NATIONAL GUILDS

October, 1918

The Present Economic Structure--Its Weaknesses and Injustices--Werethings ever better?--The Aim of State Socialism--A RivalTheory--The New Movement of Guild Socialism--Its Doctrines andAssumptions--Payment "as Human Beings"--The "Degradation" of earningWages--Production irrespective of Demand--Is that the Real Meaningof Freedom?--The Old Evils under a New Name--A Conceivably PracticalScheme for some other World.

Most people will admit that there are many glaring faults in thepresent economic structure of society. Wealth has been increased at anexhilarating pace during the last century, and yet the war has shownus that we had not nearly realised how great is the productive powerof a nation when it is in earnest, and that the pace at which wealthhas been multiplied may, if we make the right use of our plant andexperience, be very greatly quickened in the next. The great increasein wealth that has taken place has been certainly accompanied by someimprovement in its distribution; but it must be admitted that in thisrespect we are very far from satisfactory results, and that a systemwhich produces bloated luxury plus extreme boredom at one end of thescale and destitution and despair at the other, can hardly be calledthe last word, or even the first, in civilisation. The career has beenopened, more or less, to talent. But the handicap is so uneven andcapricious that only exceptional talent or exceptional luck can fightits way from the bottom to the top, the process by which it does sois not always altogether edifying, and the result, when the thinghas been done, is not always entirely satisfactory either to thevictorious individual or to the community at whose expense he has wonhis spoils. The prize of victory is wealth and buying power, and themeans to victory is, in the main, providing an ignorant and gulliblepublic with some article or service that it wants or can be persuadedto believe that it wants. The kind of person that is most successfulin winning this kind of victory is not always one who is likely tomake the best possible use of the enormous power that wealth now putsinto the hands of its owner.

Those who are fond of amusing themselves by looking back, throughrose-coloured spectacles, at more or less imaginary pictures of the goodold mediaeval times, can make out a fair case for the argument that inthose days the spoils were won by a better kind of conqueror, who waslikely to make a better use of his victory. In times when man waschiefly a predatory animal and the way to success in life was bymilitary prowess, readiness in attack and a downright stroke in defence,it is easy to fancy that the folk who came to the top of the world, ormaintained a position there, were necessarily possessed of courage andbodily vigour and of all the rough virtues associated with the ideal ofchivalry. Perhaps it was so in some cases, and there is certainly something more romantic about the career of a man who fought his way tosuccess than about that of the fortunate speculator in production ortrade, to say nothing of the lucky gambler who can in these times founda fortune on market tips in the Kaffir circus or the industrial "pennybazaar," Nevertheless, it is likely enough that even in the best of themediaeval days success was not only to the strong and brave, but alsowent often to the cunning, fawning schemer who pulled the brawny leg ofthe burly fighting-man. However that may be, there can be no doubt thatnow the prizes of fortune often go to those who cannot be trusted tomake good use of them or even to enjoy them, that Mr Wells's greatsatire on our financial upstarts--"Tono-Bungay"--has plenty of truth init, and that our present system, by its shocking waste of millions ofgood brains that never get a chance of development, is an economicblunder as well as an injustice that calls for remedy.

This being so, it is the business of all who want to see things madebetter to examine with most respectful attention any schemes that areput forward for the reconstruction of society, however strongly we mayfeel that real improvement is only to be got, not by reconstructingsociety but by improving the bodily and mental health and efficiencyof its members. The advocates of Socialism have had a patient andinterested hearing for many decades, except among those to whomanything new is necessarily anathema. There was something attractivein the notion that if all men worked for the good of the community andnot for their own individual profit, the work of the world mightbe done much better, because all the waste of competition andadvertisement would be cut out, machinery would be given its fullchance because it would be making work easier instead of causingunemployment, and a greater output, more evenly distributed, wouldenable the nation to breed a race, each generation of which wouldcome nearer to perfection. So splendid if true; but one always feltmisgivings as to whether the general standard of work might notdeteriorate instead of improve if the stimulus of individual gain werewithdrawn; and that the net result might probably be a diminishedoutput consumed by a discontented people, less happy under a possiblystupid and short-sighted bureaucracy, than it is now when the chancesof life at least give it the glorious uncertainty of cricket. Sincethe war our experiences of official control, even when working ona nation trained in individual initiative, have increased thosemisgivings manifold; and hundreds of people who were Socialisticallyinclined in 1914 will now say that any system which handed over theregulation of production and distribution to the State could end onlyin disaster, unless we could first build up a new machinery of Stateand a new people for it to work on.

