#the guild of master craftsmen | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dailyanarchistposts · 6 months ago

Text

F.8.3 What other forms did state intervention in creating capitalism take?

Beyond being a paymaster for new forms of production and social relations as well as defending the owners’ power, the state intervened economically in other ways as well. As we noted in section B.2.5, the state played a key role in transforming the law codes of society in a capitalistic fashion, ignoring custom and common law when it was convenient to do so. Similarly, the use of tariffs and the granting of monopolies to companies played an important role in accumulating capital at the expense of working people, as did the breaking of unions and strikes by force.

However, one of the most blatant of these acts was the enclosure of common land. In Britain, by means of the Enclosure Acts, land that had been freely used by poor peasants was claimed by large landlords as private property. As socialist historian E.P. Thompson summarised, “the social violence of enclosure consisted … in the drastic, total imposition upon the village of capitalist property-definitions.” [The Making of the English Working Class, pp. 237–8] Property rights, which favoured the rich, replaced the use rights and free agreement that had governed peasants use of the commons. Unlike use rights, which rest in the individual, property rights require state intervention to create and maintain. “Parliament and law imposed capitalist definitions to exclusive property in land,” Thompson notes. This process involved ignoring the wishes of those who used the commons and repressing those who objected. Parliament was, of course, run by and for the rich who then simply “observed the rules which they themselves had made.” [Customs in Common, p. 163]

Unsurprisingly, many landowners would become rich through the enclosure of the commons, heaths and downland while many ordinary people had a centuries old right taken away. Land enclosure was a gigantic swindle on the part of large landowners. In the words of one English folk poem written in 1764 as a protest against enclosure:

They hang the man, and flog the woman, That steals the goose from off the common; But let the greater villain loose, That steals the common from the goose.

It should be remembered that the process of enclosure was not limited to just the period of the industrial revolution. As Colin Ward notes, “in Tudor times, a wave of enclosures by land-owners who sought to profit from the high price of wool had deprived the commoners of their livelihood and obliged them to seek work elsewhere or become vagrants or squatters on the wastes on the edges of villages.” [Cotters and Squatters, p. 30] This first wave increased the size of the rural proletariat who sold their labour to landlords. Nor should we forget that this imposition of capitalist property rights did not imply that it was illegal. As Michael Perelman notes, "[f]ormally, this dispossession was perfectly legal. After all, the peasants did not have property rights in the narrow sense. They only had traditional rights. As markets evolved, first land-hungry gentry and later the bourgeoisie used the state to create a legal structure to abrogate these traditional rights.” [The Invention of Capitalism, pp. 13–4]

While technically legal as the landlords made the law, the impact of this stealing of the land should not be under estimated. Without land, you cannot live and have to sell your liberty to others. This places those with capital at an advantage, which will tend to increase, rather than decrease, the inequalities in society (and so place the landless workers at an increasing disadvantage over time). This process can be seen from early stages of capitalism. With the enclosure of the land an agricultural workforce was created which had to travel where the work was. This influx of landless ex-peasants into the towns ensured that the traditional guild system crumbled and was transformed into capitalistic industry with bosses and wage slaves rather than master craftsmen and their journeymen. Hence the enclosure of land played a key role, for “it is clear that economic inequalities are unlikely to create a division of society into an employing master class and a subject wage-earning class, unless access to the means of production, including land, is by some means or another barred to a substantial section of the community.” [Maurice Dobb, Studies in Capitalist Development, p. 253]

The importance of access to land is summarised by this limerick by the followers of Henry George (a 19th century writer who argued for a “single tax” and the nationalisation of land). The Georgites got their basic argument on the importance of land down these few, excellent, lines:

A college economist planned To live without access to land He would have succeeded But found that he needed Food, shelter and somewhere to stand.

Thus anarchists concern over the “land monopoly” of which the Enclosure Acts were but one part. The land monopoly, to use Tucker’s words, “consists in the enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation.” [The Anarchist Reader, p. 150] So it should be remembered that common land did not include the large holdings of members of the feudal aristocracy and other landlords. This helped to artificially limit available land and produce a rural proletariat just as much as enclosures.

