Guilds and Unions

[StoneFrog]

Whats the difference? I'm talking about guilds in the Guild Socialist term, i know nothing about this type of socialism. Only thing that it was some sort of libertarian socialist thought, based on the use of Guilds of workers gaining control.

[syndicat]

the guilds were to be the organizations for worker self-management of an industry. this is not a union. a union is an organization of struggle by workers in the context of class society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why did it take so long, until 1983, for a more appropriate term to describe "guild socialism" to emerge, in the form of labour collectives?

Seriously, the word "guild" reeks of craft monopolies, closed shops, top-down apprenticeships, etc.

[syndicat]

Why did it take so long, until 1983, for a more appropriate term to describe "guild socialism" to emerge, in the form of labour collectives?



more of your usual meaningless babble. the industrial federations of the Spanish anarchosyndicalists in the '30s were the same as the industrial guilds.

Moreover, you ignore what was innovative about guild socialism: the concept that allocation and pricing and determination of what is produced is to come out a process social negotiation between people as producers and as consumers, not thru central planning. this idea was forgotten by the socialist movement during the fad for statist planning in the '30s to '50s, but then was revived in a more plausible form by participatory planning, developed in the '70s.

[Die Neue Zeit]

more of your usual meaningless babble.

I was referring to the Andropov's brief experiment in the Soviet Union known as the Law on Labour Collectives ("the Law does not provide for an anarcho-syndicalist system of management").

[syndicat]

I was referring to the Andropov's brief experiment in the Soviet Union known as the Law on Labour Collectives ("the Law does not provide for an anarcho-syndicalist system of management").

guild socialism had nothing in common with bureaucratic class rule in the USSR. guild socialism was a syndicalist viewpoint that advocated workers self-management of production. this is very clear in the writings of GDH Cole, such as "Guild Socialism Restated" and "Self-government in Industry".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Moreover, you ignore what was innovative about guild socialism: the concept that allocation and pricing and determination of what is produced is to come out a process social negotiation between people as producers and as consumers, not thru central planning.

Except that, today, when people heard of guilds, it's usually negative awareness of feudal guilds, populist cynicism towards certain monopolistic or oligopolistic professional associations today (lawyers, doctors, etc.), hostility towards closed shop union arrangements (like my position in my thread), or generic anti-union sentiments.


guild socialism had nothing in common with bureaucratic class rule in the USSR. guild socialism was a syndicalist viewpoint that advocated workers self-management of production. this is very clear in the writings of GDH Cole, such as "Guild Socialism Restated" and "Self-government in Industry".

I think you give Labour Collectives less credit than they deserve. My beef with them is that the managers also belonged to those same Labour Collectives when they shouldn't have.

[caramelpence]

Except that, today, when people heard of guilds, it's usually negative awareness of feudal guilds, populist cynicism towards certain monopolistic or oligopolistic professional associations today (lawyers, doctors, etc.), hostility towards closed shop union arrangements (like my position in my thread), or generic anti-union sentiments.

Look, I've noticed this is a common theme to your posts - you are incessantly concerned about the connotations of words, you think that the language of socialists has to be adjusted in order to have as much populist appeal as possible, you think that people can be pulled towards socialism if our language is tailored in such a way that it plays on their existing ideological assumptions and beliefs, e.g. through your trash about "pan nationalism". Your basic assumption seems to be that socialism is essentially a marketing exercise - a process of selling something by couching it in desirable terms. This is a grossly patronizing and flawed way of understanding the socialist project, it ignores the centrality of self-emancipation and (as part of the concept of self-emancipation) the importance of working people having an understanding of what socialism and the socialist revolution involve. When Marx said "Communists do not conceal their aims" he did not mean that Communists should dress up our objectives with nonsensical rhetoric that is designed to con people into supporting a revolution - because if people are entering into a revolutionary process based on a set of populist or intentionally deceitful appeals rather than through a rational and developed understanding of what socialism means, then they almost inevitably will not be able to participate fully in the development of an emancipatory society and will continue to be the objects of manipulation by elitist forces of the kind that you celebrate.

