XIII. Attempts at Socialism

CHAPTER XIII ATTEMPTS AT SOCIALISM IT is important to emphasise that after eight or nine years, during which the entire political power of the nation, the vast financial strength of the taxpayer and the undivided force of public opinion have been behind the housing effort, the problem of housing accommodation, instead of improving, has gone from bad to worse. In January, 1927, two different statements, each having at its back unquestioned authority, showed this to be the case. The Housing Committee of the London County Council, in its report presented on January 25th, showed that the estimated shortage of houses in Greater London, which in 1919 was 50,000, had grown by September, 1926, to 62,000, this notwithstanding the supreme effort of years to which reference has been made already and, indeed, the most successful of all the public housing efforts. On February 6th, 1927, Mr. George Hicks, Chair man of the Trades Union Congress and General Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers, in an interview with The West minster Gazette , gave it as his opinion that the shortage of houses in the country had by then grown to the alarming figure of 2,000,000. How long will it take the public to realise that the politicians are robbing us of houses and making the position worse and worse?

Perhaps none of the fantastic experiments in political building has been more interesting than the attempt in 1920 and 192I to project a building IS3 154 The Return to Laisser Faire guild. There was a time when the Guild Socialists seemed likely to secure control of the Socialist party. They boasted perhaps more literary ability than any other Socialist group, and one or two very charming books were written explaining the delights of life under a system of Guild Socialism. Thanks no doubt to the appeal of this literary effort, the bureaucrats of 1920, encouraged by Mr. Lloyd George, and the Trade Union officials, launched to~ gether the most perfect and complete experiment in Guild Socialism ever attempted. Both in Man chester and in London building guilds were formed, and thousands of pounds of the taxpayers' money were' wasted on the salaries of doctrinaire bureau crats' who went to absurd lengths in the making of agreements and the concluding of arrangements none of which, sa far as I am aware, lasted for even a couple of years. I do not know whether there are any Guild Socialists to-day, but the history of the building guild movement should be more widely known than it appears to be. This building guild is unlike all the many other experiments in Social ism and Communism, from the Robert Owen days onwards, in that it had behind it the help and en couragement of no less a power than the British Government itself. -I give the story in some detail as toldin the newspapers at the time.

" The scheme," says The Times of January 15th, 1920, was" received as though it were an Apoca lyptic vision pointing labour to a new earth' '-' and the enthusiasm does not appear to 'have been less Attempts at Socialism ISS complete among the officials of the Ministry of Health. " The idea," says The TitJIzesin the same article, " is to set up in Manchester a Building Guild Com mittee representing all the building trade unions, but composed of as few members as possible. It is hoped that the membership will be limited to ten or twelve, including a representative from the adminis trativeside and another from the technical and architectural side. The nucleus of this committee already exists, and has made a tentative offer to the Housing Committee of the city to build. 2,000 houses. " The advocates of the proposal assert that the organised workers in the industry can erect houses more quickly and more cheaply if they can establish conditions which exclude the profiteer. The Man chester City surveyor estimates that the average bricklayer will build six houses a year, but leaders of the Guild Committee assert that under their scheme a man will erect nine houses a year. l'he city surveyor's calculation is that the building of an artisan's house to-day will cost £ 940; the Guild Committee's calculation is that they could put up a better house for £ 800.

" They foresee no difficulty in the organisation of. labour. Democratic control presents no very great problems to them. They would apply democratic principles to the appointment of all the officials, from the chief director downwards. The foremen might be appointed by the Guild Committee or by the men engaged on the particular job. They see 156 The Return· to Laisser Faire little advantage in the one method over the other, so long as the result is the carrying on of the work with the assent and goodwill of the workers. Voluntary obedience to ·conditions the men themselves frame will, in the opinion of the Guild promoters, be more effective in promoting industry than reluctant obedi ence to capitalist authority. They also say they could set their scheme in operation in a month. " It is proposed that the Guild should tender for and accept contracts to build artisans' houses. At this point, where the Guild begins to get in touch with established authorities, and perhaps with antagonist organisations, difficulties multiply, but the Guild advocates' final answer to them all is based on the monopoly of labour that the Guild would pos sess. To indicate what is in their minds, let it be imagined that the brickmakers withheld supplies of bricks. The Guild would reply by stopping all use of bricks in the area governed by the bodies consti tuting the Guild.

"The relations with the Housing Committee would require exact definition. One thing made quite definite is that the Guild would not enter into any financial guarantee. The building contracts would be on the lines proposed for private builders and approved organisations, the price being deter mined by actual cost, plus a percentage to include overhead charges and net profit. The Guild would be on the same footing as associated contractors, but it is contended that while it is right and proper that the private builder should enter into a bond, because his financial stability must be guaranteed, all that it Attempts at Socialism 157 is necessary for the Building Guild Committee to guarantee is the supply of labour. The essential thing, so the argument runs, is the building of houses. The Guild would control the labour to build them, and, having furnished proof of that con trol, should not be called upon to give any other guarantee. In the language of the writers on Guild Socialism, group credit, based on the power to pro duce, should be substituted for bank credit, based upon the purchasing power of gold.

