Guild socialism, as advocated by Mr. Orage and the “New Age,” is associated with a polemic against “political” action, and in favor of direct economic action by trade-unions.  It shares this with syndicalism, from which most of what is new in it is derived.  But I see no reason for this attitude; political and economic action seem to me equally necessary, each in its own time and place.  I think there is danger in the attempt to use the machinery of the present capitalist state for socialistic purposes.  But there is need of political action to transform the machinery of the state, side by side with the transformation which we hope to see in economic institutions.  In this country, neither transformation is likely to be brought about by a sudden revolution; we must expect each to come step by step, if at all, and I doubt if either could or should advance very far without the other.

The economic system we should ultimately wish to see would be one in which the state would be the sole recipient of economic rent, while private capitalistic enterprises should be replaced by self-governing combinations of those who actually do the work.  It ought to be optional whether a man does a whole day’s work for a whole day’s pay, or half a day’s work for half a day’s pay, except in cases where such an arrangement would cause practical inconvenience.  A man’s pay should not cease through the accident of his work being no longer needed, but should continue so long as he is willing to work, a new trade being taught him at the public expense, if necessary.  Unwillingness to work should be treated medically or educationally, when it could not be overcome by a change to some more congenial occupation.

The workers in a given industry should all be combined in one autonomous unit, and their work should not be subject to any outside control.  The state should fix the price at which they produce, but should leave the industry self-governing in all other respects.  In fixing prices, the state should, as far as possible, allow each industry to profit by any improvements which it might introduce into its own processes, but should endeavor to prevent undeserved loss or gain through changes in external economic conditions.  In this way there would be every incentive to progress, with the least possible danger of unmerited destitution.  And although large economic organizations will continue, as they are bound to do, there will be a diffusion of power which will take away the sense of individual impotence from which men and women suffer at present.

III

Some men, though they may admit that such a system would be desirable, will argue that it is impossible to bring it about, and that therefore we must concentrate on more immediate objects.