22

while capitalism has developed an industrial autocracy, in which the provider of capital has almost supreme control of the conditions under which his employees work. They are "hands, so much labour-power, to be dealt with in the same way as machinery and raw materials. Against this the syndicalist revolts, and with justification. The conditions under which a man works have a great influence on his character, and if he is treated as a machine, as a slave, he tends to become mentally mechanical, servile. True, the end of production is consumption, but the interests of the latter do not justify the ignoring of those of the former. The community as a body of travellers may benefit from cheap railway rates, but should not secure this boon at the cost of over-worked, ill-paid railway operators. Industrial efficiency and scientific management may be excellent devices for producing in increased bulk at lower costs, but if they deaden the worker's intelligence and turn him into an automaton they are a menace to human progress. The syndicalist is on good ground when he preaches the interest of the producer.

Having admitted these two merits, critics pass on to indicate the weak spots in syndicalist aims and methods. The main lines of criticism can be briefly outlined. (1) The denial of the utility of the political weapon is partly due to hasty generalization without careful analysis. No real attempt is made to answer the question, "Why has political action been so unsatisfactory?" and "What are the limits, and what the essentials, of successful political effort?'' The failure of a labour or socialist party does not necessarily mean that political action is bound to fail. The failure may be due to the undemocratic character of the political machine, the numerical smallness of the party's representation, the inadequacy of its programme, the lack of character or ability of its leaders, the apathy and ignorance of the rank and file, the absence (or presence) of a labour press, or a host of other factors. But industrial action might fail because of similar weaknesses.

(2) Direct revolutionary action may lead to the millennium-or to defeat. Sabotage may hit the pocket of the worker and consumer as well as of the employer. Restriction of output, whether practised by employer or employee, is soon reflected in increased prices, and there may be little difficulty in "passing on" the cost of sabotage to the purchaser. Further, workers who practise sabotage for years must inevitably lose that capacity for good workmanship which would be essential to the success of a syndicalized industry.

(3) The general strike would depend for its success upon a combination of favourable circumstances which would be hard to obtain. Perfect solidarity and unity of ideas among the workers would be necessary; the police and army would have to be won over, as would also the middle classthe little bourgeoisie''-from which strike-breakers are often drawn. Even if the strike were complete and black-leg proof, the poor would suffer more and sooner than the rich. The latter could get food if any was to be had, no matter what its price; the stoppage of transit would not affect them, for they would have their cars, and if life became too unpleasant for them in one place they could slip away in search of peace, food, and rest. In short, the general strike, be it ever so peaceful, would be, like all strikes, a test of endurance, to see which side could hold out the longer; and if the issue at stake was the fundamental one of the ownership of property, the

capitalist would hold out much longer than he does in resisting claims for higher wages or shorter hours.

(4) The syndicalist aim provokes many questions. Even assuming that the general strike was successful, that the sabotaged factories could be quickly repaired, that credit abroad remained unimpaired, that raw materials could be imported, and finished goods still found their old market; assuming that non-syndicalized countries did not institute a blockade, and that the fighting units of yesterday became the producing and distributing units of to-day, what then? Problems of administration will depend for their solution upon the extent to which the technicians and managers are with the manual workers. If these sections are hostile, the unions must find managers, etc., from among their own ranks, which may not be easy, unless the industry has already given its employees a large share of experience in control by means of shop committees, etc. The application of democratic methods to the selection and control of executive heads has its problems. The skilled expert or managing section will have to survive; its members must possess ability and scientific or business knowledge, and their appointment to positions must therefore be determined by careful test rather than by any form of popular election. The lower grades of supervision, especially foremen, might be chosen by ballot, as might also shop committees. Experience in co-operative production, where the workmen control the management, has been so disastrous that one cannot look optimistically upon the success of syndicalized industry.

The Clash of Rival Interests. Syndicalism is to abolish the class war by destroying the capitalist class. But the possibility of class friction will still remain in a double form-(a) clash of interests between producer and producer, (b) clash between producer and consumer. (a) If each industry were under the control of its own workers, there would be a temptation to a numerically strong and important industry to act according to its own interests, rather than those of other industries or of production as a whole. Where each union had a monopoly of its industry, its policy would be open to all those faults of stagnation or exploitation which monopolies exhibit to-day. This might be eliminated by the growth of a general sense of public duty in all sections; it might be checked by a central body representing all the industries, into whose hands the control of inter-union relations would rest. But the work to be done by such a body would be so immense that the central authority might develop into a despotic bureaucracy; or, on the other hand, a big industry, dissatisfied with the decision of the supreme body, might revert to the policy which created the syndicalist society, and try to hold up industry by a strike.

