These go well beyond what the Bar Association and AMA do though by providing space where it'd otherwise be unaffordable for the individual members. The Bar and AMA are much more focused on the regulatory and lobbying side of things with little of the support roles, which honestly makes sense given that their membership is generally very well paid so the funding and support functions aren't as necessary.
> "The United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians," the AMA and five other medical groups said in a joint statement. "The current rate of physician supply -- the number of physicians entering the work force each year -- is clearly excessive."
> Cohen said medical schools have been producing the same number of doctors, 17,000 a year, for more than a decade. But, he said, there has been "explosive growth in the number of entry-level positions for residents." About 8,000 of the 25,000 positions are filled by graduates of medical schools outside the United States.
> Cohen said federal money should "no longer be used to support the training of foreign nationals."
And it seems the actual focus is on whether to fund foreign students.
Those aren't literally guilds for their trades any more. They're charitable clubs with an historic name. Some try to support some charities that are related to their historic role, but most are focused on things like general education.
One of the main factors behind the rise of capitalism and the ensuing era of industrialism and 30-fold increase of prosperity of ordinary people was breaking the suffocating power of the guilds.
"Free enterprise" was originally a call to revolt against the guilds.
It's funny that the NYT headline is "As Rents Rise, Artists Are Reviving the Idea of the Medieval Guild," as one of the primary functions of the medieval guild was rent-seeking. The closest modern equivalent of the guild is probably the illegal cartel. The term has a lot of baggage and I would not like to associate myself with it.
What a bargain, I keep you poor by exploiting not only your labor but your country (and if you dare not be capitalistic I will invade you and install a dictatorship) but hey, a billionaire will create a philanthropic organization to help him dodge taxes so thank you capitalism!
So, if only those poor exploited countries had a system of guilds that kept poor people from getting compensated for labor by for-profit enterprise, then... then what? Can you actually explain your theory there?
I think that the idea may be that guilds had a social/religious obligation to provide for the poor and generally be a positive force in the community. In addition, guilds were localized enough that social forces could keep them accountable to the community.
On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable.
> I think that the idea may be that guilds had a social/religious obligation to provide for the poor and generally be a positive force in the community.
How could a group of people who monopolize on a trade "generally be a positive force in the community"? Just because they "provide for the poor" (on their terms)?
> On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable.
Those corporations are also obligated to actually pay their employees, who are obligated to pay taxes. What does the state do with all that income? Fund welfare programs and infrastructure. People may believe the those corporations get "all the money", but on the average corporate profits[1] account for far less money than public spending[2].
Those who have paid attention to history understand that there's a fine balance here. Too much taxation and the economy collapses, making everyone poor. Too little taxation and the infrastructure and social system suffers unnecessarily.
Those who understand nothing keep complaining about corporate paper profits and wealth inequality, as if those were the measure for actual welfare.
> 30-fold increase of prosperity of ordinary people
And here I thought the 30-fold increase of prosperity of ordinary people came about because we now have ubiquitous access to what, in pre-industrial times, was considered unlimited amounts of energy.
Stop producing electricity, stop burning coal, stop pumping oil, and you'll very quickly see prosperity regress to pre-industrial levels, regardless of what economic deity you worship.
I'm not making a claim about our environmental future, I'm making a claim about where our present prosperity comes from.
People frequently credit our economic system for uplifting us from pre-industrial squalor.
It's like a young millionaire praising a daily exercise regiment, and hot yoga three times a week for his success, and not the fifty million dollar trust fund he inherited at the age of 18. It helps, but it's not the important part.
There is a lot to that of course, but the technology to exploit those energy sources were developed in the era of dawning free enterprise, right in the few countries that led the movement.
Not at any other time through thousands of years of civilization or five large continents.
Those countries were in the middle of reaping the economic windfall of a century of colonial theft and exploitation, combined with relative internal stability, all in the context of advancements in metallurgy that took millennia to develop (All the while having large coal reserves... And a shortage of wood, because they've just finished clear-cutting their forests.)
