(BY FRANK STONEMAN).
(1) ORIGIN.
Guild Socialism is the reflection in the intellectual sphere of the revolt, against Parliamentary action, and inaction, chronicled in Article IV. Though the formulation of its theories is the work of a handful of "intellectuals," it is no closet philosophy. A close study of trade union conditions and a resolute and energetic attempt to grapple with the actual problems of industry, acquit it of the charge of Utopianism. Though it has made more headway among University men with a radical bent than among workingmen, it is beginning to influence trade union policy here, in Britain, and in America. Guild Socialism originated as a revolt against Fabianism. As the admirable schemes of the Fabian Society, designed by the patient, passionless, and tireless Webbs, became more definite, a fierce feeling of revolt stirred among many of their co-workers and disciples. This bureaucrats' Utopia meant the destruction of all spontaneity, and of all liberty. It meant a State created in the image and likeness of the Civil Service. It meant the minute regulation of life, not according to the will of the people, but according to the will of a trained and disciplined administrator. The State would take over industry from the great joint-stock companies; would eliminate waste, muddle and inefficiency; would abolish pauperism; would see that every child was "well born and brought up"; would sterilise or segregate the unfit; would ease the path to the grave by pensions and insurance schemes, and would leave nothing to individual or independent social groups, but a routine of ordered duties. Parliament, a clumsy and inefficient body, would become a machine for registering the decisions of the expert, public opinion would be the echo of the still small voice of the expert; the turmoil and struggle which make life hard, strenuous, and interesting, would cease because everybody would surrender his own private foolish desires, and cut the cloth of daily life according to a fashion designed by the expert. This threatened apotheosis of the expert drove those who valued life more than the means of life to seek other solutions. Mr. Belloc drank yet another jug of beer and wrote, "The Servile State." The name had more influence than the book, and the term became a stigma sufficient to damn attempts at State paternalism. Mr. H. G. Wells, with rage in his heart, wrote the "New Machiavelli," in which appeared Oscar and Altiora Baillie—a cold capable couple who pulled wires whereat Parliamentary caucuses and Local Government committees, carried out their irreproachable scheme of Social amelioration. L. T. Hobhouse, who was approaching Socialism by the route of Liberalism, discerned resemblances between the Imperialism of Lord Milner and the Collectivism of the Administrator. And finally a coterie of artistic souls saw in the "Selfridge State" the perpetuation of the dull uniformity which is the heaviest burden modern industry has laid on life. These last were the men who have since formulated the theories we know as Guild Socialism. The "New Age" was their chief expression, and G. D. H. Cole, S. G. Hobson, and A. R. Orage the chief promulgators of the new theories.
(2) FUSION OF SYNDICALIST AND COLLECTIVIST IDEAS.
Guild Socialism is the child of Syndicalism and Collectivism. The romantic strain in its composition yearns after the violent methods of its turbulent French father, but it follows the tidy ways of the mother, it scolds with a rather amusing petulance. "Syndicalism," writes Mr. Cole, "is the infirmity of noble minds. Collectivism is only the sordid dream of a business man with a conscience." ("Self-Government in Industry," G. D. H. Cole.) That is to say, the Guildsman recognises the necessity for efficient organisation, but refuses to sacrifice freedom and spontaneity to efficiency. Consequently he holds that industry should be controlled in such a way as to leave the fullest possible freedom to the worker. The question of remuneration is quite secondary. What is of prime moment is whether the workman shall have a voice in the government of his own working conditions. Guildism, therefore, rejects the Collectivist objective of State Socialism, and adopts the Syndicalist ideal of producers' control. The State, representing the community on a geographical basis, reflects the views of the organised consumers. Though it might ultimately be a better master than the capitalist, because there is no skimming off of the productive surplus, it would leave the employee as much a "wage slave" as he is now. He would be subject to a great hierarchy of administrative officials, who would regulate his working life down to the minutest detail. The subjection of the man to the machine, the bitterest of all the bitter draughts that capitalism has made us drink, would be intensified. And the pretence of political self-government must finally vanish from such a community. The conditions of employment influence the characters of men, at least as much as the diversions of their leisure hours. A man chained to such a servile system would become a very slave in soul. He would be even less capable of electing competent legislators than is our present democracy. Real government would fall into the hands of the principal civil servants. We should arrive then at a Dictatorship of the Efficient. Man would have sold his birthright of freedom for the pottage of good wages, and increased leisure.
