textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000849.txt

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.