It is important to remember that wage labour first developed on the land and it was the protection of land titles of landlords and nobility, combined with enclosure, that meant people could not just work their own land. The pressing economic circumstances created by enclosing the land and enforcing property rights to large estates ensured that capitalists did not have to point a gun at people’s heads to get them to work long hours in authoritarian, dehumanising conditions. In such circumstances, when the majority are dispossessed and face the threat of starvation, poverty, homelessness and so on, “initiation of force” is not required. But guns were required to enforce the system of private property that created the labour market in the first place, to enclosure common land and protect the estates of the nobility and wealthy.

By decreasing the availability of land for rural people, the enclosures destroyed working-class independence. Through these Acts, innumerable peasants were excluded from access to their former means of livelihood, forcing them to seek work from landlords or to migrate to the cities to seek work in the newly emerging factories of the budding industrial capitalists who were thus provided with a ready source of cheap labour. The capitalists, of course, did not describe the results this way, but attempted to obfuscate the issue with their usual rhetoric about civilisation and progress. Thus John Bellers, a 17th-century supporter of enclosures, claimed that commons were “a hindrance to Industry, and … Nurseries of Idleness and Insolence.” The “forests and great Commons make the Poor that are upon them too much like the indians.” [quoted by Thompson, Op. Cit., p. 165] Elsewhere Thompson argues that the commons “were now seen as a dangerous centre of indiscipline … Ideology was added to self-interest. It became a matter of public-spirited policy for gentlemen to remove cottagers from the commons, reduce his labourers to dependence.” [The Making of the English Working Class, pp. 242–3] David McNally confirms this, arguing “it was precisely these elements of material and spiritual independence that many of the most outspoken advocates of enclosure sought to destroy.” Eighteenth-century proponents of enclosure “were remarkably forthright in this respect. Common rights and access to common lands, they argued, allowed a degree of social and economic independence, and thereby produced a lazy, dissolute mass of rural poor who eschewed honest labour and church attendance … Denying such people common lands and common rights would force them to conform to the harsh discipline imposed by the market in labour.” [Against the Market, p. 19]

The commons gave working-class people a degree of independence which allowed them to be “insolent” to their betters. This had to be stopped, as it undermined to the very roots of authority relationships within society. The commons increased freedom for ordinary people and made them less willing to follow orders and accept wage labour. The reference to “Indians” is important, as the independence and freedom of Native Americans is well documented. The common feature of both cultures was communal ownership of the means of production and free access to it (usufruct). This is discussed further in section I.7 (Won’t Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?). As Bookchin stressed, the factory “was not born from a need to integrate labour with modern machinery,” rather it was to regulate labour and make it regular. For the “irregularity, or ‘naturalness,’ in the rhythm and intensity of traditional systems of work contributed more towards the bourgeoisie’s craze for social control and its savagely anti-naturalistic outlook than did the prices or earnings demanded by its employees. More than any single technical factor, this irregularity led to the rationalisation of labour under a single ensemble of rule, to a discipline of work and regulation of time that yielded the modern factory … the initial goal of the factory was to dominate labour and destroy the worker’s independence from capital.” [The Ecology of Freedom p. 406]

Hence the pressing need to break the workers’ ties with the land and so the “loss of this independence included the loss of the worker’s contact with food cultivation … To live in a cottage … often meant to cultivate a family garden, possibly to pasture a cow, to prepare one’s own bread, and to have the skills for keeping a home in good repair. To utterly erase these skills and means of a livelihood from the worker’s life became an industrial imperative.” Thus the worker’s “complete dependence on the factory and on an industrial labour market was a compelling precondition for the triumph of industrial society … The need to destroy whatever independent means of life the worker could garner … all involved the issue of reducing the proletariat to a condition of total powerlessness in the face of capital. And with that powerlessness came a supineness, a loss of character and community, and a decline in moral fibre.” [Bookchin, Op. Cit.,, pp. 406–7] Unsurprisingly, there was a positive association between enclosure and migration out of villages and a “definite correlation … between the extent of enclosure and reliance on poor rates … parliamentary enclosure resulted in out-migration and a higher level of pauperisation.” Moreover, “the standard of living was generally much higher in those areas where labourer managed to combine industrial work with farming … Access to commons meant that labourers could graze animals, gather wood, stones and gravel, dig coal, hunt and fish. These rights often made the difference between subsistence and abject poverty.” [David McNally, Op. Cit., p. 14 and p. 18] Game laws also ensured that the peasantry and servants could not legally hunt for food as from the time of Richard II (1389) to 1831, no person could kill game unless qualified by estate or social standing.

