Talk:Guild/Archives/2012

Old talk

I've tried to remove some things that seem to break the NPOV. This part was removed in it's entirety:

...however, the similarities are few and there are important differences. Because of this, the guild could regulate pricing, quality, training, working hours, sales hours, and other such things. In many towns, the guilds were the wealthiest organizations and would use their considerable finances to build grandiose guild halls and to finance festivities.

Some guild were obviously not wealthy. A more nuanced account is needed.

Nixdorf

Nice work, Nixdorf. Article much improved. Tannin

Yes, much. It still however needs a section on the rise of modern guilds, including those that Thomas Malone at MIT advocates, and some that already exist like the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild that do in fact exercise much of the control that the old guilds did. The new article does a good job of pointing out why the guilds were abolished - but "free trade" and "technology improvement" are not universal goods, obviously. So the guild's modern champions must be mentioned, or we make the POV mistake of assuming that both free trade and "improved" technology are public goods. EofT

It now mentions Malone, SAG, WGA, and reflects some of the debate over free trade - but not the trade bloc and intellectual property debates, nor the issue of when technology "improvement" by "just anybody" is a bad thing, for instance, "improving" a virus and selling it to terrorists. This seems like a professional issue, artisanship probably doesn't extend down into the life form.

---

The picture "An example of the last of the British Guilds meeting rooms c1820" has to be removed. It shows a room of Freemasons, which are an intolerant secret society.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.182.198 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC) The article has improved vastly since yesterday, I'm flabbergasted! Overall splendid work. It may be overly focused on economics and intellectual property though, more views of the social function of the guilds should be added at some date. Please also add a few references. Nixdorf

---

The origin of the term "journeyman" as given on this page is different to the origin given in the journeyman article itself. Is there someone more knowledgable than me who could correct whichever article is wrong? -- Vardion 08:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

A lack of meaningful global competition may be part of the reason why guilds can persist in this industry.

I removed this sentence. As far as I know, Hollywood is not even the largest film industry, let alone the only meaningful one. Burschik 15:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

grammar improvement needed

The second paragraph under the subheading "Modern guilds" needs to be edited. It has very poor sentence structure.

please respect our page, not personal mail!!!!

Unclear bit

Perhaps I'm just dumb, but this section seems very unclear to me:

The fall of the guilds was caused by a social uprising of the people who had been influenced by the guild members into believing that the badges worn by the guilds represented police organizations when the badges represented thieves guilds. The badges worn by modern-day police are a symbolic representation of this British Island tradition. And the roman decendants participation in this ancient tradition is a representation of their modern association.

Were there really thieve's guilds operating, pretending to be police? Was this phenomenon confined to Britain? The last sentence makes no sense at all. Clarification would be appreciated. --Nbishop 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Economics of guilds?

Surely guilds had some economic system? Perhaps membership fees? I started a basic category for economics, I hope it is added to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.158.9 (talk) 14 April 2006

guilds: role as participants in the mystery plays and fthe role of the family within the guild structure

not mentioned in the article is the connection between guilds and religion, some of the guilds staged mystery plays, acting or providing sets, scenery and such like. Also guilds, notably the frith or peace guilds were generally organised around families so that there was continuity over time and so that apprenticiship followed along family lines. As a modern example the last of the City of London companies that has more than a ceremonial role, the Watermen and Lightermens guild still usually takes its apprentices from families who have previous connections to the trade. The role guilds played in staging mystery plays also points to the origin of the word mystery, meaning variously a trade and a religious rite or observance. These rites go back beyond Christianity to Ancient Greece and Rome and possibly other groupings of the early history period, some information or discussion on this topic as well as its inclusion in wiki would be useful, signed bamboodragon 13/10/2006

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)--VS ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

VS ^talk has removed an external link to a website which I published. I believe the link is a relevant citation to this article. I acknowledge as an editor of this article, this is potentially a conflict of interest.

The link:

• Craft, Trade or Mystery: Part One — Britain from Gothic Cathedrals to the Tolpuddle Conspirators By Dr Bob James (revised 2002)

is an original source relating to Guilds and the development of trade unions and other benefit societies. I believe this link is still relevant to the article. Under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline I should not add external links to articles I have published (even though they may be authoritative texts) except after raising them for discussion on the talk page. Please discuss and decide on the relevancy of the link.--Takver 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The link should be an inline citation for this sentence under European History. The <references/> tag will need to be placed in the References section also. --Takver 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The guilds also maintained funds in order to support infirm or elderly members, as well as widows and orphans of guild members, funeral benefits, and a 'tramping' allowance for those needing to travel to find work<ref>[http://www.takver.com/history/benefit/ctormys.htm Craft, Trade or Mystery: Part One - Britain from Gothic Cathedrals to the Tolpuddle Conspirators] By Dr Bob James (revised 2002)</ref>.