For some reason, the industrial revolution did not develop in any other societies over the centuries that shared a similar system of free enterprise with imperial England... Why didn't the various Italian city states industrialize during the Renaissance?
The vast majority of the colonial theft and exploitation came after industrialization, and as a result of it. Once you're 10x wealthier and more technologically advanced than the rest of the world, it will be conquered, one way or another.
And while individuals got very rich from colonizing, and rulers got much pride from ruling vast new lands, the colonizing societies as a whole did not really get richer from it. There are benefits from colonies, but there are also costs.
Of course, Spain and Portugal did build vast preindustrial colonial empires in the New World. Not by being (very) much more advanced, but mostly by the incredible luck of having much better immune systems! The fact that 80-90% of the New World people just spontaneously died on encountering Europeans, for reasons none of the sides understood, is one of the most astonishing events in history to me!!
So they (mostly Spain) had a few centuries of weird prosperity in mountains of gold and silver, while still having a primitive mercantilist economy. Once capitalism and the industrial revolution started elsewhere, they were left in the dust, their pretty metal stashes no match for liberated human ingenuity.
You do ask a good question. Why did the stars align in 1760s England, and not in the several other places in history that seemingly had most of the ingredients? I've seen it asked a few times, and never answered. I won't pretend that I, some random programmer with opinions on a web forum while eating breakfast, have the answer either...
"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...
> 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.
'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.
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.
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..
Although guilds and their meaning varied over time I don't think it fits the medieval definition - they're not controlling anything even education/training or optional certifications like Unions.
The trade unions in many big cities really are like guilds. They monopolize a particular trade, fix prices, offer apprenticeships and certifications, provide benefits/retirement packages, and attempt to quash any competition by non-members.
So, I had a problem. I wanted furniture that would last at least a decade. Without going into too much detail, I cannot stress how poorly constructed modern manufactured furniture is. It's also super expensive to pay a craftsperson to make a one-off item.
I ended up making my own, and I couldn't have done this without the existence of a nearby arts center that had space for rent and (I'm guessing) $50K worth of machinery. I see similarities between the 'guilds' mentioned in the article and my local arts center. I also see needs that could be met if the art-center (guild) concept was extended beyond it's current function.
Not really sure about its feasability, just incredibly dissapointed in the offerings that I was presented with in our free-enterprise system and perhaps a bit idealistic about locale-specific workshops that might serve consumers better.
It's a non profit. They know how to play the donation game very well. They also offer classes and charge daily or monthly fees for general use.
The model works in a big city with lots of potential users and well-off people who are willing to donate. It would have to be modified if extended elsewhere
While I like the concept of maker spaces, they vary so much from space to space.
The space nearest to me was started by people whose primary interest is Burning man. I toured the shop and it was... chaotic at best. They reconfigured the shop to focus on whatever contraption they were planning for next years show. They seemed to say whatever they could to potential paying customers just to collect their money and keep the shop running. They cut some serious corners on safety and I don't think I could have accomplished the tasks that I set out to do had a gone down the maker space route.
They all are packed in whatever space they could rent. Safety is like the safety of a shop floor: dont be stupid around machines that can deglove, cut, burn, or electrocute you. And every place had points of contact to ask about proper safe operations, and all had abundant PPE.
Makerspaces.. well, my first feeling is it's a pretty name in place of "hacker". Secondly, 'maker' has heavier commercial usage with commercial 'makerspaces'. They aren't seat-of-pants operation like a hackerspace can be. Ive also noticed that places that call themselves "makerspaces" also seem to discourage open house nights, and focus on "call for a walkthrough".
Take a class, get in touch with someone who's experienced. Ideally, re-use an existing shop when you're a novice. I had about 40 hours of shop time with a teacher before I felt comfortable working on my own. Fortunately, you should be able to do this before you buy a house. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to find these services, depending on where you live.
Youtube videos and online resources are plentiful, and while they are better than nothing, they can't capture the nuanced fine motor skills that are required, and they can't point out the mistakes that you are making as you are doing them.
