💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000849.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:40:25.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Variations on an Ism: Vocational Group Systems in the Early and Middle of the Twentieth Century by Chris Johnson In medieval Europe, before capitalism reared its plutocratic head, the guild was in control of economic life. The guild was an organization of workers within a particular industry. It was designed to protect its members from competition by regulating prices, production, and sales. The guild attempted to work for the common good of its members and society.[1] Eventually bourgeois capitalism replaced the guild system. Rugged individualism, social Darwinism, and the Puritan work ethic replaced the old preindustrial values based on the common good and general welfare. Society became highly stratified economically. Capitalism divided society into the rich plutocrats, the petty bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. The economic, political, and social gap between the later two classes and the capitalists was continually growing. By the beginning of the Twentieth Century, criticism of the capitalist system was mounting. Both the Left and the Right rejected the harsh individualistic values (or, perhaps, the lack of values) of capitalism. Joaquin Azpiazu, a Christian solidarist and admirer of the far Right-wing Portuguese regime of Antonio Oliveira Salazar, stated that, "...there appears in capitalist economy the principle of competition which, as is to be assumed, requires a fighting urge and is pitiless and inflexible in conduct."[1 ] The Right emphasized the moral decline of society and the loss of a sense of community based upon solid spiritual values. Individualism had deprived mankind of the natural connection with the community. As Benito Mussolini, Il Duce of Fascist Italy, said, "We want a life in which the individual, through the sacrifice of his own private interests, through death itself, realizes that complete spiritual existence in which lies his value as a man."[3] The Left looked forward to a future utopia, rather than back to a golden preindustrial age, in its criticism of capitalism. The Left, however, had grown increasingly disillusioned with the Soviet Union and the concept of a centralized socialist economy.[4] Whatever differences in viewpoints, groups on both the Left and Right adopted the same basic model for their ideal societies: the guild. The different groups, of course, did not all adopt the same system or interpret the guild model in the same way. On the Left, various groups developed an assortment of guild-like systems like syndicalism, libertarian communism, and Guild Socialism. The Right spawned various Christian guild systems, corporativism, Christian solidarism, and Fascism. All these systems, however, were based on the vocational group.[5] In a vocational group system, be it a guild, a corporation, or a syndicate, all or most of the workers from a particular industry or occupation would be in an organization, the vocational group. This group would set price, wages, standards, and control the industry in general. This post-capitalist order would be, in theory, decentralized, giving a large degree of autonomy to the vocational groups. The different systems differed widely on the degree of independence, but none wanted a centralized Soviet-style economy. Many of the systems stressed "industrial democracy". The meaning of the term was very different for each group, but most stressed individual participation and involvement as a contrast to the estrangement and alienation the individual feels from those that rule him under capitalism. Whatever their divergent views on matters such as the state, class struggle, religion, and the nature of society might have been, the common thread of the vocational group ties these systems together. In the early and middle part of the Twentieth Century, the Catholic Church was a very strong critic of capitalism. The Church saw the excessive individualism of capitalism as contrary to Catholic social theory. It adhered to the principle of the organic society. Rev. Harold Francis Trehey compared the two conceptions of society: "The Principle of Organic Structure is an integral part of Catholic social teaching, and is of especial importance today. The widespread prevalence of the opposite philosophy is due to the general acceptance of the so-called atomistic-mechanistic conception which recognizes only two elements in society, namely, individuals and the State. Individuals are regarded merely as so many separate beings who have nothing in their essence that might impel one towards another. Consequently they must be held together by a force outside of themselves, namely, the StateIBy a logical consequence, this concept of society has brought into existence a system which recognizes the rights and functions of only two factors, the individual and the State, while it ignores the rights and functions of groups which have a title to existence between the individual and the State. "The organic concept, on the other hand, regards society in the manner of a living human body, organized and "hierarchized." Just as the cells are distributed into tissues and organs which are arranged and linked one to another to form the human body, in like manner, individuals are distributed into different kinds of groups, the combination and | cooperation of which form the body politic."[1] The concept of the organic society was used to justify many plans for Catholic social reorganization. Many Catholic social thinkers endorsed the idea of a guild or corporative system in which the functions of the State would be distributed among various vocational groups. Centralization was looked down upon by the advocates of a new religious guild system.[1] Over time the Church developed its social plan as an alternative to individualism and socialism. One advocate of the Catholic guild system in the middle of the Twentieth Century was Rev. Trehey. His general outline for social reorganization is essentially the same as those of many of his contemporary Catholic social reformers. One essential part of his system is the "Principle of Public-Legal Status". In order to effectively function, the guild or corporation must move beyond the status of a free association. It must gain public-legal status from the state. As opposed to a private organization which only has authority over those who choose to accept its authority, the guild becomes a public institution with power to enforce its laws. Rather than being a "syndicate" (Trehey uses this term to designate any occupational group with voluntary membership, i.e. a trade union or a manufacturers association), membership in the guild is mandatory for all employers and employees in a particular industry. The guild still contains syndicates for employers and employees, but those not only members of the syndicates are bound by guild law. The laws of the guild are determined by the syndicates, but they still remain free associations. The guild is, therefore, a self- governing, public institution that controls a particular profession or industry with full judicial powers. The guild is subordinate to the state, but the state should not usurp the guild of its natural functions unnecessarily.