Source: Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism, 1918, Introduction


 両者のかかる実情から、それぞれの短所を補うのは、 ギルド社会主義である。マルクスの国家社会主義には官僚の権力集中と横暴の危険があり、サンディカリストは国家権力を恐怖する余り別の危険を生む。これら二種の危険に対して、ギルド社会主義は、国内的にも、国際的にも、権限委譲を実行して民主制と連合制を通じて、危険・難局を克服する。生産団体は、団体内部の民主化・産業自治を行い、外部団体間の利害対立問題は、国民的立場に立つ中立的仲裁機構によって調整する。これにより、国家官僚の権力悪生産団体の対立も防止され、「自由への道」が開かれる。
(My own opinion -- which I may as well indicate at the outset -- is that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible, and would not survive more than a year or two at most if it were adopted. On the other hand, both Marxian Socialism and Syndicalism, in spite of many drawbacks, seem to me calculated to give rise to a happier and better world than that in which we live. I do not, however, regard either of them as the best practicable system. Marxian Socialism, I fear, would give far too much power to the State, while Syndicalism, which aims at abolishing the State, would, I believe, find itself forced to reconstruct a central authority in order to put an end to the rivalries of different groups of producers. The best practicable system, to my mind, is that of Guild Socialism, which concedes what is valid both in the claims of the State Socialists and in the Syndicalist fear of the State, by adopting a system of federalism among trades for reasons similar to those which are recommending federalism among nations. The grounds for these conclusions will appear as we proceed. ... 後略 ...)