(b) Syndicalism, by placing the interest of the producer paramount, opens the way to exploitation of the consumer. Collectivism is condemned because it thinks only of the consumer, and ignores the rights of the producer; syndicalism can be condemned for reversing the process. It is true that in a society freed from drones each man would be at the same time a producer and consumer. But his interest as producer is to get the biggest price for his labour; his interest as a consumer is to get the goods he requires as cheaply as possible, and so increase the purchasing capacity of his earnings. Syndicalism gives play to one side only of his nature, and thus opens the way to a veritable civil war, in which strong unions might try to exploit the remainder of the community as much as possible.

If then we are to choose who shall rule, consumer or producer, we must decide in favour of the former, since all are consumers-syndicalism disfranchizes the housewife-and consumption determines production. But to give the consumer the whip hand means collectivism, and collectivism means bureaucracy, the negation of industrial freedom, the servile state, and an exploitation of the producer. We are on the horns of a dilemma. We cannot entrust the worker to the mercies of state management; we cannot hand over the community to the mercies of organized sections of producers. Is there no other way out, which while ensuring the interests of the consumer will give the producer a measure of self-government in determining the conditions under which he shall work?

National Guilds. An answer to this question is found in the proposal put forward in England about 1910 by a group of "intellectuals,'' of which Messrs. Penty, Orage, Cole, and S. G. Hobson are the leading spirits. The answer is that safety lies in a balance of power between the state, as representative of the consumers, and big unions of guilds, federated in a national guild congress, as representative of the producers. The respective sphere and power of each is to be clearly marked out; the state is to own the means of production, the guilds are to administer them, and on all matters on which there is a possible clash of interests the two sides are to meet in conference.

The doctrine of national guilds is the British counterpart of French syndicalism and American industrial unionism. By the end of the first decade of the present century the wave of dissatisfaction at existing trade union and political aims and methods was rising high. Industrial labour could think only of wages and hours, political labour only of bureaucrati? nationalization. Into this atmosphere of discontent came ideas from France and America. But syndicalism was too violent, too doctrinaire, too anti-state to suit the British mind, while American proposals for big unions seemed to leave the question of aims unanswered. A plan, peculiarly British in its acceptance of compromise, was therefore evolved. It accepted the American stress on the need for industrial unions; it approved the French idea that the rights of the producer can no longer be ignored; but it refused to consider the total abolition of the state and the complete surrender of economic control into the hands of the producers.

The keynote of the national guild idea, or guild socialism, as it is also called, is democracy in industry, as well as in politics. "The 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. The crowning indictment of capitalism is that it destroys freedom and individuality in the worker, that it reduces man to a machine, and that it treats human beings as a means to production, instead of subordinating production to the well-being of the producer" (Cole). The fundamental evil of modern industry is not poverty, but slavery; the worker has no control over his work, over the conditions under which it is carried on, or over the distribution of the wealth he creates. Hence the problem is partly one of distribution: but it is far more one of control, of freedom. "Abolish serfdom!" is the cry of the national guildsman; give to the worker the control of his life and work, free him to choose whether he will make well or ill, liberate those faculties which to-day are crushed

and ignored; make men the masters of their work, as you theoretically made them the masters of their political destiny. How?

Guilds at Work. The guild is to be a big industrial union, including all who work in an industry, from the office boy to the general national manager. It will be a democratic association, applying the principle of self-government in many ways. Each guild will have its districts; in each district there will be works, and in each works many shops. In each of these areas control will be in the hands of elected officers, checked perhaps by committees. The shop committee, elected by all the workers concerned, will supervise the work of the shop, and foremen will be chosen by those they are to control. Each shop will have its representatives on the works committee, the board of management. The various works will elect district committees; the national guild executive will contain representatives of the various districts and crafts. The general manager and the technical experts will be chosen by the committees for which they are to work, though for these posts thorough tests must be passed by all candidates for election. In short, the principle of election, tempered where necessary by tests of ability, will be applied through all the grades, and the individual workman will feel that his actions are governed by men who have the support of the majority of his fellows.