Furthermore, producers' control seems a natural development of the present system. Within the structure of capitalist controlled industry have grown up the trade unions. From being organisations to secure better conditions they have become militant associations, reaching out their hands for power. Would they bow the neck to the State yoke even if bribed by higher wages ? Present tendencies indicate no hope of such an attitude. The post office servants in France and Britain kick against the authority of the State, and the more radical trade unions, the world over, are asking not for nationalisation, but for self-government in industry.
So far Guild Socialism is in line with Syndicalism. But whereas the Syndicalist believes that the State will be destroyed or will atrophy when the workers take over industry, the National Guildsman believes it will remain to perform functions which could not adequately be performed by a Federation of Guilds.
The first of these is to safeguard the interests of the consumer. Both the Syndicalist and the Collectivist are wrong when they assert that because we are all (except the idle rich and the idle poor) consumers and producers there is no conflict of interests between these two classes. Man's chief concern as a consumer is to get goods cheaply. His chief concern as a producer is to get fair remuneration and decent working conditions. We are grouped as consumers with other people who inhabit the same locality. We are grouped as producers according to the industry or profession in which we work. The only way to reconcile our interests is to elect responsible bodies to represent us in each capacity. A balance will then be maintained between the conflicting interests of the whole community. This involves a theory of the State which is radically different from the traditional view, and no less different from the Marxian conception.
(3) THE GUILD THEORY OF THE STATE.
The theory of Sovereignty generally accepted to-day is that the State, as the supreme representative of the community, has the right to limit the activities of every individual and of every smaller social group. The Marxian theory, accepted by Revolutionists, is that the State is but an organ of capitalism, maintained to preserve order among the exploited class. National Guildsmen maintain that the legitimate function of the State is to represent the whole community as consumers. As producers people will be represented in the National Guild, which will represent and govern their trade or profession, and in the Guild Congress, which will represent the whole body of producers. Thus sovereignity will be divided between the Legislature and Local Governing bodies on one side, and the Guilds on the other. The line of demarcation between their respective spheres will be tolerably clear because of their very different functions, but an independent judiciary will be necessary to decide disputed cases. In deciding on a policy which affects the whole community, such as a war, joint conferences of the Legislature and the Guild Congress may be held.
Despite the obvious objections which strike the most uncritical on examining this theory National Guildsmen maintain that it is essential. Not merely capitalist domination, but any concentration of power is inimical to individual liberty and the freedom of social groups. Unless the spontaneity and vigor of the smaller social groups and of the individual who is not a "dominating personality," are preserved by a policy of non-interference, the centralised government will establish the "Servile State.''
This new theory of Sovereignty, which bears some affinity to the older doctrine is Laissez-Faire, or non-interference with individual action, has a respectable juristic backing. Gierke, the great German jurist, and Maitland, one of the greatest of English legal historians, have advanced the doctrine that an association which arises spontaneously to satisfy some legitimate human need, has an inherent right to exist and to take on new functions. If this theory be accepted, trade unions do not exist by favor of the State but in their own right. Furthermore, they may take on new functions without permission of the State, and when they have grown to their full dimensions the State has no right to interfere with them. In the Guild community the State, i.e., the existing Governmental machinery shorn of its coercive power over industry, and the National Guilds will exist side by side, each performing a communal function, and each sovereign in its own sphere.
(4). THE METHOD OF APPROACH.
