Public Opinion — Chapter XIX The Old Image in a New Form: Guild Socialism

1. 1. Reformers oscillate between centralization and decentralization, but both approaches face the same essential difficulty: decisions become chaotic when decentralized or dominated by a small social set when centralized.
2. 2. Laissez-faire individualism created plural sovereignty where each property owner made economic decisions, but it produced sordid outcomes that led to trusts and labor organization.
3. 3. Guild socialism, as proposed by G. D. H. Cole, claims to be non-coercive but actually reserves extensive coercive powers for its Commune, including price fixing, resource allocation, taxation, and control of armed forces.
4. 4. Cole's guild socialism does not rely on a miracle from abolishing capitalist property; instead, it focuses on a new theory of democracy based on functional representation from the workshop.
5. 5. The shop, as the natural unit of industrial democracy, is thoroughly entangled in external relations that transcend direct experience, making its opinions about the whole industry subject to limitations of access and self-interest.
6. 6. Functional representation does not escape the problem of representation: representatives must conceive a common interest beyond their group's direct experience, just as in orthodox democracy.
7. 7. Cole assumes a settled scheme of functions that harmonizes society, but such a scheme is not obvious; defining it becomes the main business of politics, undermining the premise of voluntary coordination.
8. 8. Cole's assumption that uninstructed voters will waive their right to vote is naive; in reality, uninformed voters can be mobilized by political machines, leading to passionate elections over the Commune's extensive powers.
9. 9. If trade unions define functions after a revolutionary struggle, they become vested interests with strategic power, requiring a strong Commune to coordinate them, which contradicts the non-coercive ideal.