The conception of "rationalized" industries has much in common with that of industrial guilds, which were the subject of much forceful advocacy during the post-war reconstruction period. The rationalization of industry is also hardly to be distinguished, in many of its promised advantages, from the "nationalization of industries" which has figured for so long on the socialist pro gramme. (See SociAusm.) But it differs fundamentally from both these on the question of who shall he in control. Rationalization envisages the retention, with no radical change, of the capitalist order. The ultimate control of the industry is vested, not in a democratic electorate of all those engaged in the industry, and not in a Government department, but in the shareholders and other financiers of the combined enterprises. Proposals for as sociating the workpeople with the internal management and with the fortunes of the separate or combined undertakings by means of works committees, workmen's representatives on the board, and schemes of profit-sharing and co-partnership do not essen tially alter this fact ; nor does the probability that such organiza tion will find it wise to keep on good terms with the political power shift sensibly the nominal seat of industrial power. From this aspect flows two important considerations ; one as to the manner in which the nominal control of the stock-holders and other financiers (including the banks) will find expression in the policy of the central directorate and the type of administrator that will be thrown up; and the other the attitude of the workpeople to the form and policy of the organization.