> Not really sure about its feasability, just incredibly dissapointed in the offerings that I was presented with in our free-enterprise system and perhaps a bit idealistic about locale-specific workshops that might serve consumers better.
This "free enterprise system" offered you the craftsman who - free of the shackles of guilds - would have given you a price that you didn't agree on, for the kind of work you would have liked to have performed.
I don't understand what you are disappointed about - that skilled craftsman get to charge well for their work? That cheaply produced products don't live up to the work of a skilled craftsman? Have you calculated the opportunity cost of doing it yourself?
Could be wrong, but I feel that you interpreted my statement about 'free enterprise' as an opening salvo in a political discussion, which isn't exactly where I was trying to go.
That said, to elaborate on what exactly I'm dissapointed with, I'd say:
1) today's mass produced furniture is of significant lower quality than that of generations past. Why is it that so many industries improve over time, yet the offerings for furniture have gotten so much worse?
2) the manufacturer's exploitation of asymetric information. When they know how crappy the product is, and the consumer doesn't, the manufacturer wins the transaction every time. Too many times I've felt like a sucker only a few months after purchase. Spending more money doesn't mean you get a better product, it often means I'm a bigger sucker.
3) The lack of diversity in available options. You have either low-quality department store options, or you have a super expensive individual craftsman, with nothing in-between.
4) the lack of accountability for companies that peddle crap. Example: Ikea's quality has been the butt of jokes for a long time, but consumers keep going back. This isn't the way I expected the free market to operate.
And yes, I have considered the opportunity cost of doing it myself. I realize I'm probably weird in that I chose this, and it wasn't an easy, nor cheap choice, but I'd rather do it than give the department stores another dollar of my business. I'm dissapointed that if someone else was in the same situation as me, I wouldn't have an easy answer for them.
> 1) today's mass produced furniture is of significant lower quality than that of generations past. Why is it that so many industries improve over time, yet the offerings for furniture have gotten so much worse?
Let's accept this premise as true, if a company can cut corners and consumers keep paying the same price regardless, quality is allowed to suffer. Competition stops working when consumers can't tell the difference or don't bother shopping around.
> 2) the manufacturer's exploitation of asymetric information. When they know how crappy the product is, and the consumer doesn't, the manufacturer wins the transaction every time. Too many times I've felt like a sucker only a few months after purchase. Spending more money doesn't mean you get a better product, it often means I'm a bigger sucker.
Well, you do know better now, right? The asymmetry isn't set in stone. You can spend more time on research, educate your fellow peers, etc. Start a YouTube channel that becomes the top result when people look for furniture.
Perhaps people just don't care enough though, then that information asymmetry is actually part of fair pricing. There are other areas, cars for example, where there's a wealth of such information both sought after and provided.
> 3) The lack of diversity in available options. You have either low-quality department store options, or you have a super expensive individual craftsman, with nothing in-between.
Again, this reflects the purchasing habits of actual consumers. People don't care about furniture enough to pay a good price for quality work, therefore producers have to adapt to either ends.
> 4) the lack of accountability for companies that peddle crap. Example: Ikea's quality has been the butt of jokes for a long time, but consumers keep going back. This isn't the way I expected the free market to operate.
I guess your expectations were wrong then. There are many reasons for IKEA's success, the furniture quality (perhaps ironically) happens not to be one of them.
> I realize I'm probably weird in that I chose this, and it wasn't an easy, nor cheap choice, but I'd rather do it than give the department stores another dollar of my business
Don't get me wrong, I totally respect your choice and "do it yourself" attitude. You may have gotten more out of it than you paid. If it's really just about the furniture though, paying a craftsman to do the work may just be cheaper.
> I'm dissapointed that if someone else was in the same situation as me, I wouldn't have an easy answer for them.
The "easy answer" is to pay the craftsman, but people don't want to hear it because they can't (or just don't want to) pay for them.
I had some semi-custom wood furniture built locally by an US company recently. You pick the basic design, wood, finish and all the details from a brochure. Its ready in a month. It was not like top end custom construction but definitely better than the cheap quality import stuff at a slightly higher price. I think there are a lot of these companies around but just not well advertised.
50k worth of machinery? Maybe if you're getting really fancy, but for some basic furniture you shouldn't need more tools than a handheld circular saw, hammer or cordless screwdriver, and optional belt sander and maybe a vice grip.
Perhaps he was aiming for a level of quality slightly higher than "some wild west two-by-fours nailed together"?
The second you start looking at making aesthetically pleasing furniture you're looking at doing proper joinery (tenons, dovetails and the like) not hammering nails in.
Likely at the very least you'll want either a table saw, a router, and a number of jigs, or quite a few different specialized hand saws and some high-quality chisels. Likely you'll want to resaw boards to correct thickness as well, so figure a Bandsaw or for larger pieces, a planer.
Sure, I'm just pointing out you don't need that much investment to make your own serviceable furniture, assuming you have the room. Personally I like the basic wood look on furniture.
Japanese furniture and temples were all built using only joints and advanced wood working techniques. Minimal tools were needed, and if they were needed.. they were built by hand all the same.
And given a few rocks of particular mineral compositions you can build yourself an iPhone, it doesn't mean it's an efficient way to do it - in the case of the flexible japanese joints it might be that it needs to be done by hand to ensure the proper give, but I'd imagine a few modern tools would make it much easier to do.
Same as this general thread - access to good tools makes things cheaper and easier to do.
Assuming you have the room _and the time_. That's really what much of the woodworking machines give you; they get a lot of rough work out of the way quickly. If you like the rough look, you're practically done. If not, you've gotten to the point of the fine finishing faster.
I think the difference may be that they had access to specialized hand tools which would not necessarily be readily available today. In addition, accounting for the cost of receiving the specialist education necessary to produce good results without modern tools would likely offset the equipment's cost.
You're right, you can make basic furniture with those tools and lumber bought from a home improvement store, and the furniture will still be better than what you can get in many department stores.
That said, I wanted something with mortise/tenon joinery, and for that I needed a woodshop. There's a big gap between the tools you note and a 'woodshop'.
Particular tools: workbenches, tablesaw, bandsaw, jointer, thickness planer, drill press, and a dust collection system to keep everything clean and safe.
Of course, you can sacrifice powertools for handtools and still have a woodshop, but tradeoffs are obviously present.
The medieval guild should not be viewed as an effective model. It ensured some degree of standardized quality of service and goods, but they also functioned to artificially inflate the price of labor by constricting supply. They we're discriminatory in who was allowed to join. A peasant couldn't just decide to become a watchmaker. An apprentice's family often had to pay to have their child educated. Many scholars have speculated that guilds reduced overall productivity.
That said, the spaces described in the article are not like this. They seem to basically be hackerspaces for artists.
Not all trade schools work to reduce the supply of labor. If you hold a trade school that teaches people to be a plumber or carpenter and you don't artificially constrain who can and can't work as a carpenter or plumber then this isn't behaving like a guild.
Certifications are more complicated - definitely some instances of certifications function as little more than to reduce the supply of labor. But there are some cases where wanting to certify some level of competence may be desirable.
Happy to see this article on the front page of hacker news, it feels like it ties together two important parts of my life. I help run one of Swedens biggest communal workshops for artists and designers and its hard to underestimate the value of communal workshops of the sort highlighted in this article.
Most of us who dwell here live in a world where the infrastructure is digital. Need to build a bigger thing? Just upgrade your instance or scale your cluster. Need stronger tools? Just find it and read the manual.
For artists and designers working in the physical space it's not that easy.
Got a commission for a large public sculpture that won't even fit in the door to your studio? Spend all the money you earn on it to rent a commercial space. Need welding machines, casting oven or a ten meter textile printing table? Contract it out and loose creative control.
The ability to share resources and tools is essential for the creative professions and the fact that their purpose is highlighted in this article is a positive sign.
Spaces like these are not guilds which restrict supply or inflate the price. They are more like docker containers which allow complicated infrastructures to be run and built on you local physical infrastructure.
How do you deal w/ tragedy of the commons type problems? Use to go to a hacker space to use machinery for a project and it seemed that the guys running it constantly complained about stuff not being put away properly all the time.
Another note...
I've recently thought a communal food hall would be pretty interesting where people who are trying to start their own restaurant, food truck, etc. could have some base infrastructure at a low cost so they could build out their product over a few months. I'm sure these probably exist.
It hasn’t been a big issue the past five years I’ve been there. It’s for professional artists and designers so they all have a common interest in taking care of it. It’s been going for almost 50 years.
The bigger problem comes from what kind of production you allow. We focus on large scale production but it’s not a production line. Nobody needs permission to work on anything specific but some people have exploited the subsidized rates and then you need to step in.
Yeah I can understand the ethos of that but don't you think that part of the goal should be to allow them to build up the capital to expand out of the space? Do you have some type of progression to get them to scale up and out? It seems like it would be a tricky thing to navigate. You wouldn't want to artificially restrict them from growing. Then they'd end up staying in the space taking up room that could be used by one or more up and comers.
68 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadhttps://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-03-01-19970600...
> "The United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians," the AMA and five other medical groups said in a joint statement. "The current rate of physician supply -- the number of physicians entering the work force each year -- is clearly excessive."
> Cohen said federal money should "no longer be used to support the training of foreign nationals."
And it seems the actual focus is on whether to fund foreign students.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_company
"Free enterprise" was originally a call to revolt against the guilds.
On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable.
How could a group of people who monopolize on a trade "generally be a positive force in the community"? Just because they "provide for the poor" (on their terms)?
> On the other hand, America has adopted the belief that large corporations are only obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders and they are too large and decentralized for social forces to effectively hold them accountable.
Those corporations are also obligated to actually pay their employees, who are obligated to pay taxes. What does the state do with all that income? Fund welfare programs and infrastructure. People may believe the those corporations get "all the money", but on the average corporate profits[1] account for far less money than public spending[2].
[1] https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstall/files/2013/05/cp_gdp.p...
[2] https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs...
Those who have paid attention to history understand that there's a fine balance here. Too much taxation and the economy collapses, making everyone poor. Too little taxation and the infrastructure and social system suffers unnecessarily.
Those who understand nothing keep complaining about corporate paper profits and wealth inequality, as if those were the measure for actual welfare.
And here I thought the 30-fold increase of prosperity of ordinary people came about because we now have ubiquitous access to what, in pre-industrial times, was considered unlimited amounts of energy.
Stop producing electricity, stop burning coal, stop pumping oil, and you'll very quickly see prosperity regress to pre-industrial levels, regardless of what economic deity you worship.
People frequently credit our economic system for uplifting us from pre-industrial squalor.
It's like a young millionaire praising a daily exercise regiment, and hot yoga three times a week for his success, and not the fifty million dollar trust fund he inherited at the age of 18. It helps, but it's not the important part.
Not at any other time through thousands of years of civilization or five large continents.
For some reason, the industrial revolution did not develop in any other societies over the centuries that shared a similar system of free enterprise with imperial England... Why didn't the various Italian city states industrialize during the Renaissance?
And while individuals got very rich from colonizing, and rulers got much pride from ruling vast new lands, the colonizing societies as a whole did not really get richer from it. There are benefits from colonies, but there are also costs.
Of course, Spain and Portugal did build vast preindustrial colonial empires in the New World. Not by being (very) much more advanced, but mostly by the incredible luck of having much better immune systems! The fact that 80-90% of the New World people just spontaneously died on encountering Europeans, for reasons none of the sides understood, is one of the most astonishing events in history to me!!
So they (mostly Spain) had a few centuries of weird prosperity in mountains of gold and silver, while still having a primitive mercantilist economy. Once capitalism and the industrial revolution started elsewhere, they were left in the dust, their pretty metal stashes no match for liberated human ingenuity.
You do ask a good question. Why did the stars align in 1760s England, and not in the several other places in history that seemingly had most of the ingredients? I've seen it asked a few times, and never answered. I won't pretend that I, some random programmer with opinions on a web forum while eating breakfast, have the answer either...
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...
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.
So, is Socialism inherently anti-religious? Only if you think the Marxists own the term.
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..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
I think co-op is a way more accurate term for it.
The trade unions in many big cities really are like guilds. They monopolize a particular trade, fix prices, offer apprenticeships and certifications, provide benefits/retirement packages, and attempt to quash any competition by non-members.
I ended up making my own, and I couldn't have done this without the existence of a nearby arts center that had space for rent and (I'm guessing) $50K worth of machinery. I see similarities between the 'guilds' mentioned in the article and my local arts center. I also see needs that could be met if the art-center (guild) concept was extended beyond it's current function.
Not really sure about its feasability, just incredibly dissapointed in the offerings that I was presented with in our free-enterprise system and perhaps a bit idealistic about locale-specific workshops that might serve consumers better.
The model works in a big city with lots of potential users and well-off people who are willing to donate. It would have to be modified if extended elsewhere
see also "maker spaces"
The space nearest to me was started by people whose primary interest is Burning man. I toured the shop and it was... chaotic at best. They reconfigured the shop to focus on whatever contraption they were planning for next years show. They seemed to say whatever they could to potential paying customers just to collect their money and keep the shop running. They cut some serious corners on safety and I don't think I could have accomplished the tasks that I set out to do had a gone down the maker space route.
I realize that other shops might be different.
I've been to hackerspaces...
2 in Indiana
1 in Baltimore
1 in Washington DC
1 in Cambridge (MA)
1 in Louisville (tomorrow evening)
They all are packed in whatever space they could rent. Safety is like the safety of a shop floor: dont be stupid around machines that can deglove, cut, burn, or electrocute you. And every place had points of contact to ask about proper safe operations, and all had abundant PPE.
Makerspaces.. well, my first feeling is it's a pretty name in place of "hacker". Secondly, 'maker' has heavier commercial usage with commercial 'makerspaces'. They aren't seat-of-pants operation like a hackerspace can be. Ive also noticed that places that call themselves "makerspaces" also seem to discourage open house nights, and focus on "call for a walkthrough".
I figured as much, but I would still be very interested in reading whatever you have to write on the subject.
I am considering making my own furniture when I buy a house in the next year or two.
Youtube videos and online resources are plentiful, and while they are better than nothing, they can't capture the nuanced fine motor skills that are required, and they can't point out the mistakes that you are making as you are doing them.
This "free enterprise system" offered you the craftsman who - free of the shackles of guilds - would have given you a price that you didn't agree on, for the kind of work you would have liked to have performed.
I don't understand what you are disappointed about - that skilled craftsman get to charge well for their work? That cheaply produced products don't live up to the work of a skilled craftsman? Have you calculated the opportunity cost of doing it yourself?
That said, to elaborate on what exactly I'm dissapointed with, I'd say:
1) today's mass produced furniture is of significant lower quality than that of generations past. Why is it that so many industries improve over time, yet the offerings for furniture have gotten so much worse?
2) the manufacturer's exploitation of asymetric information. When they know how crappy the product is, and the consumer doesn't, the manufacturer wins the transaction every time. Too many times I've felt like a sucker only a few months after purchase. Spending more money doesn't mean you get a better product, it often means I'm a bigger sucker.
3) The lack of diversity in available options. You have either low-quality department store options, or you have a super expensive individual craftsman, with nothing in-between.
4) the lack of accountability for companies that peddle crap. Example: Ikea's quality has been the butt of jokes for a long time, but consumers keep going back. This isn't the way I expected the free market to operate.
And yes, I have considered the opportunity cost of doing it myself. I realize I'm probably weird in that I chose this, and it wasn't an easy, nor cheap choice, but I'd rather do it than give the department stores another dollar of my business. I'm dissapointed that if someone else was in the same situation as me, I wouldn't have an easy answer for them.