[1] Most right-wing and centrist vocational group systems are based upon class collaboration rather than class struggle. Trehey's system is no different. He gives employers and employees, regardless of numbers, equal power over their industry. He views his guild system, built on Catholic values, as a means of destroying class hostility and building class harmony. He does, however, consider the syndicates the building blocks of the guild systems. A few Catholic corporativists disagreed with this approach because unions and employers' organizations were based upon "class hostility". The majority, including Trehey, considered this criticism theoretically valid, but any practical implementation of Catholic social reconstruction required the use of existing syndicates.[1] After justifying the use of syndicates, Trehey presents a plan for the construction of the guild system. The first step from free associations of employers and employees toward his guild system is, according to Trehey, the Joint Council. It is a council of representatives of the employer and worker syndicates in a particular industry. Its purpose is to make collective agreements for an industry and maintain good relations between labor and management. There should be equal representation for the employers and the employees. Trehey emphasizes this point.[1] He e also stresses that the employers will not be deprived of their "rights": "Equal representation does not mean that the employer will be robbed of his legitimate authority, because the Joint Council is concerned with the inter-relationship of employer and worker, each functioning in his own domain. The employer will still remain owner of his plant, his raw materials, finished products, and so on."[1] While Trehey praises the collective agreement and the Joint Council, there are many limitations. The decisions of the Joint Council would only be respected by the syndicates involved. But this step could provide those involved with the necessary "social education" to overcome their narrow and selfish interests.[1] According to Trehey, eventually the various local Joint Councils will combine into regional and national councils for that industry. When the particular industry achieves a certain level of organization, further progress towards the guild ideal require the state to grant the industry public-legal status.[1] This should happen when a National Joint Council represents a substantial portion of the workers and employers and when "...it can satisfy the State that it is a self-governing body, honest, responsible and disciplined."[1] With public-legal status, the group of syndicates become a guild with legal authority over the industry.[1] The guild would be organized into local guild councils, regional guild councils, and a national guild council. The hierarchy would coordinate the various local councils for the good of the industry and the nation. All the representatives to a council would be elected from the body directly subordinate to that council (i.e. the delegates to the local councils would be elected by the syndicates, those to the regional councils by the local councils, and so on). As always, the employers and employees would have equal representation.[1] The guild would have the power to regulate prices, wages, working conditions, apprenticeships, training, and other similar things. It would set up labor courts, and it would have the power to punish disobedience.[1] In all of these powers, however, the guild is subordinate to the state.[1] Trehey also deals with the coordination of the national economy for the common good. The first organization of guilds he proposes is the Allied-Guild Structure. This is a federation of the guilds of related industries. For example, the meat industry in France organized the guilds of meat packers, meat transportation, skin and leather dealers, and other industries related to meat into the Meat Federation. Different industries "which transform successively the same raw materials, constitute an economic unity."[1] In addition to Allied-Guilds of related industries, Trehey proposes an Inter-Guild Structure. The purpose of this structure is two- fold. First, it coordinates the economic activities of the various guilds for the good of the national economy. Secondly, it watches over the individual industrial guilds to make sure that they do not pursue selfish interests that would benefit the members of the particular guild at the expense of the general welfare of the nation.[1] The Regional Inter-Guild Council would act as a "liaison between industrial and territorial interests."[1] The National Inter-Guild Council would act similarly for industrial and national interests. Trehey recommends that consumers should have representation, based on the family unit, on inter-guild councils in order to protect their interests.[1] According to Trehey, the guilds should remain subordinate to the state. As opposed to many other Catholic corporativists, there should be no guild representation in a nation's parliament. The guild should remain in an advisory position, rather than be part of a "second chamber" based on economic representation.[1] A strong, democratic state is needed to control the guilds. This is necessary to prevent the economic organizations from dominating political life. He emphasizes that the guild should remain autonomous and that the government should intervene only to protect the general welfare and should not attempt to take over social and economic affairs from the guild system.[1] Trehey states that the guild system must be built "from below". The spontaneous organizations of employers and employees must be its building blocks. The state may intervene in order to stimulate the formation of the guild system, but it must not impose the system on a country.[1] The state should work through social education and encourage the necessary "moral reform" of society.[1] Trehey condemns the authoritarian Portuguese regime of Antonio Salazar because it attempted to create the entire guild structure "from above" and violated the principle of liberty that any Catholic social order should, in Trehey's mind, hold sacred. While the majority of Catholic social thinkers in the middle of the Twentieth Century agreed with Trehey on these points, a significant minority looked to Salazar as a model.