Syndicalism was "theory-ridden," Cole said; the guild socialists would make it practical. Hobson assured the Trades Union Congress, "We have been at pains to elaborate a constructive programme." Their efforts to bring syndicalism gently down to earth, however—as we can see with the benefit of hindsight—were more likely to end in a fatal plunge into a jungle of proposals and counterproposals, recommendations and revisions, organizational blueprints and paper constitutions, in which the clear light of moral purpose seldom shone. The more the guild socialists struggled to fill in all the details of an ideal scheme of government, the more ground they had to concede to the Fabians' demand for facts and figures, workable reforms, clearly articulated rules and regulations, demonstrable proofs that social justice would not interfere with economic efficiency.

In Guild Socialism Restated (1920), Cole tried to spell out procedures under which the workers in each industry would elect their managers, legal safeguards against arbitrary dismissal of managers, mechanisms that would regulate the relations among the various guilds, the coordinating powers of the Congress of Industrial Guilds, the scheme of representation that would protect consumers from exploitation by the guilds, the conditions under which small farmers and independent proprietors would be permitted to exist, and all the difficulties that would have to be considered during the intervening period of "transition" to a fully developed socialist state. No one could have accused him of expressing ideas "artistically and dramatically." If he proved nothing else, he proved that he and his fellow "guildsmen" could make socialism almost as dull as the Fabians made it.

He admitted that a "discussion of the methods of choosing leaders under a democratic industrial system may seem to be somewhat dull and detailed." He remained unshaken, however, in the belief that it was necessary "to state the case" for socialism "in a more practical way." He knew that "any picture ... of the working of social organization" was far "from being a picture of the real life of the community," since it left out the "unorganized spirit of the people." He knew that "a theorist who sets out to plan a social system for the future cannot call up this spirit, although he knows that his work, because of its absence, runs a big risk of seeming unreal and out of touch with the deepest human needs." As a democrat, Cole could not afford to ignore those needs, as the Fabians did. As long as he accepted the constraints of British political discourse, how

-323-