" A further difficulty arises out of the disability of trade unions to engage in trade. It is therefore pro posed that the Guilds should tender through a nominee or alternatively should assume legal powers and responsibilities as a partnership. " Less than six months later, this absurd arrange ment, fantastic beyond anything that has since been tried in Moscow, was elevated to the dignity of an agreement with the British Government, and the fol lowing general statement was issued by the Minister of Health on June 6th, 1920: " The attitude of the Ministry of Health towards the Building Guild principle has from the start been one of sympathy; but several difficulties of detail presented themselves for solution before the Minis try could feel fully justified in approving it. The Guilds' position in reference .to the purchase of materials, for example, was not clearly defined. The Co-operative Wholesale Society, however, have now agreed to give the Guilds the assistance of their extensive organisation, and it is hoped that a satis factory arrangement may be reached.

158 The Return to LaisserFaire " There was some difficulty also as to the form of remuneration to be received by the Guilds for their work. At first they adopted the proposal of re muneration by a simple percentage on the cost of the work done, not fully realising certain disadvantages of this method which are not removed· by the fact that the guilds, while proposing to confer on their members the benefit of continuous employment and payment, do not intend any distribution in the nature of bonus or profit. Under such a system of simple percentage payment on cost it might easily happen, in connection with a scheme well and economically managed, that there would be an inadequate fund for this purpose; and that, in another scheme which was less carefully conducted, with consequent high costs, the fund was more than sufficient. Both re sults would be unsatisfactory. The Ministry desire that the amount which was to go as remuneration or extra benefit to labour should be a fixed sum per house; a plan which would secure that the benefit would be at least a little in favour of the well managed, economical· schemes.

" The portion of the percentage which, under the proposal, was allotted to cover costs of management, plant, insurance, and other overhead charges and any surplus, which by the rules of the Guild is not to be distributed in benefits, but is to be used solely to improve the plant and services of the Guild, is not subject to the same objection, and the Ministry are willing to accept a percentage basis for this for the present, though experience may show some simpler way of dealing with this also. The question of Attempts at Socialism 159 obtaining from the Guilds some definite estimate of costs and some suitable guarantee, so far as circum stances now permit, that the work would be carried out to estimate, also needed settlement. "Several conferences have recently been held between representatives of the Guilds and officers of the Ministry of Health with a view to arriving at a satisfactory working basis. The promoters of the Manchester organisation, on learning the Ministry's views, proved quite ready to agree to certain modi fications of their proposals. An agreement has now been reached, and it is of importance as illustrating principles which may prove capable of more ex tended application.

" The Guild have agreed to give a definite esti mate of cost for each type of house. This estimate must be regarded as reasonable by both the parties concerned-· the Guild and the local authority-· and must be approved by the Ministry. The Guild's re muneration will be by a lump sum of £ 40 per house -to provide for a full-time week (regardless of weather) for those employed on the contract and for other purposes of the Guild. A further allowance of 6 per cent. on the prime cost of the house will be made to cover the cost of plant and other overhead charges, such as salaries of buyers, supervisors and others who are not wholly employed on the building site. " In the event of the actual cost of a house prov ing less than the estimated cost, the actual cost only, plus the £ 40 and the 6 per cent. overhead charges, will be paid by the local authority. The Guild 160 The Return to Laisser Faire recognise and agree that in any case the 6 per cent.

for overhead charges should not be paid on any in crease in the cost of· materials taking place during the progress of the work, although for the purpose of determining whether the estimate has been ex ceeded or not, fluctuations in the standard rates of labour and prices of materials will be allowed for. " If the actual cost should prove to be more· than the estimated cost, after the usual allowance for the fluctuation in wages, rates and prices; the Guild will receive the £ 40 as above, but the 6 per cent. will not be payable on the amount of the extra cost. " The.agreement provides also that the Co-opera tive Wholesale Society may be associated in the contract for the purchase of materials. The con tract must include a break clause allowing the con tract to be broken after three months if the costs should exceed the estimate by more than any in crease that has occurred in the meantime in the rates of wages and in the standard cost of materials. The Co-operative Wholesale Society, on being satisfied with the contract, will insure the local authority against loss under the contract for an insurance premium of one-eighth per cent., 2S. 6d. per £ 100.

