I agree that there may be a place for guilds (or guild-like associations) in the modern economy, but as an historian who studies these things and thinks they are worth noting, I felt the article underplayed the role of politics and geography in the success of medieval guilds. Being granted a legal monopoly over their craft by the rulers of a particular place was absolutely fundamental to their power and influence.
The article explores the exclusionary nature of guilds in terms of production restrictions and social groups, but spends less time explaining the exclusive, legal right to a monopoly over a political division of space. That is what gave them the cabal-like clout to do all that followed, good and bad, including fostering cooperation and mutual resources. They had the ability, even the right, to surveille and extort within their territory, to physically insulate their members from offers by other guilds, to shut down competitors in their area of operations, and to influence social attitudes toward their work through mutual relations with politicians and even autocrats. These kinds of social and market controls may be unavailable to a modern guild, and they may be obsolete in the digital age in terms of some of their key geographic advantages, but they are alive and well in the corporate world with which a modern guild would compete.
Do you see a group such as what you have in mind, if it were to become a guild, finding geography and legal clout important at all? Or are you more interested in the union-like, cooperative/non-compete aspects of guilds that the article focuses on? Do you think modern guilds can have one without the other and still function as guilds once did? I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything, just curious in an academic way. I think there's a lot of merit in bringing the idea of guilds back to the economy, especially if they can give power back to workers and erode any aspect of corporate control over labor markets.
I agree that there may be a place for guilds (or guild-like associations) in the modern economy, but as an historian who studies these things and thinks they are worth noting, I felt the article underplayed the role of politics and geography in the success of medieval guilds. Being granted a legal monopoly over their craft by the rulers of a particular place was absolutely fundamental to their power and influence.
The article explores the exclusionary nature of guilds in terms of production restrictions and social groups, but spends less time explaining the exclusive, legal right to a monopoly over a political division of space. That is what gave them the cabal-like clout to do all that followed, good and bad, including fostering cooperation and mutual resources. They had the ability, even the right, to surveille and extort within their territory, to physically insulate their members from offers by other guilds, to shut down competitors in their area of operations, and to influence social attitudes toward their work through mutual relations with politicians and even autocrats. These kinds of social and market controls may be unavailable to a modern guild, and they may be obsolete in the digital age in terms of some of their key geographic advantages, but they are alive and well in the corporate world with which a modern guild would compete.
Do you see a group such as what you have in mind, if it were to become a guild, finding geography and legal clout important at all? Or are you more interested in the union-like, cooperative/non-compete aspects of guilds that the article focuses on? Do you think modern guilds can have one without the other and still function as guilds once did? I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything, just curious in an academic way. I think there's a lot of merit in bringing the idea of guilds back to the economy, especially if they can give power back to workers and erode any aspect of corporate control over labor markets.