This theory of ultimate character of the Guild community determines the line of action advocated by Guildsmen. They neither eschew political action like the Syndicalist, nor deprecate direct industrial action like the Collectivist. Since the State is not sovereign, it does not matter whether capitalism is destroyed by "constitutional" means or not. It is purely a question of tactics. And as capitalism, with its economic power, is the substance, while the State, with its political power is but the shadow, the Guildsmen lay heavy emphasis on the necessity for industrial action. The unions must concentrate on the task of building a new society within the old. Before capitalism is destroyed, the trade unions must have perfected an organisation capable of controlling industry. Then they must strike hard, both in politics and industry. They must, by a series of strikes, acquire Self-Government piecemeal. In some cases nationalisation will precede Guild-control. Therefore they must gain and keep control of the Parliamentary machine, taking care, however, that the strength of unionism is not drained away in a futile attempt to achieve everything by political action. The main guard of the Socialist army must be a federated system of strong "blackleg-proof" unions, organised on an industrial basis. The political movement will be mainly occupied in preserving the rights of free speech and free association, and in keeping the coercive force of the State from being used by the employers.
(5) PRODUCTION UNDER THE GUILD SYSTEM.
A series of distinct but connected changes rather than a grand "coup," such as a general strike, is anticipated. Probably the railways and the mines will be controlled by Guilds under a semi-Socialist State, while the remainder of the industry is still in the bonds of capitalism. When the great key industries, which, having the most powerful and militant unions, may be expected to "go Guild" first, have established self-government, something in the nature of a "landslide" may be expected. The final act of the Sovereign State will be to divest itself of its coercive power over industry. This power will then be vested in the Guilds consisting of a number of National Guilds, each of which controls a whole industry, e.g., mining, transport, steel manufacture, textile industry and the like, and a federation called the Guild Congress.
The Parliamentary and Municipal machinery will remain, purged of capitalist domination, to control society in all those matters which concern men as neighbors, and as theirs of the same traditions. Freed from the burden of regulating industry, and no longer subject to pressure from predatory interests, the State will devote its energies to assisting the spread of culture, and the growth of art. It will leave the economic side of the national life to the Guilds, and become the guardian of the higher common interests of the community.
(6) CRITICISM.
Such, in a broad outline, is the theory of Guild Socialism, its originators are conscious that no society will ever be established exactly in accordance with their plans. But they hold that the successful fashioning of a new commonwealth depends on the knowledge of economic and political tendencies possessed by those who sway thought and passion. They realise that they are attempting to forecast organic changes. Consequently their attempt to visualise a new order, and indicate the method of approach to it, is of immense value, though the realisation will differ from the plan. Criticism centres mainly round two points. First, the division of Sovereignty. Second, the preservation of the present Governmental machinery in a Socialistic community. Collectivists and Constitutional Theorists maintain that either the organised consumers, or the organised producers must ultimately be Sovereign. Revolutionary Socialists maintain that the existing State will perish when communism is once established, because its function will be gone. Both criticisms are weighty. Neither should detract from the practical lesson that Guildsmen have to offer the Socialist movement. The present task is to built up "blackleg-proof" unions on an industrial basis in order to face concentrated capitalism with an organisation having an equal economic weight, while at the same time maintaining in the legislatures a party powerful enough to legalise what is won on the industrial field. The future society will almost certainly leave the control of actual working conditions in the hands of unions of Guilds of producers. It will also retain the State, or establish some new central organisation, to represent the whole community, and reconcile the claims of conflicting groups. Much will depend on the success or failure of the Soviet system in Russia. Indeed, the success during this century of the Socialist movement seems to hang on the outcome of the great experiment of the first Communist Government. Guild Socialism is valuable, mainly for its revival of idealism in British Socialism, for its insistence on freedom, even at the expense of mechanical efficiency, and for its attempt to reconcile the claims of the worker struggling to be free with the claims of the member of the community striving toward decent living conditions.
Truth (Perth, WA ), 11 June 1921, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article210048694
No comments:
Post a Comment