Guild Socialism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Piccolo
#14339726
Do any of the posters here support guild socialism? When I mention guild socialism I do not mean the neo-medievalist branch of guild socialism that supports something like an attempt to turn the clock back on history but basically the British version of syndicalism developed by thinker such as G.D.H. Cole, S.G. Hobson and others.

I find the maxim that “economic power precedes and dominates political action" to have a good deal of truth. It goes a long way toward explaining why social democracy and Marxism-Leninist socialism usually revert back to capitalism because of their top-down approach and tendency toward centrist managerialism (social democracy) or full-blown counter-revolution (see the overthrow of the Soviet system by members of the nomenklatura itself).

Guild socialism, by eliminating the wage system and putting the means of production in the hands of the workers themselves, would seem to be the best way toward real political democracy and socialism. In guild socialism and syndicalism, the workers would control and manage economic firms, not the capitalist class or the state bureaucracy. The role of the state is an area of contention, with some guild socialists supporting a state similar to that found in most countries today while others support a more decentralized federative system of different bodies negotiating and working with each other.

Any thoughts?
User avatar
By Cromwell
#14339865
I do have a great deal of interest in the Social Credit Theory and Guild Socialism (the two go hand in hand). However, I have to admit that I'm not educated/mature to really be calling myself anything other than, simply, a Socialist (in a broad sense, I can sympathise with most forms of anti-Capitalist thought).
By Piccolo
#14340551
Cromwell wrote:I do have a great deal of interest in the Social Credit Theory and Guild Socialism (the two go hand in hand). However, I have to admit that I'm not educated/mature to really be calling myself anything other than, simply, a Socialist (in a broad sense, I can sympathise with most forms of anti-Capitalist thought).


Thanks for the reply Cromwell. While I am aware of the connections between Social Credit Theory and guild socialism, I have unfortunately not read much on Social Credit Theory. I will have to get my hands on some literature.
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14340557
Have you read S.G. Hobson's books, 'National Guilds and the State' (1920), and 'National guilds; an inquiry into the wage system and the way out' (1914)?

They are like giant blocks of text, but they are very good blocks of text. It'll tell you almost everything that you need to know about the idea. If I had it my way, they'd be required reading in schools.

And yes, one of the primary features of the guild model is that it prevents counter-revolution from 'above'. In guild socialism, the change toward the triumph of socialist-orientation is locked into place and becomes irreversible, because the organisations 'below' become a check and balance against the vanguard 'above', in case it should happen to turn aside from the path.

The other advantage of the guild socialist model is that discrete organisations exist which are capable of rationally finding prices and allocating resources. The 'calculation problem' does not afflict guild socialism, much like how the problem does not afflict socialist-oriented market economy.
By Piccolo
#14340582
Rei Murasame wrote:Have you read S.G. Hobson's books, 'National Guilds and the State' (1920), and 'National guilds; an inquiry into the wage system and the way out' (1914)?

They are like giant blocks of text, but they are very good blocks of text. It'll tell you almost everything that you need to know about the idea. If I had it my way, they'd be required reading in schools.


I have read National guilds; an inquiry into the wage system and the way out and I am currently reading National Guilds and the State. I also read G.D.H. Cole's Guild Socialism: A Plan for Economic Democracy. I agree, those are great books.

Rei Murasame wrote:And yes, one of the primary features of the guild model is that it prevents counter-revolution from 'above'. In guild socialism, the change toward the triumph of socialist-orientation is locked into place and becomes irreversible, because the organisations 'below' become a check and balance against the vanguard 'above', in case it should happen to turn aside from the path.


This is exactly why I support guild socialism. The other forms of socialism seem very prone to reversal by elites. I think it could be argued that social democracy and traditional state socialism also defang the working class itself by replacing grassroots worker's organizations with state bureaucracies.

Rei Murasame wrote:The other advantage of the guild socialist model is that discrete organisations exist which are capable of rationally finding prices and allocating resources. The 'calculation problem' does not afflict guild socialism, much like how the problem does not afflict socialist-oriented market economy.


