work of slaves or of free men."

The first step is the building up of an organization capable of assunling control (page 134). "AU workers in or about mines must be in the Miners'Union, the whole personnel of the cotton tnills nlust be in the Union of the Cotton""Industry. ~:~ body consisting of·clerks or mechanics or labourers drawn frOin a number of different· industries can never demand or assume·theconduct of industry. It cart secure recognition, but not controL A PostalW orkers' Union or a Railway Union, on the other hand, can both demand and secure producers' control." Here we have the chief item on the practical side ·of this most interesting scheme. The Unions are to .include all the workers, clerks, mechanics and labourers connected with every industry, and will then take charge and deal with the capitalist. "The wage systetn (page 162) must end with GlTILDSOCIAI.JISM 21 I a re-inte,gration, with the placing in the hands of all of both capital and labour. In order to bring this about, the wage-earning class must assume control of capital.)J Does this n1eanthat the wage-earn.ing class is· going to take forcible possession of the factories··and plant· which capital has provided?

On this point, Mr. Cole does not make himself clear. "This control," he goes on" "under National Guilds, will be exercised collectively, through the State:' but he leaves us in the dark as to how· the State is going to get control. In anot~erpassage (page 173) he says: "We in our day and generation shall succeed in over throwing industrial Capitalism only if we first· nlakeit socially functionless. This means that, before Capitalism can be overthrown, there must be wrested from it both its control of production and itscontro~· of exchange. This done, the ·abolition of its claim to rent, interest and profits will follow asa matter of course." Further -(page 182), "let us suppose for a moment that the Jeremiahs are right in denying. the possi bility of destroying the economic power of Capitalism by any combination of industrial and political action. There remains the weapon of catastrophic action, envisaged generally in the shape of the General Strike."

212 THE CASE FOR CAPITALISl\1 Later, on page 189: "I ndustrial action alone cannot destroy profits, or even lower them, unless it can overthrow the .whole capitalist system. This, we have seen, cannot be done purely· by industrial power." Theordinary reader is left wondering what all this means. If the workers can themselves supply the managing ability that controls production and exchange, they will have made the present manager and organizer" socially. functionless." -But they will only inflict the same fate on the capitalist if they either seize the plant and tools that he provides or make their own and· be come capitalists. themselves. The suggestion <?f " catastrophic act~on "looks as if the forn1er method were contemplated, and on this point we get rather nlore light from other Guild Socialists, whose works will be considered in the next· chapter.