Tags

How has this article avoided becoming littered every half-sentence with {{Fact}} tags?

Can anyone tell me if guilds are only groups of craftsmen/artisans, or can they also be soldiers or warriors? like in the World of Warcraft guilds. I thought guild were simply groups of people together in a union of some kind. Black Serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Serpent (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

lacks definition?

i was looking for what it is, if there is something more to it. in a conscise form. havent found it :( 84.16.123.194 (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough

This article needs to be rewritten. The quality is not nearly high enough. An understanding of the rise of Guilds in the late 13th century and their later demise is crucial to understanding economic, political and social structures in Europe, through the Late Middle Ages, Rennaisance, Reformation and rise of nation states. This article is just a jumble of unrelated ideas and mere opinion. Really it would be better if it was deleted. Sorry to be harsh but it is not up to Wikipedia standard. 203.59.193.69 (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Sam Wylie University of Melbourne

When exactly??

Kindly give some more information about when those things happened, year, cencury, and so on. I tried to find some clues but no information is given om European history.

Warrington (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kerzenmeister?

What's a de:Kerzenmeister == Candle Master? --Liberal Freemason (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern Guilds

The section Modern Guilds currently starts with the text: "NASE, National Association of the Self Employed is giving rise to smaller modern guilds. As authoritarian govt coupled with paternalist philosophy rises so do guilds. The NASE is made up of mostly crafstman and skilled labor who find Union membership either too political, too restrictive and not enough innovation. Sole proprietorship gives them the flexibility. Guilds rise out of neccessity to protect the plebians from the overbearing patricians ie, beuracrats." Not only is this poorly written, with poor grammar ("...either... A, B and... C"?), unprofessional abbreviations ("govt" instead of "government"), biased language ("overbearing patricians" referring to government officials) and a complete lack of encyclopedic objectivity (pretty much all of it). Seems like it should be removed. Traitorfish (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd that this article makes no mention of modern guilds in the sense of role-play, larp, online games and the like. Or if it does then it's not clear within the text. The article seems to mainly focus on guilds in an historical context. Perhaps these are two subjects that need two articles but this article, titled "guild", should cover both briefly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.204.141 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gremios (Spain)

Removed statement in "European history" section claiming that the comparatively late establishment of guilds in Spain "signaled the progress of the Reconquista". The examples provided, Barcelona, Valencia and Toledo, are all cities conquered centuries before the first guilds were established there, if the dates given for their establishment are correct (1301, 1332, and 1426, respectively). Barcelona was conquered by the Franks in 801, Valencia by Aragon in 1238 and Toledo by Castile in 1085. Unless this assertion can be backed up somehow (I can't imagine how), it would appear that Christian conquest of Muslim territory had nothing whatsoever to do with the foundation of guilds. Thus the deletion. Cheers, --Moises de la vera (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Guilds as a component of economic growth

In all my previous reading, guilds preceded highly-capitalized industry, were a component layer of pre-industrialized society along with pre-industrialized governments, which were generally city-states. Just as the city-states, guilds were protectionist on two levels: they protected their economies as trade secrets, and they protected their members as unions do today, but not as a membership. Because of the crafts nature of guilds, they were self-protecting on a cultural level. What this article shows in a confused way, is that guilds developed components of modern capital, such as the corporation, and also components of social society, such as the protect on the helpless. But at a point along the development of highly-industrialized capital enterprise, there is a major split between the two, and capital begins to loath everything the guilds represented. So much so a two-column comparison can be created to illustrate it. The comparison could also be constructed as a time line showing the evolution of both "free" capital into modern industry (free from the moral constraints of Renaissance city-states) and the guilds into the protectionism of modern unions. Perhaps capital, or Capital, shows the evolutionary relationship between guilds and unions through its hatred for them both far better than any attempt at a cited material.--John Bessa (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern associations and professions as guilds

I have difficulty placing professional associations within this scope, especially the "Realtor" organization. The estates portion of real estate represents both the sources and lineage of early Capital, and hence is far more closely related to the family capital culture rather than the crafts cultures (or classes), or today's working class. Realtor documents I have read specifically teach its membership exploitation, for instance providing psychological rationale for throwing tenants on the street!

Comparing the free software movement with old-school guilds is simply absurd. Open-source is a purely capital idea designed simply to give free software to corporations. And while the GNU model has socialist overtones, the software foundation has always attempted to attract contributions from big corporations such as AT&T. As for protectionism, forget it. Even while American technology crumbled under the outsourcing of globalism and multiculturalism, American free software programmers joined in attacks against protectionists helping brand them racists while advancing the the idea that Americans can win the global competition game by working harder for less, and advancing pure sciences such as physics, when any person of intelligence could clearly see that America could not win the globalist game for the simple reason that American (still) attempt to protect themselves from slave-like exploitation, while winning competing nations, such as India, do not. (Last I checked, India still has legalized slavery.)

