War-Time Financial Problems

by Hartley Withers

"4. A claim upon the product of his work, also exercised in co-operation with his fellows."

Now, looking with a most dispassionate eye and an eager desire to find out what it is that Labour and its spokesmen are grouping after, can one find in these "marks of degraded status" any serious evil, or anything that is capable of remedy under any conceivable economic system? In all of them the wage-earner is on exactly the same footing as the salary-earner or the professional piece-worker. The labour of the manager of the works can also be abstracted from the manager, and can be bought and sold apart from him. One would have thought that this fact is rather in favour of the manager and of the wage-earner—or would Mr. Cole prefer that the latter should be bought and sold himself? The salary-earner and the professional are only employed when somebody wants them. The manager's term of employment is longer, but the professional pieceworker, such as I am when I write this article, has usually no contracted term, and is only paid for actual work done. I also have no control over the organisation of the production of Sperling's Journal or any other paper for which I do piecework. I am very glad that it is so, for organising production is a very difficult and complicated and risky business, and from all the risks of it the wage-earner is saved. The salary-earner or the professional, when once his product is turned out and paid for, also surrenders all claim upon the product. What else could any reasonable wage-earner or professional expect or desire? The brickmaker or the doctor cannot, after being paid for making bricks or mending a broken leg, expect still to have the bricks or the leg for his very own. And how much use would they be to him if he could? Unless he were to be allowed to sell them again to somebody else, which, after being once paid for them, would merely be absurd.

But when we come to the remedies that Mr. Cole suggests for these "marks of degraded status," we find in the forefront of them that the worker must be secured "payment as a human being, and not merely as a mortal tenement of so much labour power for which an efficient demand exists." This, especially to an incurably lazy person like myself, is an extremely attractive programme. To be paid, and paid well, merely in return for having "taken the trouble to be born," is an ideal towards which my happiest dreams have ever struggled in vain. But would it work as a practical scheme? Speaking for myself, I can guarantee that under such circumstances I should potter about with many activities that would amuse my delicious leisure, but I doubt whether any of them would be regarded by society as a fit return for the pleasant livelihood that it gave me. And human society can only be supplied with the things that it needs if its members turn out, not what it amuses them to make or produce, but what other people want. And It is here that the National Guildsmen's idea of freedom seems, in my humble judgment, to be entirely unsocial As things are, nobody can make money unless he produces what somebody wants and will pay for. Even the capitalist, if he puts his capital into producing an article for which there is no demand, will get no return on it. In other words, we can only earn economic freedom by doing something that our fellows want us to do, and so co-operating in the work of supplying man's need. (That many of man's needs are stupid and vulgar is most true, but the only way to cure that is to teach him to want something better.) The Guildsmen seem to think that this necessity to make or do something that is wanted implies slavery, and ought to be abolished. They are fond of quoting Rousseau's remark that "man is born free and is everywhere in chains." But is man born free to work as and on what he likes? In a state of Nature man is born—in most climates—under the sternest necessity to work hard to catch or grow his food, to make himself clothes and build himself shelter. And If he ignores this necessity the penalty is death. The notion that man is born with a "right to live" is totally belied by the facts of natural existence. It is encouraged by humanitarian sentiment which, rightly makes society responsible for the subsistence of all those born under its wing; but it is not part of the scheme of the universe.