The enclosure of the commons (in whatever form it took — see section F.8.5 for the US equivalent) solved both problems — the high cost of labour, and the freedom and dignity of the worker. The enclosures perfectly illustrate the principle that capitalism requires a state to ensure that the majority of people do not have free access to any means of livelihood and so must sell themselves to capitalists in order to survive. There is no doubt that if the state had “left alone” the European peasantry, allowing them to continue their collective farming practices (“collective farming” because, as Kropotkin shows, the peasants not only shared the land but much of the farm labour as well), capitalism could not have taken hold (see Mutual Aid for more on the European enclosures [pp. 184–189]). As Kropotkin notes, ”[i]nstances of commoners themselves dividing their lands were rare, everywhere the State coerced them to enforce the division, or simply favoured the private appropriation of their lands” by the nobles and wealthy. Thus “to speak of the natural death of the village community [or the commons] in virtue of economical law is as grim a joke as to speak of the natural death of soldiers slaughtered on a battlefield.” [Mutual Aid, p. 188 and p. 189]

Once a labour market was created by means of enclosure and the land monopoly, the state did not passively let it work. When market conditions favoured the working class, the state took heed of the calls of landlords and capitalists and intervened to restore the “natural” order. The state actively used the law to lower wages and ban unions of workers for centuries. In Britain, for example, after the Black Death there was a “servant” shortage. Rather than allow the market to work its magic, the landlords turned to the state and the result was “the Statute of Labourers” of 1351:

“Whereas late against the malice of servants, which were idle, and not willing to serve after the pestilence, without taking excessive wages, it was ordained by our lord the king … that such manner of servants … should be bound to serve, receiving salary and wages, accustomed in places where they ought to serve in the twentieth year of the reign of the king that now is, or five or six years before; and that the same servants refusing to serve in such manner should be punished by imprisonment of their bodies … now forasmuch as it is given the king to understand in this present parliament, by the petition of the commonalty, that the said servants having no regard to the said ordinance, .. to the great damage of the great men, and impoverishing of all the said commonalty, whereof the said commonalty prayeth remedy: wherefore in the said parliament, by the assent of the said prelates, earls, barons, and other great men, and of the same commonalty there assembled, to refrain the malice of the said servants, be ordained and established the things underwritten.”

Thus state action was required because labourers had increased bargaining power and commanded higher wages which, in turn, led to inflation throughout the economy. In other words, an early version of the NAIRU (see section C.9). In one form or another this statute remained in force right through to the 19th century (later versions made it illegal for employees to “conspire” to fix wages, i.e., to organise to demand wage increases). Such measures were particularly sought when the labour market occasionally favoured the working class. For example, ”[a]fter the Restoration [of the English Monarchy],” noted Dobb, “when labour-scarcity had again become a serious complaint and the propertied class had been soundly frightened by the insubordination of the Commonwealth years, the clamour for legislative interference to keep wages low, to drive the poor into employment and to extend the system of workhouses and ‘houses of correction’ and the farming out of paupers once more reached a crescendo.” The same occurred on Continental Europe. [Op. Cit., p. 234]

So, time and again employers called on the state to provide force to suppress the working class, artificially lower wages and bolster their economic power and authority. While such legislation was often difficult to enforce and often ineffectual in that real wages did, over time, increase, the threat and use of state coercion would ensure that they did not increase as fast as they may otherwise have done. Similarly, the use of courts and troops to break unions and strikes helped the process of capital accumulation immensely. Then there were the various laws used to control the free movement of workers. “For centuries,” notes Colin Ward, “the lives of the poor majority in rural England were dominated by the Poor law and its ramifications, like the Settlement Act of 1697 which debarred strangers from entering a parish unless they had a Settlement Certificate in which their home parish agreed to take them back if they became in need of poor relief. Like the Workhouse, it was a hated institution that lasted into the 20th century.” [Op. Cit., p. 31]