[2] They espoused a subset of Catholic social thought called Christian solidarism. Christian solidarism is not inherently distinct from other Catholic social thought. It, like the majority of Catholic corporativism, believes in the corporation or guild, the need for "moral reform" and the general idea of the organic society. Christian solidarism, however, is much harsher in its criticism of the capitalist system. The "redemption of the proletariat" by raising the workers up out of the depths of poverty is central to the solidarist's beliefs rather than a side issue subordinate to "social harmony". Although it does keep private property, solidarism envisions a much more radical change than does traditional Catholic corporativism.[2] While Trehey was content with the gradual, spontaneous change that was occurring in Switzerland, France, and Quebec[1], Joaquin Azpiazu was impressed by the rapid transformations attempted by Salazar in Portugal and Dolfuss in Austria[2]. Trehey called these regimes "State Corporativism" and believed that the corporations in these nations were very close to the Italian Fascist corporations. Trehey criticized the Portuguese attempt to impose corporativism on society[1], but Azpiazu agreed with Salazar that people "...who are but grown children, cannot be pushed violently nor can they be left at the mercy of their own whims, but rather they must be induced gently yet firmly to start along the road toward their own salvation."[2] While traditional corporativists build their system "from below", Salazar proclaimed Portugal a "corporative unitary Republic" in his constitution.[2] While the debate was mainly over tactics, the differences between the activities of Swiss Catholic unions and the authoritarian dictatorship of Salazar are worth noting. The Catholic Church was an important anticapitalist force during the 1930's, '40's, and '50's. While few lasting corporatist or guild systems were created on the Catholic plan, Catholic corporativism was very popular in Switzerland, France, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Quebec, and, before the erection of the Fascist state, Italy. The Fascist State, however, had its own brand (or brands) of a vocational group system. And, so, from Catholic traditionalism, we move on to revolutionary Fascism. Fascism is one of the most misunderstood ideologies of the Twentieth Century. Italian Fascism is usually portrayed as a watered down version of German National Socialism. It is often assumed that the ideologies of the two movements were identical since the Rome-Berlin Axis seemed like such a natural development. A closer look, however, reveals the radical differences between the regimes.[6] Their superficial similarities pale in comparison to the divergent views of race, nationality, economics, democracy, and militarism.[6] When historians look beyond the puesdo-Nazi conception of Mussolini's regime, they often get caught up in trying to decide if the regime was left-wing or right-wing. In his book, The Fascist Tradition, John Weiss labels Italian Fascism as part of the "Radical Right" and tries to refute the idea that "left Fascism" ever existed as a meaningful political force.[3] The trap that he, and many other historians, fall into is that there is a coherent "Ideology of the Radical Right".[3] Unlike the Nazis, the Fascists had no Mien Kampf, no statement of beliefs that defined the Party. Mussolini and other leading Fascists later tried to write a definitive statement of what Fascism was, but they didn't begin this endeavor until the late 1920's, several years after the Fascists took power.[6] Fascism was a conglomerate of many very different forces in Italian society. Many Fascists were simply place-seekers, searching for powerful positions in the new bureaucracy. Many were traditional conservatives trying to retain power. But there was a significant group of Fascist idealists with ideas for a new society. While their visions were never truly realized, they shaped (or tried to shape) Fascist dogma. The idealists, of course, were far from unified. In fact, the two major currents in Fascist thought, Nationalism and neosyndicalism, were, in many respects, polar opposites. Yet both Nationalism, or "right Fascism", and neosyndicalism, or "left Fascism", offered their own versions of a corporativist system.[6] Italy had been politically unified since 1870, but most Italians lacked any sort of national spirit. The Italian government was a liberal parliamentary democracy, but it was controlled by a small political elite. The political class did not trust or respect the Italian people. Italy was only held together by a corrupt system of granting political favors to keep the support of the various special interests. Italian industry could not compete on an international scale because it was dependent on state subsidies. Regionalism was rampant, and the Italian North and South were constantly at odds.1 This lack of unity disturbed many Italians on both the Right and the Left. World War I brought many Italians together at the front. They acquired a new sense of solidarity and nationalism. When they returned home, they saw the evils of Italian society and were filled with the desire for radical change. They found no support in the Socialist Party which was busy organizing a Bolshevik Revolution in Italy. They did, however, find a home in the Italian Nationalist Association on the Right and the syndicalist circles on the Left. These two forces were to be the competing dogmas in Fascism.[6] The Italian Nationalist Association was founded in 1910. Although Nationalist dogma didn't fully develop until after the First World War, by 1914 Enrico Corradini had developed the general conception of history and beliefs about national solidarity. The Nationalists disagreed with the Marxist view of class struggle. There was a class struggle, they claimed, but it was the struggle of "proletarian nations", such as Italy, against "plutocratic nations", such as Britain and France. The class consciousness of the Italian proletariat and the hostility between the capitalists and the workers served the interests of the plutocratic nations by keeping Italy divided by class. Only solidarity between the workers and the other "producers" on a national scale could allow Italy to rise to greatness. Imperialism was a necessary and natural thing. No people had an inherent right to the territory they inhabited; only by being a vital nation mobilized for the eternal Darwinian struggle could a people retain the ground on which they lived. The workers should realize that their economic interests rested with Italy's fate in the international struggle. Pacifism, socialism, internationalism, and democracy were tools the plutocratic nations used to keep Italy down. The Nationalist proposed elitist control, militarism and expansionism, class collaboration, and perhaps a syndical or corporativist system to order the national economy for the struggle. Italy was to be transformed into a war machine in all aspects of its life: political, economic, and social.