The fatal flaw of guild socialism is this separation of economics and politics. First, the interests of citizenship and guild-membership are not distinct; secondly, in any proper system of occupational representation every one should be included—vocational representation should not be trade representation; third, as long as you call the affairs of the guilds “material,” and say that the politics of the state should be purified of financial interests, you burn every bridge which might make a unity of financial interests and sound state policy. Guild socialism, however, because it is a carefully worked out plan for the control of industry by those who take part in it, is one of the most well worth considering of the proposals at present before us. Footnote 99: See G. D. H. Cole, “The World of Labor,” for the relation of trade unionism to guild socialism. Footnote 100: See especially “Churches in the Modern State” and “Studies in Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius.” Footnote 101: See also Mr. Laski’s articles: “The Personality of Associations,” Harv. Law Rev. 29, 404–426, and “Early History of the Corporation in England,” Harv. Law Rev.: 30, 561–588. This is the kind of work which is breaking the way for a new conception of politics. Footnote 102: It must be understood that all I say does not apply to all the pluralists. For the sake of brevity I consider them as a school although they differ widely. Moreover, for convenience I am using the word pluralist roughly and in a sense inaccurately to include all those who are advocating a multiple group organization as the basis of a new state. Most of these agree in making the group rather than the individual the unit of politics, in their support of group “rights,” the “consent” of the group, the “balance” of groups, and in their belief that “rights” should be based on function. But syndicalists and guild socialists are not strictly pluralists since they build up a system based on the occupational group; yet the name is not wholly inapplicable, for, since the guild socialists base their state on balancing groups, that state cannot be called a unified state. It is too early yet to speak of this school with entire accuracy, and in fact there is no “school.” Footnote 103: From this was taken, Gierke tells us, modern German “fellowship.” Footnote 104: And the individual was certainly as prominent in medieval theory as the community of individuals, a fact which the vigorous corporate life of the Middle Ages may lead us to forget. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ XXIX POLITICAL PLURALISM AND SOVEREIGNTY --------------