3 ms·

Historically, guilds were first and foremost a tool to enforce monopoly power on the part of masters against anyone else trying to enter the market (and against

Historically, guilds were first and foremost a tool to enforce monopoly power on the part of masters against anyone else trying to enter the market (and against eachother to maintain monopoly pricing and supply). Luddites were actually just doing what guilds normally did.

robwwilliams 2y ago
Agreed, but parent article makes the good point that the Hansa League and guilds also pushed back very effectively on the nobility in Germany snd Northern Europe (Bergen Norway was in the Hansa League). And if you are willing to be more generous (as the author and I are) these protective societies of workers and merchants were an early step toward free market economies unencumbered by lazy landed gentry. Compare the history of Spain and France during this era to that of Germany and Holland.
- zoogeny 2y ago
  > guilds also pushed back very effectively on the nobility in Germany snd Northern Europe If your argument is that exclusive initiatory societies were an improvement on hereditary nobility rule then you won't get much of a push back from me. However, are they better than constitutional democratic republics? I don't actually have a clear answer to that question. I mean, I have a feeling that I have more chance of being initiated into a guild than I do being promoted to nobility. That potential for inclusion goes a long way, much like the oft-cited American dream where even the poor think they have a chance at being a millionaire. And our current democratic system doesn't seem to be adequately controlling the quality of our society. As I mentioned, it is actually a very complex question. I just recommend people to be skeptical. Societies that form around keeping some thing secret except for initiated members for the purposes of exclusivity should be treated with a large dose of skepticism.
o11c 2y ago
According to people who complained about guilds, sure. But let's not forget that fraud and incompetence are extremely common across history. And also that the very concept of universities derived from guilds. So in a sense we do still have, and rely on, a guild system today.
- hnbad 2y ago
  In a way it's also simply a network of trust. Sure, you didn't have many masters but journeymen carried the reputation of their master and that transferred when seeking employment elsewhere as well as when eventually becoming masters themselves. The concept of having the number of businesses artificially limited also isn't gone in modern Germany: notaries and medical practices are allocated licenses based on regional population densities. As I understand it, taxi medallions are another example in the US (not sure how this works in Germany). Of course the idea in this case is to encourage specialists to spread out throughout the country rather than bunch up in the most lucrative population centers.
hnbad 2y ago
I'm not sure why you're bring Luddites into this. Ludd and his followers were opposing the industrialization of their professions because it meant they were losing their jobs to machines while the factory owners were continuing to build on the wealth they helped create. Technological progress is still usually spoken about in abstract and misleading terms of "increasing productivity" as if it were about reducing the workload of the worker when instead the worker's hours remain the same and a reduced workload just translates into "redundancies", i.e. the workers don't gain anything from being "more productive", they actually stand to lose their jobs entirely because fewer workers are necessary for the same output.
- waveBidder 2y ago
  The behavior of smashing their competitor's means of production was typical of guilds, and iirc it was one of the last instances of guilds acting to defend their interest in England. I'm more sympathetic to the Luddites than most guilds since it's around the time the labor/capital split in the productive class actually happened.

robwwilliams 2y ago

Agreed, but parent article makes the good point that the Hansa League and guilds also pushed back very effectively on the nobility in Germany snd Northern Europe (Bergen Norway was in the Hansa League). And if you are willing to be more generous (as the author and I are) these protective societies of workers and merchants were an early step toward free market economies unencumbered by lazy landed gentry. Compare the history of Spain and France during this era to that of Germany and Holland.

zoogeny 2y ago
> guilds also pushed back very effectively on the nobility in Germany snd Northern Europe If your argument is that exclusive initiatory societies were an improvement on hereditary nobility rule then you won't get much of a push back from me. However, are they better than constitutional democratic republics? I don't actually have a clear answer to that question. I mean, I have a feeling that I have more chance of being initiated into a guild than I do being promoted to nobility. That potential for inclusion goes a long way, much like the oft-cited American dream where even the poor think they have a chance at being a millionaire. And our current democratic system doesn't seem to be adequately controlling the quality of our society. As I mentioned, it is actually a very complex question. I just recommend people to be skeptical. Societies that form around keeping some thing secret except for initiated members for the purposes of exclusivity should be treated with a large dose of skepticism.

o11c 2y ago

According to people who complained about guilds, sure. But let's not forget that fraud and incompetence are extremely common across history. And also that the very concept of universities derived from guilds. So in a sense we do still have, and rely on, a guild system today.

hnbad 2y ago
In a way it's also simply a network of trust. Sure, you didn't have many masters but journeymen carried the reputation of their master and that transferred when seeking employment elsewhere as well as when eventually becoming masters themselves. The concept of having the number of businesses artificially limited also isn't gone in modern Germany: notaries and medical practices are allocated licenses based on regional population densities. As I understand it, taxi medallions are another example in the US (not sure how this works in Germany). Of course the idea in this case is to encourage specialists to spread out throughout the country rather than bunch up in the most lucrative population centers.

hnbad 2y ago

I'm not sure why you're bring Luddites into this. Ludd and his followers were opposing the industrialization of their professions because it meant they were losing their jobs to machines while the factory owners were continuing to build on the wealth they helped create. Technological progress is still usually spoken about in abstract and misleading terms of "increasing productivity" as if it were about reducing the workload of the worker when instead the worker's hours remain the same and a reduced workload just translates into "redundancies", i.e. the workers don't gain anything from being "more productive", they actually stand to lose their jobs entirely because fewer workers are necessary for the same output.

waveBidder 2y ago
The behavior of smashing their competitor's means of production was typical of guilds, and iirc it was one of the last instances of guilds acting to defend their interest in England. I'm more sympathetic to the Luddites than most guilds since it's around the time the labor/capital split in the productive class actually happened.