As Kropotkin stressed, “it was the State which undertook to settle .. . griefs” between workers and bosses “so as to guarantee a ‘convenient’ livelihood” (convenient for the masters, of course). It also acted “severely to prohibit all combinations … under the menace of severe punishments … Both in the town and in the village the State reigned over loose aggregations of individuals, and was ready to prevent by the most stringent measures the reconstitution of any sort of separate unions among them.” Workers who formed unions “were prosecuted wholesale under the Master and Servant Act — workers being summarily arrested and condemned upon a mere complaint of misbehaviour lodged by the master. Strikes were suppressed in an autocratic way … to say nothing of the military suppression of strike riots … To practice mutual support under such circumstances was anything but an easy task … After a long fight, which lasted over a hundred years, the right of combing together was conquered.” [Mutual Aid, p. 210 and p. 211] It took until 1813 until the laws regulating wages were repealed while the laws against combinations remained until 1825 (although that did not stop the Tolpuddle Martyrs being convicted of “administering an illegal oath” and deported to Tasmania in 1834). Fifty years later, the provisions of the statues of labourers which made it a civil action if the boss broke his contract but a criminal action if the worker broke it were repealed. Trade unions were given legal recognition in 1871 while, at the same time, another law limited what the workers could do in a strike or lockout. The British ideals of free trade never included freedom to organise.

(Luckily, by then, economists were at hand to explain to the workers that organising to demand higher wages was against their own self-interest. By a strange coincidence, all those laws against unions had actually helped the working class by enforcing the necessary conditions for perfect competition in labour market! What are the chances of that? Of course, while considered undesirable from the perspective of mainstream economists — and, by strange co-incidence, the bosses — unions are generally not banned these days but rather heavily regulated. The freedom loving, deregulating Thatcherites passed six Employment Acts between 1980 and 1993 restricting industrial action by requiring pre-strike ballots, outlawing secondary action, restricting picketing and giving employers the right to seek injunctions where there is doubt about the legality of action — in the workers’ interest, of course as, for some reason, politicians, bosses and economists have always known what best for trade unionists rather than the trade unionists themselves. And if they objected, well, that was what the state was for.)

So to anyone remotely familiar with working class history the notion that there could be an economic theory which ignores power relations between bosses and workers is a particularly self-serving joke. Economic relations always have a power element, even if only to protect the property and power of the wealthy — the Invisible Hand always counts on a very visible Iron Fist when required. As Kropotkin memorably put it, the rise of capitalism has always seen the State “tighten the screw for the worker” and “impos[ing] industrial serfdom.” So what the bourgeoisie “swept away as harmful to industry” was anything considered as “useless and harmful” but that class “was at pains not to sweep away was the power of the State over industry, over the factory serf.” Nor should the role of public schooling be overlooked, within which “the spirit of voluntary servitude was always cleverly cultivated in the minds of the young, and still is, in order to perpetuate the subjection of the individual to the State.” [The State: Its Historic Role, pp. 52–3 and p. 55] Such education also ensured that children become used to the obedience and boredom required for wage slavery.

Like the more recent case of fascist Chile, “free market” capitalism was imposed on the majority of society by an elite using the authoritarian state. This was recognised by Adam Smith when he opposed state intervention in The Wealth of Nations. In Smith’s day, the government was openly and unashamedly an instrument of wealth owners. Less than 10 per cent of British men (and no women) had the right to vote. When Smith opposed state interference, he was opposing the imposition of wealth owners’ interests on everybody else (and, of course, how “liberal”, never mind “libertarian”, is a political system in which the many follow the rules and laws set-down in the so-called interests of all by the few? As history shows, any minority given, or who take, such power will abuse it in their own interests). Today, the situation is reversed, with neo-liberals and right-“libertarians” opposing state interference in the economy (e.g. regulation of Big Business) so as to prevent the public from having even a minor impact on the power or interests of the elite. The fact that “free market” capitalism always requires introduction by an authoritarian state should make all honest “Libertarians” ask: How “free” is the “free market”?