Let's accept this premise as true, if a company can cut corners and consumers keep paying the same price regardless, quality is allowed to suffer. Competition stops working when consumers can't tell the difference or don't bother shopping around.
> 2) the manufacturer's exploitation of asymetric information. When they know how crappy the product is, and the consumer doesn't, the manufacturer wins the transaction every time. Too many times I've felt like a sucker only a few months after purchase. Spending more money doesn't mean you get a better product, it often means I'm a bigger sucker.
Well, you do know better now, right? The asymmetry isn't set in stone. You can spend more time on research, educate your fellow peers, etc. Start a YouTube channel that becomes the top result when people look for furniture.
Perhaps people just don't care enough though, then that information asymmetry is actually part of fair pricing. There are other areas, cars for example, where there's a wealth of such information both sought after and provided.
> 3) The lack of diversity in available options. You have either low-quality department store options, or you have a super expensive individual craftsman, with nothing in-between.
Again, this reflects the purchasing habits of actual consumers. People don't care about furniture enough to pay a good price for quality work, therefore producers have to adapt to either ends.
> 4) the lack of accountability for companies that peddle crap. Example: Ikea's quality has been the butt of jokes for a long time, but consumers keep going back. This isn't the way I expected the free market to operate.
I guess your expectations were wrong then. There are many reasons for IKEA's success, the furniture quality (perhaps ironically) happens not to be one of them.
> I realize I'm probably weird in that I chose this, and it wasn't an easy, nor cheap choice, but I'd rather do it than give the department stores another dollar of my business
Don't get me wrong, I totally respect your choice and "do it yourself" attitude. You may have gotten more out of it than you paid. If it's really just about the furniture though, paying a craftsman to do the work may just be cheaper.
> I'm dissapointed that if someone else was in the same situation as me, I wouldn't have an easy answer for them.
The "easy answer" is to pay the craftsman, but people don't want to hear it because they can't (or just don't want to) pay for them.
The second you start looking at making aesthetically pleasing furniture you're looking at doing proper joinery (tenons, dovetails and the like) not hammering nails in.
Likely at the very least you'll want either a table saw, a router, and a number of jigs, or quite a few different specialized hand saws and some high-quality chisels. Likely you'll want to resaw boards to correct thickness as well, so figure a Bandsaw or for larger pieces, a planer.
Same as this general thread - access to good tools makes things cheaper and easier to do.
That said, I wanted something with mortise/tenon joinery, and for that I needed a woodshop. There's a big gap between the tools you note and a 'woodshop'.
Particular tools: workbenches, tablesaw, bandsaw, jointer, thickness planer, drill press, and a dust collection system to keep everything clean and safe.
Of course, you can sacrifice powertools for handtools and still have a woodshop, but tradeoffs are obviously present.
That said, the spaces described in the article are not like this. They seem to basically be hackerspaces for artists.
Certifications are more complicated - definitely some instances of certifications function as little more than to reduce the supply of labor. But there are some cases where wanting to certify some level of competence may be desirable.
Most of us who dwell here live in a world where the infrastructure is digital. Need to build a bigger thing? Just upgrade your instance or scale your cluster. Need stronger tools? Just find it and read the manual.
For artists and designers working in the physical space it's not that easy.
Got a commission for a large public sculpture that won't even fit in the door to your studio? Spend all the money you earn on it to rent a commercial space. Need welding machines, casting oven or a ten meter textile printing table? Contract it out and loose creative control.
The ability to share resources and tools is essential for the creative professions and the fact that their purpose is highlighted in this article is a positive sign.
Spaces like these are not guilds which restrict supply or inflate the price. They are more like docker containers which allow complicated infrastructures to be run and built on you local physical infrastructure.
Another note...
I've recently thought a communal food hall would be pretty interesting where people who are trying to start their own restaurant, food truck, etc. could have some base infrastructure at a low cost so they could build out their product over a few months. I'm sure these probably exist.
The bigger problem comes from what kind of production you allow. We focus on large scale production but it’s not a production line. Nobody needs permission to work on anything specific but some people have exploited the subsidized rates and then you need to step in.