We shouldn't be concerned about the contemporary or historic connotations of the word "guild", or whether we should call Guild Socialism something else, we should be concerned with what the tradition of Guild Socialism has to offer to a contemporary vision of an emancipatory society, in terms of its substantive content and proposals.

[Paulappaul]

DNZ, the Guild Socialists were afraid of the perception of Guild as corresponding to the Feudal Conception, so they often wrote Guild as "GILD" rather then the traditional style.

Syndicat, how is Guild Socialism a tendency of Syndicalism? Guild Socialism seemed more a tendency of Utopian Socialism, where the movement had its origins. It never put emphasis on Class Struggle in the form of Unions, rather it held the belief of building guilds now and transforming society through that matter.

[syndicat]

Syndicat, how is Guild Socialism a tendency of Syndicalism? Guild Socialism seemed more a tendency of Utopian Socialism, where the movement had its origins. It never put emphasis on Class Struggle in the form of Unions, rather it held the belief of building guilds now and transforming society through that matter.

Syndicalism had a major growth among labor militants in the UK in the period between early 1900s and World War 1, as it did in a lot of countries. GHD Cole's criticism of them wasn't their emphasis on class struggle, but that they didn't have an adequate vision in terms of how people as citizens and consumers would be accounted for in a self-managing socialist society. In his writings Cole does not refer back to utopian socilaist literature but looks more at the idea of direct participation in writers such as Rousseau.

it's true that the guild socialists did advocate building industrial guilds as cooperatives at the present time. but this doesn't take away the fact that they were responding to the growing call for "workers management" or "workers control" that was a defining feature of syndicalism. moreover, "Guild Socialism Restated" looks at guild socialism as a complete socialist society. It's stated in a way that is independent of the strategy for bringing it about. That's also a similarity to Albert & Hahnel's writings about participatory economics. stated that way, it could influence both syndicalists and cooperativists.

DNZ:

I think you give Labour Collectives less credit than they deserve. My beef with them is that the managers also belonged to those same Labour Collectives when they shouldn't have.


more of your apologetics for bureaucratic class schemes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ, the Guild Socialists were afraid of the perception of Guild as corresponding to the Feudal Conception, so they often wrote Guild as "GILD" rather then the traditional style.

Syndicat, how is Guild Socialism a tendency of Syndicalism? Guild Socialism seemed more a tendency of Utopian Socialism, where the movement had its origins. It never put emphasis on Class Struggle in the form of Unions, rather it held the belief of building guilds now and transforming society through that matter.

That raises the rhetorical question: what's the difference between "Gild Socialism" (thanks) and Proudhon-style anti-political coop schemes?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your basic assumption seems to be that socialism is essentially a marketing exercise - a process of selling something by couching it in desirable terms.

As if dull non-worker academics and boring lectures aimed at the Student Left, being deficient in both political education and political agitation, have done much in the way of things. :glare:


When Marx said "Communists do not conceal their aims" he did not mean that Communists should dress up our objectives with nonsensical rhetoric that is designed to con people into supporting a revolution

You can't get any more consistent with not concealing aims than Social Proletocracy. :)

[caramelpence]

As if dull non-worker academics and boring lectures aimed at the Student Left, being deficient in both political education and political agitation, have done much in the way of things. :glare:

I didn't mention the "Student Left". I think that Communists should be open about their aims and I think that a socialist society depends on working people having a consciousness of their own interests and an understanding of what social and economic institutions should be designed to achieve. Most of your posts smack of the marketing exercise approach I outlined above. That approach treats people as if they need to be engaged with through emotional or aesthetic appeals that put them in an essentially passive position, rather than being able to take on an active role in the articulation and pursuit of their interests. Emotion and symbology necessarily have important roles in political life, especially during periods of revolution, and we should expect revolution to be a passionate affair rather than the product of intellectual reflection or dialogue, but part of the historical novelty of the socialist revolution is that it involves the ascendant class having an understanding of its goals and it involves the complete transformation of social relations, whereas previous revolutions, especially the bourgeois revolution, involved the completion or extension of processes that had already taken place within the framework of the old society, and for those reasons it demands a greater level of organization, consciousness, and agency on the part of its participants.