11 notes · View notes

daitranscripts · 26 days ago

Text

Skyhold Conversation

Bonny Sims

Skyhold Masterpost

Bonny Sims: [Lord/Lady] Inquisitor. Bonny Sims, at your service. I trust good Seggrit was not too coarse? Now that you’ve come to some good fortune, you deserve an upgrade. As master of The Tradesmen, I stand ready to supply your every need.

1 - Dialogue options:

General: “The Tradesmen”? [2]

General: How is business? [3]

General (not all keeps claimed): How can I bring in commerce? [4]

General: Goodbye. [5]

2 - General: “The Tradesmen”? PC: Who or what are “The Tradesmen”?

First time asking Bonny Sims: A following of sympathetic and profit-minded individuals who promote local craftsmen and fair importers. A guild of sorts, although that implies Carta affiliations we are not interested in… crossing.

Bonny Sims (dwarf PC): No offence. Sincerely. We are merely organized merchants at your service. [6]

If asked before Bonny Sims: Our purpose in the Inquisition is legitimate and honorable. You will have what you need at honest prices. [6]

6 - Dialogue options:

General (Seggrit alive): Where is Seggrit? [7]

General (Seggrit died): Sorry about Seggrit dying. [8]

General: What can you do for me? [9]

General: You’re master of your group? [10]

General: Goodbye. [11]

7 - General: Where is Seggrit? PC: Seggrit survived Haven. Where is he? Bonny Sims: About. Doing good work for you and yours. But this position is now more desirable. It was time arrangements were made. I shall make every effort to prove that this is an upgrade. [back to 6] ㅤㅤ ㅤ 8 - General: Sorry about Seggrit dying. PC: It’s a shame Seggrit didn’t survive Haven. Bonny Sims: It is. But one must continue. PC: That’s it? Bonny Sims: He was a shrewd man, but he was none too pleasant. It was time arrangements were made. I shall make every effort to prove that this is an upgrade. [back to 6] ㅤㅤ ㅤ 9 - General: What can you do for me? PC: What do you bring to the Inquisition? Bonny Sims: What you need. And more. It takes great coordination to make a remote location seem… central. ㅤㅤ ㅤ Completed War Table: Opening the Roads Bonny Sims: Many now make the journey to Skyhold. We will ensure they continue to see the benefit. [back to 6] ㅤㅤ ㅤ Have not completed “Opening the Roads” Bonny Sims: While there is no doubt the boutiques of Val Royeaux display the grandest of the grand, they do not travel. At least, not yet. [back to 6] ㅤㅤ ㅤ 10 - General: You’re master of your group? PC: Why are you a mere merchant if you’re the master of this group? Bonny Sims: I wish to avoid the suggestion that I am a posturing commander atop a structure of malcontents. It is better to remain active. Hands on. Do you not agree, Inquisitor? [back to 6]

3 - General: How is business? PC: How are you doing? Good business?

Skyhold not repaired Bonny Sims: It is a struggle, but one worth having. Potential is the most valuable resource. [back to 1]

First set of repairs (leaving and returning to Skyhold) Bonny Sims: Building. Always building. Thanks to you. [back to 1]

Final set of repairs (completing HLtA or WEWH) Bonny Sims: In this gilded fortress? How could we not be? [back to 1]

4 - General: How can I bring in commerce? PC: Skyhold needs a healthy flow of goods. How can I help?

No keeps claimed Bonny Sims: Free the trade routes of obstruction, restore security to the outposts—the keeps—and merchants will find you. [back to 1]

One keep claimed One of the major hubs is freed. Continue on this path, and you're on your way. [back to 1]

Two keeps claimed You've cleared two of the major hubs and restored trade to many. [back to 1]

5 - General: Goodbye. Inquisitor: We’ll speak another time. Bonny Sims: Certainly, [Lord/Lady] Inquisitor.

—

If spoken to after all keeps are claimed Bonny Sims: My [lord/lady] Inquisitor. How gratifying to see you. Your efforts to restore our hubs of commerce have been tremendous. As is the gratitude of The Tradesmen and affiliates.

Bonny Sims: An opportunity, Your Worship. If you've a moment, I would speak to you about a potential partnership.

Dialogue options:

General: You mentioned an opportunity?