Partly, perhaps, owing to this discredit into which the doctrines ofState Socialism have lately fallen, increasing attention has beengiven to a body of theory that was already active before the war andadvocates a system of what it calls Guild Socialism, under whichindustry is to be worked by National Guilds, embracing all theworkers, both by brain and by hand, in the various kinds ofproduction. Its advocates are, as far as I have been able to studytheir pronouncements, decidedly hostile to State Socialism andneedlessly rode to some of its most prominent preachers, such as Mrand Mrs Webb, who at least merit the respect due to those who havegiven lives of work to supporting a cause which they believe to besound and in the best interests of mankind. But in spite of theirchronic and sometimes ill-mannered facetiousness at the expense ofState Socialism and its advocates, the Guild Socialists, as we shallsee, have to rely on State control for very important wheels intheir machinery and leave gaps in it which, as far as disinterested observers can see, can only be filled by still further help from thediscredited State. It is no disparagement of the efforts of thesewriters and thinkers to say that their sketch of the system that theyhope to see built up is somewhat hazy. That is inevitable. They aregroping towards a new social and economic order which, in their hopeand belief, would be an improvement. To expect them to work it out inevery detail would be to ask them to commit an absurdity. The thingwould have to grow as it developed, and we can only ask them to showus a main outline. This has been done in many publications, amongwhich I have studied, with as much care as these distracting timesallow, "Self-Government in Industry," by G.D.H. Cole, "NationalGuilds," by A.R. Orage (so described on the back of the book, but thetitle-page says that it is by S.G. Hobson, edited by A.R. Orage), and"The Meaning of National Guilds," by C.E. Bechhofer and M.B. Reckitt.

These authorities seem to agree in thinking (1) that the capitalist isa thief, (2) that the manual worker is a wage slave, (3) that freedom(in the sense of being able to work as he likes) is every man'srightful birthright, and (4) that this freedom is to be achievedthrough the establishment of National Guilds. As to (1) MessrsBechhofer and Reckitt speak on page 99 of their book of the "felony ofCapitalism" as a matter that need not be argued about. Mr Cole makesthe same assumption by observing on page 235 of the work alreadymentioned that "to do good work for a capitalist employer is merely,if we view the situation rationally, to help a thief to steal moresuccessfully." Well, this view of capital and the capitalist may betrue. Mr Cole is a highly educated and gifted gentleman, and a Fellowof Magdalen. He may have expounded and proved this point in some workthat I have not been fortunate enough to read. But as the abolition ofthe capitalist is one of the chief aims put forward by these writersit seems a pity that they should thus first assert that he is a thiefto be stamped out, instead of explaining the matter to old-fashionedfolk who believe that capitalists are, in the main, the people (orrepresentatives of the people) who have equipped industry, andenormously multiplied its efficiency and output, and so have enabledthe greater part of the existing population of this country (and mostothers) to come into being. But to the Guild Socialists the identityof robbery with capitalism seems to be so self-evident that it needsno proof. Next, as to the wage system. They seem to think that to earna wage is slavery and degradation, but to receive pay is freedom. Withthe best will in the world I have tried to see where this immensedifference between the use of two words, which seem to me to mean muchthe same thing, comes in in their view, but I have not succeeded.Perhaps you will be able to if I give you Mr Cole's own words.

On page 154 of the book cited, he says that the wage system is "theroot of the whole tyranny of capitalism," and then continues:

"There are four distinguishing marks of the wage system upon whichNational Guildsmen are accustomed to fix their attention. Let me setthem out clearly in the simplest terms,

"1. The wage system abstracts 'labour' from the labourer, so that theone can be bought and sold apart from the other.

"2. Consequently, wages are paid to the wage worker only when it isprofitable to the capitalist to employ his labour.