You can't get any more consistent with not concealing aims than Social Proletocracy. :)

This is a nonsensical term you've made up. Nothing new there, then.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is a nonsensical term you've made up. Nothing new there, then.

There is the tendency these days to modernize labour and related jargon into more accessible language for younger people.


Most of your posts smack of the marketing exercise approach I outlined above. That approach treats people as if they need to be engaged with through emotional or aesthetic appeals that put them in an essentially passive position, rather than being able to take on an active role in the articulation and pursuit of their interests.

They can participate once they "buy" into the appeal or, as I prefer to put it, "get on with the program." Until then, participation is meant for those with clearer heads, such as the authors of the Eisenach Program of the Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany (who knew that without a revolutionary program there could be no revolutionary movement).


it involves the ascendant class having an understanding of its goals and it involves the complete transformation of social relations, whereas previous revolutions, especially the bourgeois revolution, involved the completion or extension of processes that had already taken place within the framework of the old society, and for those reasons it demands a greater level of organization, consciousness, and agency on the part of its participants

I agree with you entirely, but 1968 spontaneism, Portuguese and other worker council fetishes, etc. are hardly the way to go for "greater level of organization, consciousness, and agency" in comparison to the institutions of the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD.

[MarxSchmarx]

Look, I've noticed this is a common theme to your posts - you are incessantly concerned about the connotations of words, you think that the language of socialists has to be adjusted in order to have as much populist appeal as possible, you think that people can be pulled towards socialism if our language is tailored in such a way that it plays on their existing ideological assumptions and beliefs, e.g. through your trash about "pan nationalism". Your basic assumption seems to be that socialism is essentially a marketing exercise - a process of selling something by couching it in desirable terms. This is a grossly patronizing and flawed way of understanding the socialist project, it ignores the centrality of self-emancipation and (as part of the concept of self-emancipation) the importance of working people having an understanding of what socialism and the socialist revolution involve. When Marx said "Communists do not conceal their aims" he did not mean that Communists should dress up our objectives with nonsensical rhetoric that is designed to con people into supporting a revolution - because if people are entering into a revolutionary process based on a set of populist or intentionally deceitful appeals rather than through a rational and developed understanding of what socialism means, then they almost inevitably will not be able to participate fully in the development of an emancipatory society and will continue to be the objects of manipulation by elitist forces of the kind that you celebrate.

We shouldn't be concerned about the contemporary or historic connotations of the word "guild", or whether we should call Guild Socialism something else, we should be concerned with what the tradition of Guild Socialism has to offer to a contemporary vision of an emancipatory society, in terms of its substantive content and proposals.


This is pretty OT, but you underestimate the power of rhetoric. This is one major reason why the right has been as electorally successful as it has in the last 30 years in the west. Modern linguistics and psychology have shown (quite convincingly, IMO) that human thought especially of a political nature has very concrete patterns quite different from rather vaguely formulated classical 18th century assertions about "rationalism" that guided and still guides far too much socialist writing. Recognizing this fact, and tuning our discourse to more effectively communicate our vision is not patronizing. In fact, I think more than antiquated slogans and allusions, an emphasis on maximizing the efficacy of our message does more to illuminate our aims.

Sure, if people are confused and muddled and somehow "tricked" into socialism then the whole socialist project won't work. But frankly that's something of a strawman. No leftist worth their salt would engage in snake oil sales to artificially inflate the value of socialism.

I may not approach it the way DNZ might, but then again, I think his broader point that we need to choose our words carefully and communicate effectively to people who aren't already sold on the socialist project is valid and well taken.