Such are a few of the weaknesses involved by the theoretical basis on which Guild Socialism is built. When we come to its practical application we find the creed still more unsatisfactory. Even if we grant—an enormous and quite unjustified assumption—that the Guildsman, if he is to be paid merely for being alive, will work hard enough to pay the community for paying him, we have then to ask how and whether he will achieve greater freedom under the Guilds than he has now. Now, freedom is only to be got by work of a kind that somebody wants, and wants enough to pay for it. And so the consumer ultimately decides what work shall be done. The Guildsman says that the producer ought to decide what he shall produce and what is to be done with it when he has produced it. "Under Guild Socialism," says Mr Cole,[1] "as under Syndicalism, the State stands apart from production, and the worker is placed in control." Very well, but what one wants to know is what will happen if the Guilds choose to produce things that nobody wants. Will they and their members be paid all the same? Presumably, since they are to be paid "as human beings" and not because there is a demand for their work. But if so, what will happen to the Guildsman as consumer? There will be no freedom about his choice of things that he would like to enjoy. And what about admission to membership of a Guild, the price at which the Guilds will exchange products one with another, and the provision of capital? The nearest approach to an answer to these questions is given by Messrs Bechhofer and Reckitt in Chapter VIII, of the "Meaning of National Guilds." This chapter describes "National Guilds in Being." It tells us that "each man will be free to choose his Guild," which sounds very pleasant, but is completely spoilt by the end of the sentence, which says "and actual entrance will depend on the demand for labour." It sounds just like a capitalistic factory. And then—"Labour in dirty industries, sewaging, etc.—will probably be in the main of a temporary character, and will be undertaken by those who are for the time unable to obtain an entry elsewhere." Most sensible, but where is the freedom? The Guildsman will not be able to do the work that he wants to do unless there is a demand for that kind of labour, and in the meantime, just like the unemployed in the days of darkness, he will be set to cleaning the streets and flushing the drains. Messrs. Bechhofer and Reckitt are, in fact, so sensible and practical that they abandon altogether the freedom of the producer to produce what he likes. "Indeed," they write, "a query often brought to confound National Guildsmen is this: What would happen to a National Guild that began to work wholly according to its own pleasure without regard to the other Guilds and the rest of the community? We may reply, first, that this spirit would be as unnatural among the Guilds as it is natural nowadays with the present anti-communal, capitalist system of industry" (but under the present system any one who worked without regard to the rest of the community would very soon be in the hands of a Receiver); "secondly, if it did arise in any Guild, this contempt for the rest of the community would be met by the concerted action of the other Guilds. The dependence of any individual Guild upon the others would be necessarily so great that a recalcitrant Guild would find itself at once in a most difficult position, and a Guild that pressed forward demands that were generally felt by the rest of the community to be impossible or unreasonable would soon be brought back into line again."

[Footnote 1: "The Meaning of Industrial Freedom," page 39.]

Of course; but if so, where is the Guildsman's alleged freedom? Every Guild and every Guildsman would have to adapt himself to the wants of the community, just as all of us who work for our living have to do now. He would be no more free than I am, and I am no more free than the person who is sometimes described as a "wage slave." The Guildsman might be happier in the feeling that he worked for a Guild rather than a capitalist employer, but this is by no means certain. The writers just quoted show with much frankness and good sense that there would be plenty of opening for friction, suspicion, discontent and strikes. "A Guild," they say, "that thought itself ill-used by its fellows would be able to signify its displeasure by the threat of a strike." The officials of the Guild are to be chosen by the "men best qualified to judge" of their ability, whoever they may be, and every such choice would be ratified by the workers who are to be affected by it. "The Guild would build up in this way a pyramid of officers, each chosen by the grade immediately below that which he is to occupy," Did not the Bolsheviks try something like this system, with results that were not conducive to efficient production? And to meet the danger that the officials as a whole might combine "in a huge conspiracy against the rank and file," Messrs Bechhofer and Reckitt can only suggest vigilance committees within the Guilds. In a word, Guild Socialism seems to be a system that might possibly be worked by a set of ideally perfect beings; but as folk are in this workaday world one can only doubt whether it would be conducive either to freedom, efficiency or a pleasant life for those who lived under it.

XV

POST-WAR FINANCE

November, 1918

Taxation after the War—Mr. Hoare's Scheme described and analysed—The Position of the Rentier—Estimates of the Post-War Debt—The Compulsory Loan Proposal—What Advantages has it over a Levy on Capital?—The Argument from Social Justice—Questions still to be answered—The Choice between a Levy and Stiff Taxation—Are we still a Creditor Nation?—Our Debt not a Hopeless Problem—Suggestions for solving it.