Very interesting. Mario Ferrero argues that the economic system of socialist Yugoslavia was close to a working model of guild socialism. Unfortunately, I could only find a Google Books version of the piece.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hFj_pU ... &q&f=false
User avatar
By Cromwell
#14340866
Piccolo wrote:Thanks for the reply Cromwell. While I am aware of the connections between Social Credit Theory and guild socialism, I have unfortunately not read much on Social Credit Theory. I will have to get my hands on some literature.


The major work, C.H. Douglas' 'Social Credit', is available free here...
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14340946
Piccolo wrote:Very interesting. Mario Ferrero argues that the economic system of socialist Yugoslavia was close to a working model of guild socialism. Unfortunately, I could only find a Google Books version of the piece.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hFj_pU ... &q&f=false

Yes, it looks like a good piece and it part of a good book, just lots of pages are missing since it's only on Google books.

It seems to be selling as a PDF for £20 here: [Link]
User avatar
By Julian
#14341240
I am interested in Guild socialism but only if the Guilds are partners with municipalities both locally and at a global level

I think it is probably true to say that political and economic power are intertwined rather than that economic power always precedes political power. In practice economic power in a capitalist society what matters is wealth and wealth is only meaningful if it is protected by the law and a powerful state and if there is an economy that gives those notionally wealthy people access to resources. It seem odd for socialism to worry only about economic power or to believe that power can be made democratic peoples rights can be protected purely by people at work and in their workplaces

It is also worth bearing in mind that for much of their lives people are not in work. We go to school, we bring up children, we retire. All of that happens outside the workplace
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14341252
None of those things happen outside the economy though. And do you think the state came from? The state is a fora for the co-ordination of economic interests. Schools and so on are also economic interests, just less directly. When people say that 'economic power precedes political power', what it means is that the people who have the ability to control scarcity - be it of resources of labour or whatever - will end up running the state and thus will have political power. The political power can then be used for whatever their hearts desire.

'National Guilds and the State', S. G. Hobson, 1920, pg 109 - 111 (emphasis added) wrote:Whatever unhappy vicissitudes politics has passed through since the glory of Greece set it on its way, it is as true now as ever that successful statesmanship is founded on enduring principles and not upon the appraisement or nice balancing of material considerations. There is a practical sagacity, notably in the obiter dicta of Bacon and later in Cromwell's policy, that does not disregard the economic factors; but that sagacity turns to cunning or opportunism if it lose faith in the fundamental principles disclosed by time and circumstance. This is not to deny the main fact of modern industrialism that economic power precedes and dominates political action. There is a sense in which that aphorism is permanently true; another sense in which it is a polemic peculiar to existing conditions.

It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. But whilst the fare must be available as a condition precedent to the journey, it remains a means to the end. Our aphorism is a polemic peculiar to private capitalism in that the fare to continue the metaphor is controlled by an interested section of the community, which can consequently decide the time and direction of the journey. But when the fare and sustenance pass from private to communal control, in the process increasing in abundance and availability, we find ourselves as a people free to embark on whatever spiritual or political enterprise we desire.

Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity. If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.

Upon the substantial truth of this hangs our conception of citizenship and State policy. I have consistently disclaimed for the future Guilds the control of wealth, conceding to them no more and no less than the control, through monopoly, of their labour-power.

[...]

The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity. If the former be abolished and the latter overcome, the [socialist] State possesses the means to achieve its purposes, so far as they depend upon economic resources. In this connection, it is not without significance that common parlance often describes a propertied man as "a man of means," and never so far as I know as "a man of ends." But it is usual to refer to a statesman as one having ends to be served by political methods. These philological distinctions are at bottom instinctive citizenship, a recognition that wealth is a means to an end.

But of course, when S. G. Hobson says that he 'disclaims for future Guilds the control of wealth', where 'disclaim' apparently means 'denies', that is evidently not true because in the same sentence he grants them control of wealth through a monopoly on labour power. Therefore, they do indeed control wealth, and they do indeed gain political power because of that fact. But for some reason Hobson's writing doesn't make this clear. He alternates between a tone of almost trying to promise he is not trying to do the very thing which he is creating a structure specifically to do, and so it makes me wonder who his audience was that he felt the need to write that way.