[6] After the war, the Nationalists elaborated their dogma under the leadership of Corradini and Alfredo Rocco. Parliamentary democracy was corrupt. The current liberal elite must be replaced by a elite consisting of the old bureaucracy and the vital, economically productive bourgeoisie. Class collaboration was a must for the Italian economy. The Nationalists saw the new militant trade union activity as a serious threat. But a repressive authoritarian regime would be ineffective against modern forces. The Nationalists adopted the idea of national syndicalism at their 1919 conference. Their version of syndicalism was a vocational group system in which the workers would be organized into syndicates (in this instance the word "syndicate" mean merely any organization of workers, employers, or both in a particular industry) in order to more effectively coordinate the economy and keep the masses involved directly in the state without giving them political power. The state would control society through the syndicates or corporations. The elite would still have power, but state power would be increased by disciplining and organizing society. The Nationalists justified much of their program with the concept of the organic society. A unified nation was necessary for the struggle of nations, so the nation would become a sort of "super-individual".[6] While the Nationalists made up the majority of the "right Fascists", the "left Fascists were dominated by the neosyndicalist ideology which was developing around the same time as Nationalism. Before looking at "left Fascism", we must look at the development of revolutionary syndicalism from which not only "left Fascism", but also anarcho-syndicalism and guild socialism, sprang. Syndicalism was an early departure from orthodox Marxism. It t was based on the militant workers' union. This could not be accomplished through political action or by a political party, but must be accomplished by economic direct action by the industrial union.[7] Syndicalism sm advocated industrial unionism rather than trade unionism. Industrial unionism was the organizing of all workers in an industry, regardless of their particular occupation, into a union. Trade unionism stressed "craft autonomy", the system in which different "crafts" belong to different unions. The machinists have a union, as do the pattern-fitters, the brass molders, the coppersmiths, the electricians, the pipefitters, etc. Trade unionism stressed loyalty to one's particular craft, while industrial unionism preached solidarity among all workers in the industry. They complained that "craft autonomy" led to strikebreaking and different unions working for all the material benefits they could get, even if these gains were accomplished at the expense of other groups of workers in the industry. The capitalists used the different groups of workers against each other. The syndicalists wanted solidarity among the workers.[8] They advocated general strikes and sabotage. The ultimate goal of the working class was the overthrow of capitalism. The union or syndicate would become the basis of the new society. Industrial democracy would replace the rule by the "bosses".[9] Syndicalism quickly became associated with anarchism[7], although many syndicalists (especially in Italy) continued to believe in some sort of state.[6] We shall look more closely at anarcho-syndicalism later in this paper. One important center of syndicalist thought at the turn of the century was France. The French General Confederation of Labor (the CGT) was antipolitical, relying on direct action. On of the leading intellectuals of French syndicalism was Georges Sorel. He looked at the psychological development of the proletariat as much more important than economic conditions for a revolution. He spoke of the "myth of the general strike" as capable of move the people to overthrow their society. He also believed in "creative violence". Sorel was one of the most important influences on Italian "left Fascism".[6] At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) had shifted from revolutionary tactics to the doctrine of "reformism". They believed in Marxist determinism and had faith that capitalism would eventually collapse because of its own internal contradictions. In the meantime, they were content to try to take part in the Italian government on the behalf of the working class. Some socialists, however, opposed any cooperation with the bourgeoisie or the current Italian state. While many of the antireformists simply believed in traditional revolutionary socialism, syndicalist ideas were beginning to be spread. By 1904, the Italian syndicalists were a distinct force, placing emphasis on the union rather than the Socialist Party. While they were traditional revolutionary syndicalists in many respects, the Italian syndicalists adopted many of Sorel's early thoughts on the psychological development of the proletariat. Arturo Labriola, one of the early leaders of the Italian syndicalist movement, combined many of the ideas of French and Italian leftists and came up with a new conception of socialism. Socialism, he believed, was no longer based on economics. The economic improvement of the proletariat could not be ignored. Marx's historical determinism was outdated. Labriola accepted socialism as an ethical system. The organized proletariat was an emerging elite. The bourgeois values that governed society were corrupt and breaking down. The new values of the proletarian were the future. Solidarity was replacing economic egotism in the "advanced" proletariat. This new morality which was slowly developing was the key to revolution and socialist society. To foster it, the proletariat must be organized into syndicates. There could be no collaboration with other classes or the state. In fact, only the industrial proletariat, that which had truly experienced capitalism and had the revolutionary spirit in its blood, could form the new revolutionary elite. The southern peasants were exploited, but they could only resort to antiquated preindustrial radicalism and anarchism. Syndicalism must rely on strict proletarian separation from the rest of society. The syndicate would be the cradle of the new morality. The militant strike was a tool to teach the workers. Eventually the elite proletarian regime would become a classless society and all people would be equals, but the elite was needed to destroy capitalism. The syndicalists were able to alienate most of the working class by rejecting the economic betterment of the workers within the current system. Failed strikes and rejection of the southern peasants left the syndicalists without many followers.[6] The syndicalists had many prewar defeats and were forced to reconsider their beliefs. Filippo Corridoni and other syndicalist leader began to criticize Italy's corrupt "political class" rather than capitalism as one of the major evils. As World War I approached, the syndicalists reconsidered antimilitarism and socialist internationalism. The proletariat was not the international class that Marx claimed it was. They saw how Italian workers were discriminated against in foreign countries. They saw how much wealthier a British worker was than an Italian. While many syndicalists never gave up the concept of internationalism, they saw it as irrelevant to the immediate future. In 1914, the syndicalists fought for intervention in the European war. The PSI was opposed to the war, as were the majority of the workers. But the syndicalists saw the war as a chance to promote solidarity among the proletariat and shake up society. The nationalism of the syndicalists cannot be confused with traditional nationalism, but the effect was the same. The postwar situation spawned a dramatic change in syndicalist theory. This new ideology, termed "neosyndicalism", became the basis for left Fascism.[6] The syndicalists under the leadership of Sergio Panunzio, Paolo Orano, Agostino Lanzillo, and A. O. Olivetti had become very disillusioned with the idea of proletarian revolution. The proletariat was morally and socially immature. It was infatuated with the Bolsheviks, and the PSI led a period of militant working class agitation, culminating in the occupation of many Italian factories in 1920. The syndicalists began to stress class collaboration and denounce the socialist revolutionaries in Italy. The new revolutionary elite of Italy was not going to be the advanced organized proletariat, but a moral elite with the purpose of helping the psychological development of the proletariat and other "producers". "Productivism" was a crucial part of the neosyndicalist system. The neosyndicalists saw industrial development as crucial to the new society. They began to distinguish between "healthy" and "unhealthy" economic activity. They defined the workers and the "healthy" bourgeoisie as "producers". The good bourgeoisie were those who cared more about industrial development than short term profit. The parasitical capitalists in Italy were those depending on government subsidies and the huge monopolies that cared only for quick profit. Italy must progress and produce more and more. Class s collaboration was to be among the producers. They would unite against the parasites to revitalize the Italian economy. The problems of Italy were based in the corrupt political structure. The liberal state was a parasite and create parasites. The saw their system as a "third way", an alterative to liberal individualism and particularism as well as Bolshevism.[6] The new Italy under syndicalism would be totalitarian, but totalitarianism meant something to "left Fascists" that was unlike any other belief about government yet seen. The state would permeate an individual's entire life, not to control that individual, but to involve the individual in the state. This is what neosyndicalists meant by "participatory totalitarianism". The neosyndicalists believed in raising everything to the political level and destroying traditional politics. While many believed that popular democratic representation should not be reinstated until sufficient moral education of the people had occurred, the concept of totalitarian democracy was key to the Fascist left.[6] All of this popular involvement in the state was to be accomplished through a vocational group system. The Fascist syndicates and corporations would be the basis of this new system. As Dino Grandi said: "The European revolution of the last century was a revolution of the individual, of the ego, of man. Luther, Kant Rousseau. "The revolution of the twentieth century is the revolution of a larger individual. "This larger individual is the organization, the group, the syndicate. "The syndicate is not, as many believe, a method, an instrument. The syndicate is a person that tends to replace the old single physical person, who is insufficient, impotent, and no longer adequate. "IThe syndicate as person, as will, as an autonomous, dynamic, organic nucleus, is be now such a vital and living force that to deny it means to place oneself in absurdity, outside reality, outside the revolution, outside history.I "In the syndicate is the true revolution, and in it can be found already solidly constructed the framework of the new state of tomorrow.I"[6] Through totalitarianism, the neosyndicalists sought to transform the apathetic masses. The new corporative state would move beyond liberalism, beyond Marxism, and beyond capitalism towards the rebirth of the dynamic Italian nation. Of course, the real Italian state never reached the expectations of the neosyndicalists. Mussolini flipped back and forth between the right and left, never with a coherent program. Slowly corporativist development occurred. The Corporations were created in the Thirties. By the fall of the Italian regime in 1943, the "left Fascists" had made significant gains, but these fell far short of their hopes. The corporations gained some representation in the governing of Italy. The Fascist Party didn't have total control over the vocational groups. Property was defined as a "social function" by the reform of the legal codes in 1942. If property wasn't being used for the benefit of the Italian people, the corporations could take it away from its owner. But, the system was never implemented in any meaningful way.[6] Fascist corporativism was not the only system to grow out of syndicalism. In Britain, a section of the Labour Party, led by G.D.H. Cole, devised a leftist plan for a vocational group system: Guild Socialism. While the Guild Socialists only last for a couple years around 1920, their plan was among the best designed vocational groups systems on the left. As a branch of the British socialist movement, Guild Socialists have many orthodox socialist beliefs. Capitalism is fundamentally wrong. The e employee is a victim of dehumanizing wage-slavery at the hands of the economic upper class. Socialism aims to make labor cease to be a commodity to be bought and sold. There can be no freedom when their are huge differences in wealth. Guild Socialists believe that the means of production must be controlled by the workers and consumers rather than individuals working for their own profit. They believe in internationalism. The establishment of economic democracy is the overall goal of the Guild Socialist movement.[4] Democracy is one of the central tenets of Guild Socialism. It t is the necessary basis of the future post-capitalist society. Cole, however, makes a radical departure from the traditional democratic system. He believes that the parliamentary state is inherently undemocratic. As Cole states: "If the fundamental assumptions on the basis of which we set out are right, this idea is certainly altogether wrong. For we assumed, not only that democracy ought to be fully applied to every sphere of organized social effort, but that democracy is only real when it is conceived in terms of function and purpose. In any large community, democracy necessarily involves representative government. Government, however, is not democratic if, as in most of the forms which pass for representative government to-day, it involves the substitution of the will of one man, the representative, for the wills of many, the represented. There are two respects in which the present form of parliamentary representation, as it exists in all "democratic" States to-day, flagrantly violates the fundamental principles of democracy. The first is that the elector retains practically no control over his representative, has only the power to change him at very infrequent intervals, and has in fact only a very limited range of choice. The second is that the elector is called upon to choose one man to represent him in relation to every conceivable that may come before Parliament, whereas, if he is a rational being, he always certainly agrees with one man about one thing and with another, or at any rate would do so as soon as the economic basis of the present class divisions was removed."[4] The first problem Cole deals with by giving the voters in various situations the power to, with certain safeguards and restrictions, remove their representative if they don't like the job he is doing. The second problem is a more fundamental problem of the parliamentary system. Cole refers to the "omni-competent State" that tries to do everything. As an alternative, he offers "functional democracy". This is the basis of Guild Socialism. Rather than electing representatives as residents of a geographical area, the citizens of a Guild Socialist society would elect different representatives to different councils in their various roles as producers, consumers, citizens, and the like. A construction worker would elect representatives within the structure of his industrial guild as well as representatives to consumer councils and civic councils. All of his different interests are represented. The e system is highly decentralized with a lot of emphasis on the local governments.[4] Different organizations with different jurisdictions are very autonomous. The central government exists, but in a coordinating and diminished capacity. The first aspect of this functional representation that Cole deals with is the Industrial Guild. As with most vocational group systems, the workers of an industry are organized in to a Guild. There is no pretense of "class collaboration", since capitalism has been abolished. The basic unit of government is the "factory". Cole makes the point that he is referring to whatever the "natural center of production or service" is in that particular industrial by the term "factory". The management of each factory shall be democratic. The methods of management will vary with the particular circumstances. Sometimes representatives will be elected, other times, participatory democracy will be employed. The issues like indirect versus direct elections and mass votes versus votes of particular sections of the workers would be decided based on the situation. The basic principle is to make industry as democratic as possible. The foremen in a factory should always be chosen by the workers under him. The spirit of democracy, Cole stresses, is in many case more important than the particular methods.[4] The factory has a good deal of autonomy, but a small higher structure is required for the management of the industry. There would be regional and national Guild councils concerned with such things as the coordination of production, the general regulations of production and organization, raw materials, distribution and the interactions between the industry and outside groups. Cole emphasizes decentralization. The e Guild does not even have to have a complete monopoly over its industry. Independent (though not capitalistic) factories may exist without attaching themselves to a National Guild.[4] Since the economy is a complex thing, it would be need to be coordination between Guilds. Since many of the interactions between industries happens on a regular basis, Cole believes that the bulk of coordination will develop naturally. Two industries will interact so much that they establish direct exchanges of raw materials and services and joint committees. The organization of all the Industrial Guilds would be some sort of Industrial Guilds Congress. This would be the overall coordinating body for the nation's production and services.[4] The individual is also represented as a consumer under the Guild Socialist system. Cole divides consumption into commodities that can be differentiated based on such things as taste and opinion and commodities that come in one undifferentiated form such as electricity. He calls the first type "personal and domestic consumption" and the latter "collective consumption". He divides consumer representation based on this. Councils for "personal and domestic consumption" are called Cooperative Councils, while "collective consumption is dealt with by the Collective Utility Councils. Representatives to these councils would be elected by small territorial units. They would also have graded structures with local, regional, and national bodies.[4] Cole also discusses noneconomic services. He e calls these civic services. The two main services he discusses are the teaching and health professions. He treats them in depth and deals with how capitalism has affected the professions. He proposes Civic Guilds which should be even more decentralized than the industrial organizations. He also suggests that, in the case of education, "nonadult" students should not be treated authoritarianly but should be granted some measure of democracy with regards to their environment. He touches on how various "independent professions" such as science and art would be dealt with in Civic Guilds. Above all, he stresses freedom and decentralization.