[caramelpence]

This is pretty OT, but you underestimate the power of rhetoric. This is one major reason why the right has been as electorally successful as it has in the last 30 years in the west

Yeah, the right has and does deploy the rhetoric of fear and sensationalism in its electioneering and that's been part of its success during a prolonged period of working-class defeat, and my contention is that the communist project shouldn't be viewed in the same terms as the politics of the bourgeois parties and that communists shouldn't see it as necessary to operate according to the same rules and assumptions as those who serve as the ideologues of the bourgeois order - which include the assumption that working people should occupy an essentially passive role in relation to political institutions. Neither do I think that the communist project will triumph through some kind of dialogic process that takes place in a neat discursive space. The working class doesn't need to be lectured to by intellectuals or by demagogues, it can acquire an understanding of its position and goals through the process of struggle itself, that's part of the meaning of the working class transforming itself from a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself. Put simply, working people won't become revolutionaries because the newspapers of ten-member socialist parties are glossy and have exciting headlines, the working class will become an explicitly revolutionary agent, as opposed to an agent that is only implicitly revolutionary and which resists its conditions only in inchoate ways, when the right historical conditions compel it to revolt against its conditions and when leadership emerges from within the ranks of the working class itself.


There is the tendency these days to modernize labour and related jargon into more accessible language for younger people.

Patronizing crap, and besides the point - if you think it's appropriate, use technical language, but your language isn't technical, it's not part of any scholarly or specialist vocabulary, because you've made it up. No-one outside of this website knows or cares to know about your bizarre and irritating vocabulary. No dictionary, anywhere in the world, contains the term Social Proletocracy.


They can participate once they "buy" into the appeal or, as I prefer to put it, "get on with the program."

Working people will participate in economic and political struggle whether they have your permission or not. You don't seem to get that.


in comparison to the institutions of the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD.

The USPD was a vacillating party of parliamentary Marxism and the SPD betrayed the international working class - so what makes you possibly think that these are valuable models? On a more general note, you clearly adore the SPD, and yet you always specify the pre-war SPD, to make it clear that you don't support its betrayal in spite of the nationalist tendencies that you've shown in other threads, but why exactly do you think that the SPD did commit such a momentous betrayal in 1914? Do you not think it could have had something to do with the organization or activity of the party before that date, like the fact that it was already overwhelmingly focused on electoral activity and that people such as Bernstein had already been proposing a chauvinist and quasi-nationalist line on colonial policy, or do you think it just happened to throw everything aside and commit itself to war as a result of the sudden weakness of its parliamentary deputies?

[Jose Gracchus]

The latter. He's an idealist system-builder. He acts as if the SPD was dominated by the parliamentary fraction, and the CPSU by its administrative apparatus due to empty ideological choices, made in a vacuum, not part-and-parcel their class and historical basis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, the right has and does deploy the rhetoric of fear and sensationalism in its electioneering and that's been part of its success during a prolonged period of working-class defeat, and my contention is that the communist project shouldn't be viewed in the same terms as the politics of the bourgeois parties and that communists shouldn't see it as necessary to operate according to the same rules and assumptions as those who serve as the ideologues of the bourgeois order - which include the assumption that working people should occupy an essentially passive role in relation to political institutions. Neither do I think that the communist project will triumph through some kind of dialogic process that takes place in a neat discursive space. The working class doesn't need to be lectured to by intellectuals or by demagogues

As I said earlier, a lot of left groups don't get "Educate! Agitate! Organize!" correctly. Those that are stuck in the rut of "Agitate! Agitate! Agitate!" can't even get agitation correctly, which includes sensationalism and, for
the most backward elements of the working class, should further include demagogic conspiracy theory agitation (chambers of commerce, federations of small businesses, etc.).


it can acquire an understanding of its position and goals through the process of struggle itself

Been there, done that, let's grow genuine political struggles and the subset of genuine class struggles from mere labour disputes and other lower-order economic struggles - never worked in the long run.


Do you not think it could have had something to do with the organization or activity of the party before that date, like the fact that it was already overwhelmingly focused on electoral activity and that people such as Bernstein had already been proposing a chauvinist and quasi-nationalist line on colonial policy, or do you think it just happened to throw everything aside and commit itself to war as a result of the sudden weakness of its parliamentary deputies?

Those of us who know the SPD's pre-war history know that it was the influx of tred-iunionisty personnel into the party bureaucracy and accommodation to their whims in the mid 1900s (equal standing between the party and the SPD-affiliated unions) that led to 1914.


The latter. He's an idealist system-builder.

I'm not a philosophical idealist. I do, however, stress the underrated role of policy choices and organizational mechanisms.

[StoneFrog]

*Yawn*:rolleyes: