Guilds In The Middle Ages

In the interior of towns was located a very vital piece to the medieval industrial production. For Manors needed the products and services of “mason, expert armorers and metalworkers…” (24, Heilbroner), in order to sustain itself. This institution is known as a guild, and can be considered the “business units” of the Middle Ages. However the guild’s function was considered much more than just a foundation that focused on the organization and production of economic growth. It was shown that they were also focused on non-economical affairs such as the civil duties, and the charitable contributions expected of each member. Their role was not only to provide a product and service but also to monitor the social behaviors. A guild’s rationale was
to maintain a certain, regulated form of living. Its goal was not dedicated to the accumulation of a maximum amount of wealth but was rather designed to garner a wage and provide an environment that was, sufficient for the craftsmen to make a living. The guidelines each member had to follow were clear and strict “ A guild member who cornered the supply of an item was guilty of forestalling, for which rigorous penalties were invoked, and one who bought wholesale to sell at retail was similarly punished for the faults of engrossing or regrating” (25, Heilbroner). The expectation of each member was clear, and that they had to be morally correct and could not use manipulative tactics such as buying up all the goods in order to gain a competitive advantage. Unfair practices were frowned upon; thus resulting in competition being very limited. The misconception that guilds were a precursor to industrial manufacturing and the basis of the accumulation of wealth is inaccurate on account of the function of the guild not existing to make a profit, and the monopolization of labourmarkets leading to static economies. First, the objective of the Guild did not include the pursuit of money. It was not deemed to have business-like methods and as such was not interested in the “gathering of wealth”. It was the merchants who put into operation what would have been considered business-like practices. Merchants promoted the circulation of goods “travelers brought, together with their wares, was the first breath of commerce and commercial intercourse to a Europe that had sunk to an almost tradeless and self-sufficient manorial stagnation” (33, Heilbroner). This is due to merchants previously having taken their packs of goods across Europe, as well as countries as far as India. Into the depths of towns in each corner, something that was previously unheard of and frowned upon “…In the eyes of the nobility, the merchants were upstarts and a disturbing element in the normal pattern of things” (33, Heilbroner). This is due to the merchants unfeudal like characteristics and their emphasis on the trading of money. As economics started to emerge the idea of labor started to change. Guilds purpose was to assure that the apprentice could get by on “at least an assurance of subsistence” (41, Heilbroner). This is counterintuitive to the idea of accumulating wealth since the idea of accumulating wealth is on the assumption that the apprentice would have to be making a ‘profit’. This is not the case as he is being supported through the labor relationship with just the bare minimum. A fundamental principle of capitalism also involves looking out for oneself in the accumulation of wealth and not others. The fact that the guilds were looking out for those lower on the social/economic ladder indicates that they were not about gaining money for themselves or promoting their own interests.

To economist Adam Smith wealth is the consistence of goods of society that people will “consume”, but each individual will not use up the same amount of goods. His ultimate concern is “promoting the wealth of the entire nation” (53, Heilbroner). In order to achieve this wealth he believes the market should be free of external influences, “Whatever interferes with the market does so only at the expense of the true wealth of the nation” (70, Heilbroner). By this Smith is referring to tradition bound societies like the guilds, for they were not concerned with things such as Economic Growth. Smith on the other hand was concerned with a more developed strategy called the division of labour, which increased productivity. He explained this strategy with the example of a pin-making factory. “One man draws out the wire, another straits it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top…” (47, Heilbroner). The idea is rather simple but extremely efficient, Smith posits that when a specific task is given to an individual, he focuses only on that particular job and works with a group that focuses on their duties. Smith believes that they can accomplish a great deal more than if they were to work separately. This idea was impeded upon by the guilds since, “no master hatter in England could employ more than two apprentices; in the famous Sheffield Silver trade, no master cutlet could employ more than one” (47, Heilbroner). These strict principles of behavior would undoubtedly restrict the division of labour. These rules also hamper Smith’s Growth Model, which is based on the fundamental human nature for the “desire of betterment” this can be achieved through the means of expanding ones business in order to acquire a greater profit. This expansion results in a higher division of labour because the outcome of expansion is a rise in the productivity of labour, this means that workers will have to be equipped with machinery “…for it is this machinery that will increase their productivity” (48, Heilbroner). Succinctly, the growth of the manufacturing sector and thus the economy requires constant financial investment. This leads to innovation and advanced technology that makes the manufacturing process more efficient, speedier, less costly and more profitable. The increasing industrialization of the economy and the manufacturing industry was making the guilds obsolete.
There was now an emphasis on producing goods in a timely and cost efficient manner as this increased the wealth of the major stakeholders in society. The guild’s mission statement was diametrically opposed to this and as such they were marginalized. The very nature of the guild was shown to be extremely static, something that is against the very concept of industrialization. The guilds were accused of being against the general interest of producers since they were exclusive, and had entitlements, which restricted the numbers of people, “who could neither enter them nor set up beside them from earning an honest livelihood” (122, Renard). Due to guilds being a monopoly they charged more for their goods and services, “ If, as in Smith’s time, great companies are given monopolies of foreign trade, the public cannot realize the full benefits of cheaper foreign produce” (70, Heilbroner). For this reason Economists and philosophers decided to take a stand by organizing an attack toward their principles freeing equality and liberty (122, Renard). With the rise of urban proletariat, came about the change in the guilds, “partly by the immigration into the cities of some of the new landless peasantry ” (43, Heilbroner). Because of the increase in population led to the enlargement of the area in which guilds operated, this had negative repercussions as it had to adapt from its normal static self into an market which had vastly expanded internally but as well as externally. (76,
Renard).
Now that its growth had taken off to new levels, in order to benefit from these different outlets, it had to spread itself out. This means that it is crucial to generate more, and in order to generate more it is unavoidable to produce in a different way (77, Renard). Guilds fought hard in order to prevent machinery from entering there system as it would interrupt modes of production, simplify their manufacturing methods resulting in the diminishment in the number of workmen which, “would be injurious…they throw innumerable hands out of work” (120,Renard). Ultimately,