"3. The wage worker, in return for his wage, surrenders all controlover the organisation of production.

"4. The wage worker, in return for his wage, surrenders all claim uponthe product of his labour.

"If the wage system is to be abolished, all these four marks ofdegraded status must be removed. National Guilds, then, must assure tothe worker, at least, the following things:--

"1. Recognition and payment as a human being, and not merely as amortal tenement of so much labour power for which an efficient demandexists.

"2. Consequently, payment in employment and in unemployment, insickness and in health alike.

"3. Control of the organisation of production in co-operation with hisfellows.

"4. A claim upon the product of his work, also exercised inco-operation with his fellows."

Now, looking with a most dispassionate eye and an eager desire to findout what it is that Labour and its spokesmen are grouping after, canone find in these "marks of degraded status" any serious evil, oranything that is capable of remedy under any conceivable economicsystem? In all of them the wage-earner is on exactly the same footingas the salary-earner or the professional piece-worker. The labour ofthe manager of the works can also be abstracted from the manager, andcan be bought and sold apart from him. One would have thoughtthat this fact is rather in favour of the manager and of thewage-earner--or would Mr. Cole prefer that the latter should be boughtand sold himself? The salary-earner and the professional are onlyemployed when somebody wants them. The manager's term of employment islonger, but the professional pieceworker, such as I am when I writethis article, has usually no contracted term, and is only paid foractual work done. I also have no control over the organisation of theproduction of _Sperling's Journal_ or any other paper for which I dopiecework. I am very glad that it is so, for organising production isa very difficult and complicated and risky business, and from allthe risks of it the wage-earner is saved. The salary-earner or theprofessional, when once his product is turned out and paid for, alsosurrenders all claim upon the product. What else could any reasonablewage-earner or professional expect or desire? The brickmaker or thedoctor cannot, after being paid for making bricks or mending a brokenleg, expect still to have the bricks or the leg for his very own. Andhow much use would they be to him if he could? Unless he were to beallowed to sell them again to somebody else, which, after being oncepaid for them, would merely be absurd.

But when we come to the remedies that Mr. Cole suggests for these"marks of degraded status," we find in the forefront of them that theworker must be secured "payment as a human being, and not merely as amortal tenement of so much labour power for which an efficient demandexists." This, especially to an incurably lazy person like myself, isan extremely attractive programme. To be paid, and paid well, merelyin return for having "taken the trouble to be born," is an idealtowards which my happiest dreams have ever struggled in vain. Butwould it work as a practical scheme? Speaking for myself, I canguarantee that under such circumstances I should potter about withmany activities that would amuse my delicious leisure, but I doubtwhether any of them would be regarded by society as a fit return forthe pleasant livelihood that it gave me. And human society can only besupplied with the things that it needs if its members turn out, notwhat it amuses them to make or produce, but what other people want.And It is here that the National Guildsmen's idea of freedom seems, inmy humble judgment, to be entirely unsocial As things are, nobody canmake money unless he produces what somebody wants and will pay for.Even the capitalist, if he puts his capital into producing an articlefor which there is no demand, will get no return on it. In otherwords, we can only earn economic freedom by doing something that ourfellows want us to do, and so co-operating in the work of supplyingman's need. (That many of man's needs are stupid and vulgar is mosttrue, but the only way to cure that is to teach him to want somethingbetter.) The Guildsmen seem to think that this necessity to make or dosomething that is wanted implies slavery, and ought to be abolished.They are fond of quoting Rousseau's remark that "man is born free andis everywhere in chains." But is man born free to work as and on whathe likes? In a state of Nature man is born--in most climates--underthe sternest necessity to work hard to catch or grow his food, to makehimself clothes and build himself shelter. And If he ignores thisnecessity the penalty is death. The notion that man is born with a"right to live" is totally belied by the facts of natural existence.It is encouraged by humanitarian sentiment which, rightly makessociety responsible for the subsistence of all those born under itswing; but it is not part of the scheme of the universe.

