French syndicalists were the first to advocate the system of trade autonomy as a better solution than state socialism.  But in their view the trades were to be independent, almost like sovereign states at present.  Such a system would not promote peace, any more than it does at present in international relations.  In the affairs of any body of men, we may broadly distinguish what may be called questions of home politics from questions of foreign politics.  Every group sufficiently well-marked to constitute a political entity ought to be autonomous in regard to internal matters, but not in regard to those that directly affect the outside world.  If two groups are both entirely free as regards their relations to each other, there is no way of averting the danger of an open or covert appeal to force.  The relations of a group of men to the outside world ought, whenever possible, to be controlled by a neutral authority.  It is here that the state is necessary for adjusting the relations between different trades.  The men who make some commodity should be entirely free as regards hours of labor, distribution of the total earnings of the trade, and all questions of business management.  But they should not be free as regards the price of what they produce, since price is a matter concerning their relations to the rest of the community.  If there were nominal freedom in regard to price, there would be a danger of a constant tug-of-war, in which those trades which were most immediately necessary to the existence of the community could always obtain an unfair advantage.  Force is no more admirable in the economic sphere than in dealings between states.  In order to secure the maximum of freedom with the minimum of force, the universal principle is:  Autonomy within each politically important group, and a neutral authority for deciding questions involving relations between groups.  The neutral authority should, of course, rest on a democratic basis, but should, if possible, represent a constituency wider than that of the groups concerned.  In international affairs the only adequate authority would be one representing all civilized nations.

In order to prevent undue extension of the power of such authorities, it is desirable and necessary that the various autonomous groups should be very jealous of their liberties, and very ready to resist by political means any encroachments upon their independence.  State socialism does not tolerate such groups, each with their own officials responsible to the group.  Consequently it abandons the internal affairs of a group to the control of men not responsible to that group or specially aware of its needs.  This opens the door to tyranny and to the destruction of initiative.  These dangers are avoided by a system which allows any group of men to combine for any given purpose, provided it is not predatory, and to claim from the central authority such self-government as is necessary to the carrying out of the purpose.  Churches of various denominations afford an instance.  Their autonomy was won by centuries of warfare and persecution.  It is to be hoped that a less terrible struggle will be required to achieve the same result in the economic sphere.  But whatever the obstacles, I believe the importance of liberty is as great in the one case as it has been admitted to be in the other.