The Guild are.in agreement with the Ministry that a proper costing system shall be adopted.'~ Exactly ten days later, on June 16th, 1920, the London Building Guild announced that it was in being. Its ambitious scheme to build houses for London and, indeed, for the nation, on the Guild principle, was outlined in a pamphlet issued by the Attempts at Socialism 161 National Federation of Building Trades Opera tives. This pamphlet explained that: "The first and immediate duty of the Guild is to mobilise the necessary labour to build the houses so urgently needed by the· nation, and to build· them in the best possible manner at the lowest possible cost." The constitution of the Guild set out its objects, the first three of which were (1) .To carryon the in dustry of builders, decorators and general contrac tors; (2) To undertake all branches of suppl y, whether as merchant, manufacturer, or transporter; (3) To carryon any other work which the Society may think necessary or desirable in connection with the above objects.

It is important to notice that apart from all the building trade unions and the Ministry of Health, the Guild. scheme was backed by the wealth of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, thus removing any question of inability to succeed through lack of finance. A few days after the conclusion of the agreement with the Ministry, The Times announced that .~, a housing contract for some hundreds of thousands of pounds has been given to the newly-formed London Builders' Guild by one of the Metropolitan local authorities, and negotiations are proceeding with a view to contracts of a similar character in the near future."· Within eighteen months the guild idea had· ex ploded.The trade unions declined to find a penny to support it. Labour fell away, the C.W.S. with drew, and what remained of the organisation was 11 162 The Return to Laisser Faire ignominiously sold to a private contractor. The Labour Publishing Co., in 1923, published The Builders' History, by R. W. Postgate, which tells the dismal story in detail.

Similarly, at the height of the building guild en thusiasm, the furniture workers were smitten with the same ideas and ideals and a furniture guild was established in September, 1921. It went into bank ruptcyeighteen months later, in March, 1923. I mention,.this minor example because the making of furniture is a much simpler process than the making of houses. It not only requires less money, but it is not so involved in complications such as land and legislation. It is therefore valuable to know that the guild idea, tried in two distinct fields, differing as widely as houses and furniture, having behind it in each case the support of the trade unions at the very height of their power and, further, having in each case the friendly co-operation of the Govern ment, ended in complete fiasco in less than a couple of years. The politician never profits by experience, never learns from failure. 'The 1920-2 I building guild ex periment did not differ in essentials from many similar experiments in Communism. It had, in deed, the advantage of a previous experiment in building when, inspired by Robert Owen, the Operative Builders' Union in 1833 formed a guild in Birmingham. Birmingham, however, even in those early days, did better than Manchester or London, in that the guild did at least build a "guild hall" for itself, whereas the same social movement A'ttempts at Socialism of the twentieth century leaves no traces of its activi ties behind it.

While the trade unions, the Socialists and the Government departments were willing to put all their e.nergy and influence into a fantastic scheme for establishing industry upon a basis of Communism, none of these great public forces have been willing to give any real support or have shown any reason able interest in schemes for alternative methods of building. Wooden houses, concrete houses and steel houses, to say nothing of numerous minor ex periments in pressed earth and breeze blocks, have all failed to receive encouragement, to put the matter quite mildly. Several serious attempts at mass production have been rendered abortive, generally by trade union action, but more frequently by national stupidity. There have been schemes for importing wooden houses complete, but these were not likely to succeed in a market where even the im portation of wooden doors and window frames is practical1 y .stopped by the close combination of masters and men. There are a few cases, but very few, where these difficulties have been overcome.

Sir Tudor Walters, working quietly in the South Yorkshire coalfield, has built thousands of cottages in model villages, described in his book The Build ing 01 Ten Thousand Houses, on lines that might well have been adopted allover the country. We have seen that the building trade furnishes perhaps our best example of the folly of a policy of restriction. By a study of its history one can see how one restriction leads to another and in the end to 164 The Return to Laisser Faire the. disappearance of liberty itself. Our . housing troubles began with the early Housing Acts as long as seventy years ago. Those Acts have led to some hundreds of amending Acts, everyone of them pur porting to "house the working classes." Restric tions upon building by legislation lead easily and naturally to restrictions upon building labour by trade unions. The next step, even easier-· for every slippery slope becomes easier the further we descend -is the formation of trade rings. Having a market limited by legislation and a capacity limited by union restrictions, it becomes almost a necessity for the suppliers of materials to make arrangements for the regulation and limitation of their contributions to the scheme. All this failing to act, we now have joint councils and are· threatened with an extension of the idea of joint responsibility. Responsibility is perhaps hardly the word, for none of these monop olists are in practice responsible to the rest of us who want the houses. The result of it all is a dwindling industry with an ever-growing shortage. This con dition of affairs will remain as long as the public rests under the impression that houses can be built with votes, and forgets that the attempts at Social ism which have actually been made in our own time have inevitably failed to produce the goods.