So clearly the Guilds become organisations that have 'means', a 'means' perhaps to an 'end' like this, if you like:
wiki: Socialist-oriented market economy - Theoretical Basis wrote:The Communist Party of Vietnam maintains that the socialist-oriented market economy is consistent with the Marxist view of economic development, being a key step in achieving economic growth and modernization while being able to co-exist in the modern global market economy[6] (see Socialism in Marxism). The Communist Party of Vietnam has re-affirmed its commitment to the development of a socialist economy with its Doi Moi reforms.[7]

This economic model is defended from a Marxist perspective, which states that a planned socialist economy can only emerge after first developing the basis for socialism through the establishment of a market economy and commodity-exchange economy, and that socialism will only emerge after this stage has exhausted its historical necessity and gradually transforms itself into socialism.[8] Proponents of this model argue that the economic system of the former USSR and its satellite states attempted to go from a natural economy to a planned economy by decree, without passing through the necessary market economy phase of development.[9]

Proponents of socialist market economies distinguish themselves from market socialists: the view of market socialism is that markets are a central feature of socialism, and that markets are the most feasible mechanism for a socialist economy.[10]


And:
wiki: Transition to Socialism wrote:To reach the socialist stage of development, the development of the state sector was of utmost importance – the lack of which would, according to Hồ Chí Minh, lead to failure.[48] The platform of the 11th National Congress held in January 2011 stated, "This is a profound and thorough revolutionary process and a complicated struggle between the old and the new for qualitative changes in all aspects of social life. It is essential to undergo a long period of transition with several steps of development and several mixed social and economic structures."[49]

According to the party's General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng, during the transition to socialism, socialist factors of development compete with non-socialist factors, which include capitalist factors. Nguyễn said, "Along with positive aspects, there will always be negative aspects and challenges that need to be considered wisely and dealt with timely and effectively. It is a difficult struggle that requires spirit, fresh vision, and creativity. The path to socialism is a process of constantly consolidating and strengthening socialist factors to make them more dominant and irreversible. Success will depend on correct policies, political spirit, leadership capacity, and the fighting strength of the Party."[50]

This general idea is almost universally applicable for any kind of socialist group that is trying to actually use a market mechanism. It seems to me to be the logical conclusion of what the idea is really about.
User avatar
By Julian
#14341265
You are not going to convince me that easily, Rei.

It is true that retirement does not put you outside the economy (or for that matter politics) but it is also true that if society were based on producer interest and work place ballots alone, retired people would have no stake in that society. Which would be a shame.

On the other point I think we know it to be true that politics and economics are intertwined. The very wealthy hold power only so long as that power is maintained by law ideology and practice. Sometimes the power of money is not sufficient. Sometimes the privaleges of wealth are overturned by force or by just the threat of force .

Chairman Mao once said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." I don't have any particular admiration for Mao but I have to say he demonstrated that point very capably.

If we choose to imagine that all power is economic - and ignore the need to make all forms of power accountable - we may find the world being run by those with a more realistic understanding of what power actually entails.

I don't think Hobson was a reductionist. If I had been asked about revolutionary syndicalism I would have said that it was ultra left nonsense but GDH Cole and Hobson were to an extent pluralists. Guild socialism was always envisaged as a way of controlling production within a society which included other forms of politics. A point Hobson alludes to. Their vision of power is one is one in which power is dispersed upwards and downwards and across. That is a valuable insight
User avatar
By Rei Murasame
#14341381
Regarding retired people, I have no idea how they would be polled by society, but I assume that someone would invent a way as the need arises. Regarding political power, naturally it is implicit that having control of economic power, logically leads to the ability to purchase and marshal force through the use of the state.

I didn't think I needed to actually say that, since it's implicit political power obviously only can secure itself insofar as it is prepared to use force or the threat of force to defend itself. But economic power is required in order to sustain one's ability to do that, so what you are calling 'reductionist' is not reductionist, it's just a class-based understanding of how society works.

If someone controls no resources of any sort, then they can't negotiate at a table with any authority, and they can't credibly threaten to use force against anyone. It'd be like having an electric company that can't threaten to turn off your electricity, or a court system that can't afford to build jails, or a labour movement that doesn't have labour-monopoly and this cannot go on strike. Those things would be toothless, and they'd be unable to commandeer the state because they'd be unable to even commandeer their own selves. So really it does come down to economic power preceding the ability to use political power, they'd have to be an economic force first, in order to enter government and get access to monopoly on force.

We are not in disagreement, just you seem to be using some odd ways of phrasing things, and are also misreading me.
By Piccolo
#14341806
Retired people could also have a guild or syndicate of their own to represent their interests. If I am not mistaken, I believe G.D.H. Cole argued for consumer’s guilds to make sure producer’s guilds don’t tyrannize the rest of society. I do not have his book in front of me so I cannot say for sure what he said exactly.
Alternatively, retired workers could have guaranteed seats on their guild council to make sure their interests are represented.
By Quantum
#14341827
I'm not familiar with guild socialism other than the fact that Marx condemned guilds for its rigid social hierarchy and relationship of the ownership of the means of production.

Any socialism for me is better than the current system of capitalism so I can't really condemn this ideology. Even classic social democracy is much better than neoliberal capitalism.

I've been trying to get this book, which explains the guild system in medieval Italy but it is too expensive.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Italian-City-St ... 0198225857
#14341829
This concept is beyond outdated, and completely ignores how unions, sindicates and guilds operated in real life. it would also require a convoluted restructuring of society into the wet dream of a 19th century textile worker.
User avatar
By Julian
#14341881
Piccolo wrote:Retired people could also have a guild or syndicate of their own to represent their interests


I think that retired people, disabled people and women (or men) looking after children deserve an equal stake in society and if that's achievable under Guild socialism fine. However I don't think it should be made dependant on some future agreement as to how (or whether they are polled). I believe that GDH Cole and S G Hobson both believed in Parliamentary Democracy. One person one vote has a lot to commend it.

I'm not familiar with guild socialism other than the fact that Marx condemned guilds for its rigid social hierarchy and relationship of the ownership of the means of production


Marx may have had a point about Guilds and it may be relevant here. However he was commenting on the Guild system rather than Guild socialism. He had been dead for sometime before the term was coined in about 1910. Guild socialism was indeed inspired by medieval guilds as a way of sharing responsibility for what and how things are produced. However it wasn't so backward looking as to believe that a return to the medieval system of guilds was the only change needed in society.
By Piccolo
#14342005
Julian wrote:I think that retired people, disabled people and women (or men) looking after children deserve an equal stake in society and if that's achievable under Guild socialism fine. However I don't think it should be made dependant on some future agreement as to how (or whether they are polled). I believe that GDH Cole and S G Hobson both believed in Parliamentary Democracy. One person one vote has a lot to commend it.


Yes, I agree. S.G. Hobson still argued for the continued existence of the State to deal with what he called "spiritual matters." I imagine these matters could include such issues as provisions for the old, disabled, or for those who are fulltime caregivers.

Julian wrote:Marx may have had a point about Guilds and it may be relevant here. However he was commenting on the Guild system rather than Guild socialism. He had been dead for sometime before the term was coined in about 1910. Guild socialism was indeed inspired by medieval guilds as a way of sharing responsibility for what and how things are produced. However it wasn't so backward looking as to believe that a return to the medieval system of guilds was the only change needed in society.


I sometimes wonder if the term "guild socialism" is misleading because many people assume that guild socialists want a return to the guild system of the Middle Ages. The key to guild socialism is the abolition of the wage system, not some sort of selfish protectionism imagined by most people when they hear the term "guild." Labor power will cease to be a commodity under guild socialism and the workers will manage their own workplaces. The only way to have political democracy is to have economic democracy in the form of guild or syndicalist organization of the workplace.
By Piccolo
#14342068
Rei Murasame wrote:Guild socialism was specifically opposed to returning to the guild system of medieval times. The two ideas are almost complete opposites of each other.


Exactly. The only guild socialist I can think of who really did want a return to something like medieval guilds was A.J. Penty, and he was an earlier thinker. Most of the later guild socialists were modern thinkers and I would say that their ideas are still very relevant. Reading their critiques of capitalism, social democracy, and state socialism, one feels you are reading something written this week.

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]