[4] The "consumers" of civic services are also given representation. The citizens of the community would have representatives on Citizen Councils such as Cultural and Health Councils. These would deal with the public's concerns about education and health care. In the same way that the consumers' councils balance the Industrial Guilds, so the Citizen Councils balance the Civic Guilds. The relationships should not be adversarial, but cooperative.[4] After detailing the various functional bodies that would make up society, Cole describes the "Commune", the body that would act as a sort of central coordinating body. It is the closest thing the Guild Socialist system has to a central state. Cole details the representation on the Town or Township Commune. All the local functional units would have representation, as well as very small territorial areas. The voters would have the right to recall their representative at will. The Wards and Villages, the smallest territorial units, would have mass meetings and in some cases limited powers. The Town Communes would send representatives to Regional Communes. They would send representatives to the National Commune. This would take over the basic role of the central government.[4] The Commune has the power to determine budgets and resource allocation, coordinate the different groups, mediate dispute, enforce laws, and control "coercion". Cole detests state coercion such as the police force and the military, but he recognizes its necessity, at least in the near future. He believes in a decentralized police force and a voluntary military based on the Guild system. The Commune would be the primary foreign relations body, although trade would be managed through the Guilds. The Commune would not be "omni-competent", but it is necessary for coordination.[4] Guild Socialism was never put into practice. It t only lasted for a few years during the 1920's. Anarcho-syndicalism, on the other hand, had a brief period of implementation in Spain during the Civil War. While the Spanish Republican government, composed of Stalinist Communists, bourgeois republicans, and moderate socialists, tried to destroy the Spanish Revolution from the inside, General Francisco France, a Nationalist who later established a dictatorial parody of a vocational group system along the lines of Salazar's Portuguese regime, tried to crush the Republic and the anarchists from the outside. In spite of these conditions the Spanish anarchists create a libertarian society. Some estimates suggest that between 3 and 4 million people were involved in the anarchist experiment.[10] Anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian communism began to be put into practice on July 19, 1936. The Republic had crushed most of the anarchist revolution by late 1937, and in 1939 Franco crushed the Republic and any remaining anarchist collectives. The Spanish revolution was anarcho-syndicalist. The e overriding goal was the workers' self-management of industry and agriculture. The CNT, the anarcho-syndicalist National Confederation of Labor, saw nothing that made the Soviet version of socialism look any better than capitalism. The anarchists usually referred to the Soviet Union as a "state capitalist" system. The state was morally wrong, and the CNT set out to abolish it.[10] The basic tenet of all production and distribution was "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". While local implementation varied, the collectives and syndicates followed this statement closely. In some places, a family wage was set up. The e worker was paid for the number of members of his family rather than the type of occupation he had or the number of hours he worked. In other places, especially the rural collectives, money was abolished, and ration cards were used. Abundant commodities could be used freely.[10] The CNT collectivized most of the industries in Barcelona and several other Spanish cities. All "leadership" positions in the industries were elected by the workers. These "leaders" could be recalled at any time. The e workers held regular mass meetings. The CNT and other workers streamlined industries for the maximum efficiency by shutting down unprofitable shops, modernizing equipment, and eliminating needless bureaucracy. They were also about to end unemployment, raise wages, provide health care and other benefits, and provide the workers with a sense of self-respect.[10] The Spanish anarchists professed a belief in federalist principles of organization. In urban areas, a functional and a territorial organization would exist side by side. The functional syndicate and the territorial economic councils would organize production and distribution. The syndicates were all organized into the different levels of the CNT. Everything was democratic. Industrial democracy was established in many large eastern Spanish cities.[10] Spain was not a very industrialized nation in 1936. The e pesents were among the most oppressed classes. During the Spanish Revolution, the peasant played a far large role than did the factory worker. The agricultural collectives outnumbered the industrial collectives. The collectives in rural Spain were organized spontaneously by the peasants, many of whom were illiterate, although they later organized the collectives into federations for purposes of trade and uniform ration cards. Individual land owners were allowed to exist beside the collectives as long as the farmer did not use wage-labor and had only as much land as his family could work. The "individualists" were treated cordially by the collectives, and many were persuaded to join.[10] The Spanish Revolution did not generate large social or political theories, debated by academics and imposed on the people by the intellectuals. It was inspired by anarchist and syndicalist writings, but was created by the workers and the peasants themselves.