The idea that consultants are an evolution of the guild is likewise absurd because consultants have never organized for "collective bargaining." They prefer instead to compete with each other in the work place relying purely on endless capital growth for benefits. Consultants attempt the most superficial work possible as they soon expect to move on, and stresses they suffer that are caused by inconsistent work availability usually result in deteriorating health conditions. Furthermore they are neither protected by unions, nor the normal social contracts that full-time employees enjoy that are benefits of society that the guilds preserved and advanced.

Medical associations are likewise equally difficult to place into the scope of the guild. For one, medicine, or Medicine, is a component of Capital, just as eduction, or Education, is. Medicine is in no way protective of the population as the guilds were; Medicine would let its patients die if it weren't for their patients' money and various acts of Congress (in the US, at least). Medical associations are operated by boards, just as corporations are, and consist entirely of society's cream: the Elite. Medical doctors practice the researcher / practitioner procedural model that fairly well guarantees a "professional" layer between them and their patients rather than a protective relationship. Dental associations, further extending these observations, protect neither standards nor patients to any significant degree; we have all experienced inept dentistry. If anything, these associations protect corrupt members like gangs do, something some guilds did in their final stages as modern society deteriorated under Capital influence into a century and a half of mechanized and military mass-destruction (Mumford).--John Bessa (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research proposal on Wikiversity

Just to note, I wrote most of the above after a brandy late last night, and just before crashing, so looking at it is like looking my own material for the first time! Since WP is not providing much in the way of guilds, and since there may be some confusion about the guilds' role in society's evolution, then maybe original research is appropriate, but on the Wikiversity of course. I named the stub "Guilds" rather than Guild, as the long title might mention the evolution and contributions of the guilds, and their influences that are visible today. So, if you are interested in guilds, please help w/ this effort. If you are a student, you can frame your writing here, integrate existing material in your own words, and then format it so that the prof will never know! Or you could make it a web project up-front as I did for my empathy project.--John Bessa (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias / undue weight?

I've been reading quite a bit about Guilds lately and I find that this article seems to put undue weight on one of two factions in the current academic debate about the role of guilds. Both Sheilagh Ogilve and Larry (S.R.) Epstein are mentioned, but the former seems to get undue weight in her conventional assessment of the guilds as rent-seeking, obstructionist organizations which held back progress, the nearly opposite view presented by Epstein from the London School of Economics apparently gained ground in the last ten years and is at least equal in influence. At any rate, there have been several multidisciplinary studies done by researchers in several European nations, and also in India, Turkey, China and Japan on this subject. The Italians made an extensive database of guild activities, as have the Dutch. They seem to paint a much more complex picture. I've read 6 relatively current books on the subject of guilds, (published in the last 10 years) and only one, Ogilve's, takes this particular position, apparently based on a study of guild activities in a rural area deep inside the black forest in a fairly narrow time frame. The other books cover multiple cities, industries and regions across several centuries, and range from a more complex and mixed perception of guilds to an openly positive / revisionist position that they played a basically positive role in economic and technological development. Though Ogilve's point of view matches that of Rousseau, Marx, Adam Smith and other economists and philosophers of the 18th and 19th Centuries, are we sure that she remains current as the consensus in modern academia? (I'm not sure if there is one or not)

I also think that this article generally seems like a mess to be honest, with little clear distinction between craft guilds, merchant guilds, military guilds, religious guilds (sodalitieis) and other types.

70.166.181.194 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Influence of Guilds

There is a contradiction between the introduction and the Influence of Guilds section as to the nature of guilds. The introduction hints (somehwat unclearly) that it is a mix of "unions, cartel and secret society" but we find a conflicting definition in the paragraph "Influence of the Guild" : a)like trade unions, but were more like private business associations b) like private business but they opposed free market and c) they must be a cartel. This definition through a dialectic process is a little messy and fails to capture the necessary subtleties of medieval Guilds in comparison to other modern institutions.

Most guilds had royal recognition, I would hardly call them cartels. There is definately a similarity with modern unions since they seek to use their collective resources (knowlege and tools) to influence their working conditions on the market. There is also a ressemblence to private business associations who still organize in groups in a particular field in order to influence the markets to varying degrees (oil companies, tabacco companies, pharmaceuticals etc...) The definition of Guilds does not have to go through a process of elimination of its resemblences with modern groups in order to limit it to only one group or concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.208 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)