Crystallized confusion

"The Guild State" by G.R.S. Taylor was originally published in 1919. Taylor was a supporter of Guild Socialism, a somewhat nebulous movement of social reformers who called for a return to the medieval guild system. Guild Socialism is usually associated with anarcho-syndicalism or the co-operative movement, but apparently there were also Christian groups involved, both Catholic and non-Catholic. Some people involved with Guild Socialism were also interested in mysticism, meditation, etc. The movement had an unmistakable "alternative" flair!

Frankly, I bought this book by mistake, confusing the little-known Taylor with G.D.H. Cole, often regarded as the leader of Guild Socialism. Thus, this review doesn't take a definitive stand on Guild Socialism, but rather on Taylor's book, re-issued in 2006 by the Catholic publisher IHS Press. As far as I understand, Taylor himself wasn't a Catholic, and I'm not sure whether he was even a Christian. Perhaps this explains why IHS Press have appended no fewer than three forewords to Taylor's pamphlet, written by good Catholics. Imprimatur?

Unfortunately, Taylor's ideas are muddled in the extreme. I haven't read such a self-contradictory political tract for years! Taylor attempts to combine two or even three quite incompatible political ideas. The publishers, somewhat charitably, call this "bewildering complexity". I say Mr. Taylor was confused, neither more nor less.

In the first part of "The Guild State", the author proposes a system otherwise known as corporatism. Employers, white-collar employees and blue-collar workers in each industry should form a national "guild", and this guild should administer the entire industry. Thus, the mining industry would be administered by a National Miners Guild, and so on. The medieval term "guild" sounds anachronistic, since the structures proposed by Taylor would really be nation-wide, industry-wide monopoly companies. In contrast to fascism, which also calls for corporatism, Taylor proposes that the guilds be ruled by majority vote, which presumably means that the workers would call the shots.

Taylor criticizes the parliamentary system where territorial districts elect their representatives. He believes that a system based on trade guilds would be more natural, since our most natural identity is our line of work. This argument, of course, is connected to the author's medieval romanticism, but it's hardly true in a modern industrial society. I don't think meaningless, alienated industrial work is the most "natural" part of modern man's identity - quite the reverse. (I have a lousy job myself, and feel little inclination becoming a member of a National Warehouseworkers Guild. Something tells me a Yorkshire miner would quit if he won on the state lottery!)

Taylor further believes that parliament is dominated by unpractical people debating unpractical problems, such as "the freedom of the Negroes of Central Africa", or "whether Persia should have a parliamentary system or a benevolent despotism" or "the constitution of an ichtyosaurus". In a guild system, people would debate and decide on real, practical problems associated with their respective trades. However, in a later chapter Taylor concedes that even his ideal society would need foreign relations, and since they can't be decided upon by a Guild of Diplomats (why not?), they must be left in the hands of a democratically elected assembly of the whole people. In other words, this assembly would become a new parliament, debating *exactly* the issues the author rejected as unpractical only a few chapters before: "the freedom of the Negroes of Central Africa", etc. The author is either a muddled thinker, or his denunciation of the unpractical politicians is dishonest, populist rhetoric.

As already mentioned, the Guild State proposed in the first part of the book would essentially consist of nation-wide monopoly trusts (albeit somehow controlled by the workers). In the second part of his book, Taylor proposes the exact opposite: all-out decentralization. Since worker self-management is unpractical (!) over a larger territory, the guilds should be local. Indeed, there can even be more than one guild of a single trade in one locality. Taylor also calls for competition between the guilds. But wouldn't that lead to laissez-faire capitalism? Well, apparently no, since competition wouldn't be *totally* free. First, the state would legislate minimum standards binding on all guilds: a minimum wage, maximum working hours, minimum health and safety standards. Taylor, who all through-out the book attacks government bureaucrats, doesn't explain how these minimum standards should be upheld, unless, of course, there are government inspectors making sure everyone follows them. Taylor also says that competition in the local community wouldn't be free, and that some monopolies would be allowed. Also, there would be a just price. All good and well, but who is to decide? The local community? The county? The state? If the state decides it, how can such a system be decentralized?

In one of the last chapters, Taylor essentially comes full circle. Now, he suddenly wants centralization again! He believes that all guilds should be approved by...wait for it...the state. As already noted, it seems that Taylor isn't calling for an abolition of parliament either. He says that humans are both producers and citizens in general. As citizens in general, they apparently need both a foreign policy, a military, and a police force. Perhaps they also need a constitution for the ichtyosaurus. Taylor doesn't say.

I get the impression that Taylor wavers between a kind of "socialist" system of industry-wide "worker control", national safety legislation, and a more honest parliament (in other words, a kind of welfare state), and a decentralized, yet still non-competitive and ethical medieval utopia of artisans and peasants. Perhaps Taylor attempted to combine Social Democratic (Labour/Fabian) ideas with both syndicalism and a kind of Distributist vision á la Belloc? If so, I must say that he wasn't very successful.