The guilds will govern all that relates to production. Kindred guilds will work together, and for bringing raw material from abroad some central authority might be provided. General policy will be determined by the national congress of all the guilds, or by each national guild executive; but details of organization or procedure will be left to the district, works, or shop committees.

When the disposal of the product is reached, the producer comes into touch with the consumer, and state intervention must therefore commence. In order to prevent exploitation, it may be necessary for the state to control prices, or to share such control with the guild. Further, the state can protect the consumer from excessive prices because of its control of taxation. Each year the political authority will require a certain sum of money; it will send to the guild congress a statement of its requirements, and the congress will then allot to each industry the task of raising its quota. The higher the net return per worker the greater will be the sum required in taxation, and thus an industry which secures a big income by charging high prices will have to bear the heaviest taxation. The state might also have a voice in determining what portion of the national wealth should be devoted to investment, etc., since the means of production are its property. Any dispute between the industrial and political parliaments might be settled by a joint sitting of the two bodies. But all this work would take up only a small part of the state's time, and the government would therefore be freed to devote its energies to its proper sphere-the encouragement of education and culture, the organization of justice, and the promotion of morality, defence, and happy international relationships.

Comments. Guild socialism is a big improvement on syndicalism. It stands midway between state socialism and syndicalism; it attempts to gather up the virtues of both, avoiding the bureaucracy of the former and the exploitation by the producer inherent in the latter. Its advocates differ on many minor points and some important ones. Its criticism of the evils of capitalism is fairly sound. Its sweeping analysis of the wage-earner's aspirations is partly fanciful. Its proposed details of organization are

open to some of the criticisms raised against syndicalism. The chief difficulty arises from its advocacy of a balance of power, a dual monarchy. Social activity is divided into two spheres, and for each a supreme sovereign is provided. But can such a complete division of functions be made? Can overseas trade and the purchase of raw materials be given to one body and international relations to another? Are not foreign affairs tied up with questions of raw materials, tariffs, markets, etc.? The same difficulty would arise in railway policy, which must consider strategic as well as economic factors, in education, and other departments. One cannot draw boundaries in economic life as one can on a map, and the national guild would often find itself struggling with the state for the control of the politico-economic no-man's-land. In those spheres in which the guild socialist admits equal rights to the state, the balance of power would be unstable; a dual sovereignty means the constant possibility of a deadlock, and if there is no supreme authority to decide the matter, no chairman with a casting vote, what is to happen? "It is almost impossible to imagine such a deadlock arising in an equalitarian society,'' says Cole, but the very fact that it is an equalitarian society and that neither partner is the senior partner makes it all the easier to predict such a deadlock. In such circumstances, since the guilds hold the property, paying rent for it in the form of taxation to the state, they can surrender their lease and go on strike; then, if the state cannot rely on finding black-legs, it will have idle property on its hands, unless it brings in the army or police to work it; but surely there would be an army guild and a police guild. The position is untenable. Guild socialism gives an unreal power to the state, since ownership is useless without control. There must be an ultimate authority, a sovereign, and that sovereign must be the state.

How is guild socialism to emerge from the present system? Workers may gain gradually some measure of control, for instance, in the choice of foremen. Beyond this they may creep to greater powers, and even secure representation on the board of directors, but this will not affect seriously the capitalist's grip on the distribution of the product. The nationalization of finance might impair his control over investment; mines and railroads might become state property, and be managed on guild lines. Cole faces the final issue frankly, and sees little hope except in direct action. Get the workers into industrial unions. Win a little control here and there. But at the end must come the general strike or rebellion. "Apart from capitalist blunders, a catastrophe will be necessary to end the wage system. Only the man-power of an awakened people can defeat the economic power of a clever capitalism.’’

Influence of Syndicalism and Guild Socialism on Recent Developments. -The practical importance of the ideas described above lies not so much in their advocacy of any social revolution as in the attractiveness of the doctrine that the worker should have at least some control over the industry in which he works. The glamour of social revolution or general strike still attracts many in Italy, France, and Russia; but the Italian outburst of 1920 was only sectional, and ended with a grant of joint control, while the disastrous railway strike in France in the same year discredited the left wing of the C.G.T. and transferred the control of that body to the moderates.

Elsewhere the idea of workers' participation in control has won widespread support, and is the basis of many plans and demands formulated since 1914. In its mildest form it is embodied in Whitley Councils, works