Worker guilds prospered in capital-light industries where profit-seeking capitalism had failed publicly
Evidence
Th e fi rst had to do with the nature of the industry itself. Building was an industry that required little fi xed infrastructure (e.g., no factory or expensive machines), “so that the problem of the ownership of the instruments of production is relatively unimportant” (Cox 1921, 788). For this reason there was not, as had been the case with the miners, a binding need for a direct political struggle over systematized nationalization. Second, guilds were good at picking their spots: “the guilds compete in a fi eld in which the capitalist system, with its motive of profi tmaking, has proved itself exceptionally incompetent to fi ll a great and widespread public need” (ibid.). — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 435
Categorization
- XREF: Parallels the earlier analysis of low-capital cooperatives and contrasts with miners whose fixed capital forced direct nationalization politics. — connects to: Worker guilds thrived in industries requiring little capital and where capitalism had failed housing