4 ms·

"and the groundswell of socialist rhetoric in the face of increasing urban gentrification" true medieval guilds were not socialist - they were christian - and

by cat199 8y ago

"and the groundswell of socialist rhetoric in the face of increasing urban gentrification" true medieval guilds were not socialist - they were christian - and cannot truly be recreated within a classical liberal / free-market economic system since they were protected cartels with monopoly power over production/distribution within their respective territories granted by the local aristocracy with the blessing/protection of the church. this is not a judgement or value statement either way - but a point that painting historical guilds as 'socialist' (with the implicit marxist class progression from feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism this entails), is revisionist, and misrepresents (hides?) the actual historical structure of which guilds were a part, and 'steals the credit' via misattribution to an ideology which actually sought the destruction of the remnants of the guild-based system. which also is not to say that the idea of medieval guilds and socialist worker cooperatives don't have anything in common from a materialist perspective either...

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Only some European worker coops are "socialist" in any meaningful sense.
msla 8y ago
> true medieval guilds were not socialist - they were christian - and cannot truly be recreated within a classical liberal / free-market economic system since they were protected cartels with monopoly power over production/distribution within their respective territories granted by the local aristocracy with the blessing/protection of the church. There is a tradition of Christian Socialism, arguably including the Primitive Church, but the rest of your critique is spot-on. > this is not a judgement or value statement either way - but a point that painting historical guilds as 'socialist' (with the implicit marxist class progression from feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism this entails), is revisionist, and misrepresents (hides?) the actual historical structure of which guilds were a part, and 'steals the credit' via misattribution to an ideology which actually sought the destruction of the remnants of the guild-based system. Such Presentism is sadly rife whenever non-historians try to make a point about comparing modern ideas to historic ones. The idea that people in the past weren't moderns with worse hygiene, but instead had their own worldview and goals divorced from the modern mindset, is quite lost on them.
- cat199 8y ago
  'socialism' as it is traditionally understood is a post-enlightenment philosophy specifically positing that the church is a tool of the ruling classes used to surpress the workers.. while there are some (many!) strands of christian ethics/social philosophy espousing a collectivist material position, and many (most) of these predate this type of socialism, these are christian and not socialist (due to the aforementioned distinction) - i'm not an expert here, but I am quite confident that these strands were never (mis)labeled as 'socialist' until after the arrival of the paris commune / marx / bakunin, etc.
  - msla 8y ago
    Without going too far off-topic: Marxist Socialism is inherently anti-religious, but there were Socialist traditions before Marx, and a number of them were Christian in philosophy. The Diggers in Seventeenth Century England are one example, and there's still a non-Marxist strain of Socialism in the Liberation Theology movement. So, is Socialism inherently anti-religious? Only if you think the Marxists own the term.
    - cat199 8y ago
      as mentioned, not an expert - was the term 'socialist' used by any of the pre-internationale groups? would they identify as such? or as christian with a particular emphasis? either way, in common discourse 'socialist' is not the same as 'socially oriented'; 99.9% of the time (and also i posit for this article) it is pretty safe to assume that the reference relates to one or another group claiming some ideological lineage to the paris commune / 1st internationale seeking the abolishment of capitalism, private property, and religious authority. this is still true even for mainstream european socialist parties, etc, even if they don't promote strict adherence so much these days (and so are more 'social democratic') also: many anarchists are socialists but not marxists, though they do agree with the class theory part..

by cat199 8y ago

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Only some European worker coops are "socialist" in any meaningful sense.

msla 8y ago

> true medieval guilds were not socialist - they were christian - and cannot truly be recreated within a classical liberal / free-market economic system since they were protected cartels with monopoly power over production/distribution within their respective territories granted by the local aristocracy with the blessing/protection of the church. There is a tradition of Christian Socialism, arguably including the Primitive Church, but the rest of your critique is spot-on. > this is not a judgement or value statement either way - but a point that painting historical guilds as 'socialist' (with the implicit marxist class progression from feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism this entails), is revisionist, and misrepresents (hides?) the actual historical structure of which guilds were a part, and 'steals the credit' via misattribution to an ideology which actually sought the destruction of the remnants of the guild-based system. Such Presentism is sadly rife whenever non-historians try to make a point about comparing modern ideas to historic ones. The idea that people in the past weren't moderns with worse hygiene, but instead had their own worldview and goals divorced from the modern mindset, is quite lost on them.

cat199 8y ago
'socialism' as it is traditionally understood is a post-enlightenment philosophy specifically positing that the church is a tool of the ruling classes used to surpress the workers.. while there are some (many!) strands of christian ethics/social philosophy espousing a collectivist material position, and many (most) of these predate this type of socialism, these are christian and not socialist (due to the aforementioned distinction) - i'm not an expert here, but I am quite confident that these strands were never (mis)labeled as 'socialist' until after the arrival of the paris commune / marx / bakunin, etc.
- msla 8y ago
  Without going too far off-topic: Marxist Socialism is inherently anti-religious, but there were Socialist traditions before Marx, and a number of them were Christian in philosophy. The Diggers in Seventeenth Century England are one example, and there's still a non-Marxist strain of Socialism in the Liberation Theology movement. So, is Socialism inherently anti-religious? Only if you think the Marxists own the term.
  - cat199 8y ago
    as mentioned, not an expert - was the term 'socialist' used by any of the pre-internationale groups? would they identify as such? or as christian with a particular emphasis? either way, in common discourse 'socialist' is not the same as 'socially oriented'; 99.9% of the time (and also i posit for this article) it is pretty safe to assume that the reference relates to one or another group claiming some ideological lineage to the paris commune / 1st internationale seeking the abolishment of capitalism, private property, and religious authority. this is still true even for mainstream european socialist parties, etc, even if they don't promote strict adherence so much these days (and so are more 'social democratic') also: many anarchists are socialists but not marxists, though they do agree with the class theory part..