[10] While all of these systems - Catholic corporativism, Fascism, Guild Socialism, anarcho-syndicalism - are by no means the same or similar, they are all based around economic organizations and vocational groups. Both rightist and leftist vocational group systems are responses to the problems of the traditional political and economic systems. The right was responding to the spiritual and economic problems in capitalist individualism that it could not ignore. The left was responding to the problems of bureaucracy, centralization, and economic stagnation inherent in state socialism that it could not ignore. The results were novel systems that tried to balance stability and freedom, security and dynamicism. Although the vocational group systems have been nearly forgotten in the battle between private capitalism and state capitalism, their ideas are still present in today's innovators and radicals. In the 1960's, the Students for a Democratic Society emphasized industrial and economic democracy, giving the individual some control over the economic factors that controlled him. The social democrats throughout Europe have, at least in their rhetoric, emphasized neocorporativism. The e democratic socialists in America want to make corporations and businesses more democratic. And the syndicalist unions, the IWW and the CNT, still cling to their existence despite the governments' attempts to destroy them. The vocational group systems of the past have shown us models for how a society can be organized without relying on the economic slavery of capitalism or the political slavery of Bolshevism. It would be wrong, however, to say that the vocational group system is flawless. There are many objections to vocational group systems that cannot be overlooked. The vocational group systems we have looked at were developed in the early 1900's. They were based mostly upon the industrial proletariat. While manual labor is still a very important force, a new class has developed. Mussolini called it "intellectual labor". The white-collar worker has been neglected in many socialist and anticapitalist theories. Many of the systems attempted to provide for this group. Fascism tried to create corporations for educators and other petty bourgeois workers. The anarcho-syndicalists in Spain had a great deal of support from health care professionals and some technicians in factories. The Guild Socialists proposed Civic Guilds for "noneconomic" labor. They also provided for the white-collar work force in the power structure of the factory. But in most cases, the position of the non-manual workers was treated as an incidental side note. A related problem is that of the service economy. The industrial organizations were designed for an economy based on manufacturing and production. Times have changed. Clearly, , the old systems cannot be implemented as they are into the modern economy. There are many objections to industrial democracy on the bases of the short-term outlook of the proletariat. The workers, given control over their industry, will seek to get all they can out of the industry while selfishly neglecting investment in the future. The conservatives who make such statements often neglect the experiences of the 1980's where the capitalists looted numerous companies for personal gain. An article in a leading socialist journal responded to the charges of egotism on the workers' part: "The work force often gets a bum rap as seeking to maximize wages at the expense of investment. This argument is used as a defense of "management prerogatives" in union contracts and as a postmortem on the demise of Yugoslavian syndicalist socialism: you just can't trust the workers to look to the long term. But logically, it is the worker who cares most about whether the company is around in a decade, not the shareholder, who is free to sell out at a moment's notice. It is only in the context of a total lack of authority and responsibility that union locals emphasize wage gains rather than the long-term health of the enterprise."[11] Another important objection to industrial democracy is the lack of knowledge on the part of the masses. While a democratic media and educational system could improve the situation, the Information Age has, as James Burke reminds us in his television series, Connections, made change more rapid and left society with less time to sort out what is happening. This is a serious problem. Even in a democratic society, a technocratic elite could arise. Alternatively, the masses could use their power, economic and political, to revolt against progress and scientific advancement. Either situation is very dangerous to a democratic, dynamic, and socialistic society.. Another serious problem, especially with anarcho-syndicalism and Guild Socialism, is the seeming paradox between the ideals of freedom, dynamicism, and progress on one hand and stability and security on the other. How can society prevent the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the few and still allow the necessary freedom for the individual scientist and innovator to advance society? It is not a paradox, just a difficult balancing act. But it is a problem that every socialist who believes in progress must try to resolve. Despite the real difficulties with the decentralized postcapitalist orders we have looked at, they provide us with useful starting points as we seek to establish real economic democracy. Those who would dogmatically apply the theories of the past to the modern society have missed the point. We should, however, look to the spirit and example of the various groups, right and left. A new order is possible. It does not have to be centralized. It t can be free and socialistic at the same time. These are some of the lessons of the guild system and its descendents. ================================================================== [1] Rev. Harold Francis Trehey, Foundations of a Modern Guild System, (Washington, D.C.:The Catholic University of America Press, 1940) [2] Joaquin Azpiazu, S.J., The Corporative State, trans. Rev. William Bresnahan, O.S.B, (Bringhamton: Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., 1951) [3] John Weiss, The Fascist Tradition: Radical Right-Wing Extremism in Modern Europe, (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967) [4] G.D.H. Cole, Guild Socialism, (New York:Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1920) [5] The term "vocational group" is taken from Rev. Trehey's work, but is used here as a general term for a guild-like organization under any system. [6] David D. Roberts, The Syndicalist Tradition and Italian Fascism, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1979) [7] Albert S. Lindemann, A History of European Socialism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 164. [8] William Trautmann, "Why Strikes are Lost," Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology, ed. Joyce L. Kornbluh (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company, 1988) 18- 24. [9] "Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World", Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology, ed. Joyce L. Kornbluh (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company, 1988) 12- 13. [10] Sam Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives, (New York:Free Life Editions, Inc., 1974) . [11] Robert Kuttner, "The Corporation in America", Dissent, Winter 1993: 46.