Such are a few of the weaknesses involved by the theoretical basison which Guild Socialism is built. When we come to its practicalapplication we find the creed still more unsatisfactory. Even ifwe grant--an enormous and quite unjustified assumption--that theGuildsman, if he is to be paid merely for being alive, will work hardenough to pay the community for paying him, we have then to ask howand whether he will achieve greater freedom under the Guilds thanhe has now. Now, freedom is only to be got by work of a kind thatsomebody wants, and wants enough to pay for it. And so the consumerultimately decides what work shall be done. The Guildsman says thatthe producer ought to decide what he shall produce and what is to bedone with it when he has produced it. "Under Guild Socialism," saysMr Cole,[1] "as under Syndicalism, the State stands apart fromproduction, and the worker is placed in control." Very well, but whatone wants to know is what will happen if the Guilds choose to producethings that nobody wants. Will they and their members be paid all thesame? Presumably, since they are to be paid "as human beings" and notbecause there is a demand for their work. But if so, what will happento the Guildsman as consumer? There will be no freedom about hischoice of things that he would like to enjoy. And what about admissionto membership of a Guild, the price at which the Guilds will exchangeproducts one with another, and the provision of capital? The nearestapproach to an answer to these questions is given by Messrs Bechhoferand Reckitt in Chapter VIII, of the "Meaning of National Guilds." Thischapter describes "National Guilds in Being." It tells us that "eachman will be free to choose his Guild," which sounds very pleasant,but is completely spoilt by the end of the sentence, which says "andactual entrance will depend on the demand for labour." It sounds justlike a capitalistic factory. And then--"Labour in dirty industries,sewaging, etc.--will probably be in the main of a temporary character,and will be undertaken by those who are for the time unable to obtainan entry elsewhere." Most sensible, but where is the freedom? TheGuildsman will not be able to do the work that he wants to do unlessthere is a demand for that kind of labour, and in the meantime,just like the unemployed in the days of darkness, he will be set tocleaning the streets and flushing the drains. Messrs. Bechhofer andReckitt are, in fact, so sensible and practical that they abandonaltogether the freedom of the producer to produce what he likes."Indeed," they write, "a query often brought to confound National Guildsmen is this: What would happen to a National Guild that began towork wholly according to its own pleasure without regard to the otherGuilds and the rest of the community? We may reply, first, thatthis spirit would be as unnatural among the Guilds as it is naturalnowadays with the present anti-communal, capitalist system ofindustry" (but under the present system any one who worked withoutregard to the rest of the community would very soon be in the hands ofa Receiver); "secondly, if it did arise in any Guild, this contemptfor the rest of the community would be met by the concerted actionof the other Guilds. The dependence of any individual Guild upon theothers would be necessarily so great that a recalcitrant Guild wouldfind itself at once in a most difficult position, and a Guild thatpressed forward demands that were generally felt by the rest of thecommunity to be impossible or unreasonable would soon be brought backinto line again."

[Footnote 1: "The Meaning of Industrial Freedom," page 39.]

Of course; but if so, where is the Guildsman's alleged freedom? EveryGuild and every Guildsman would have to adapt himself to the wants ofthe community, just as all of us who work for our living have to donow. He would be no more free than I am, and I am no more free thanthe person who is sometimes described as a "wage slave." The Guildsmanmight be happier in the feeling that he worked for a Guild rather thana capitalist employer, but this is by no means certain. The writersjust quoted show with much frankness and good sense that there wouldbe plenty of opening for friction, suspicion, discontent and strikes."A Guild," they say, "that thought itself ill-used by its fellowswould be able to signify its displeasure by the threat of a strike."The officials of the Guild are to be chosen by the "men best qualifiedto judge" of their ability, whoever they may be, and every such choicewould be ratified by the workers who are to be affected by it. "TheGuild would build up in this way a pyramid of officers, each chosen bythe grade immediately below that which he is to occupy," Did not theBolsheviks try something like this system, with results that were notconducive to efficient production? And to meet the danger that theofficials as a whole might combine "in a huge conspiracy againstthe rank and file," Messrs Bechhofer and Reckitt can only suggestvigilance committees within the Guilds. In a word, Guild Socialismseems to be a system that might possibly be worked by a set of ideally perfect beings; but as folk are in this workaday world one can onlydoubt whether it would be conducive either to freedom, efficiency or apleasant life for those who lived under it.