PC: You said something about a partnership?

Bonny Sims: The work you've done has presented an opportunity to return trade to the roads. A minimal investment at key points will ensure safe caravans. I'll forward it to your assistants for consideration. We have this opportunity because of you, Inquisitor. And we will all profit.

Activates War Table: Opening the Roads

Upon completion Bonny Sims: All manner of new friends are arriving now that you’ve opened us to merchants of the road. The influx of character is refreshing. I look forward to doing business with all of them.

If spoken to after completing Opening the Roads, HLtA, and WEWH, and unlocking the Short List perk Bonny Sims: A unique issue has arisen, Inquisitor. I pass it to you.

Activates War Table: Not So Bonny Sims

Upon completion Bonny Sims: Of course you resolved the issue, Inquisitor. Well done.

#dragon age inquisition #dragon age #dai #dai transcripts #dai dialogue #dragon age transcripts #dragon age dialogue #dragon age inquisition transcripts #dragon age inquisition dialogue #long post #skyhold #bonny sims

5 notes · View notes

savage-kult-of-gorthaur · 8 months ago

Text

A LOOK AT "THE MASTER IN THE REDWOODS" -- A GERMAN-AMERICAN MASTER POTTER AND HER WORKS.

PIC(S) INFO: Spotlight on Marguerite Wildenhain (born Marguerite Friedlaender), (October 11, 1896 – February 24, 1985), an American Bauhaus-trained ceramic artist, educator and author, photographed at Pond Farm, Sonoma County, CA, c. early 1950s. Plus assorted pottery works by the late, great Marguerite herself.

OVERVIEW: "Another potter whose career exemplifies the international nature of studio pottery is Marguerite Wildenhain (1896 – 1985). She was born in France, to a British mother and a German Jewish father. At age 18, she started work in a porcelain factory, and fell in love with the wheel. One day in 1919, while riding her bike in the countryside, Marguerite happened upon a poster announcing a new school, to be called the Bauhaus. It would be "a new guild of craftsmen without the class distinctions which raise an arrogant barrier between craftsmen and artists." At the Bauhaus, Wildenhain worked with some of the greatest designers of the early 20th century; in 1925, she became the first woman honored as a German Master Potter. She went on to teach at the Burg Giebichenstein University of Art and Design, while also designing commercial ceramics. When the Nazis came into power, Wildenhain and her husband fled to the Netherlands, where they opened a pottery they called shop called Het Kruikje (“The Little Jug”). In 1940 she had to flee the Nazis yet again, this time to emigrating to the United States

PART II: Wildenhain briefly took a position at the California College of Arts and Crafts, then in 1942, relocated to the new Pond Farm artist’s colony in rural Sonoma County. High on a hill above the Russian River, she planted a garden, built a house, and repurposed an old barn into her pottery studio. Over the next 40 years, Wildenhain would create an extraordinary body of work here, while also teaching students from around the world. Her students learned to throw on the physically-demanding kick-wheel, and started by making a dog dish! In between sessions, they discussed philosophy, natural history, and how to run a business; many went on to become important potters in their own right. Now part of the Austin Creek State Recreation Area, Wildenhain’s studio has been designated a "National Treasure" by the National Trust for Historic Preservation."

-- HAND OR EYE, "What is Studio Pottery?," written by Martin Holden

Source: www.sfomuseum.org/exhibitions/potters-life-marguerite-wildenhain-pond-farm, https://handoreye.com/journal/studiopottery, X, Pinterest, various, etc...

5 notes · View notes

aeshnacyanea2000 · 1 year ago

Text

As a gift for my mom, I knitted the "Sheepish Look" tea cozy from the book Tea Cozies by the Guild of Master Craftsmen.

Knitted with Schoeller + Stahl Soft Touch yarn and 4 mm needles.

Note: the original pattern stitches the eyes in with satin stitch, I changed that and used a pair of old shirt buttons.

#knitting #my knitting #tea cozy #FO Friday #finished object friday

8 notes · View notes

lacklusterhero747 · 2 years ago

Text

Building a Fabula World, Part 2c

Right, so. Got distracted, forgot what I was doing here. But the world building information must continue, so here we go.

Last time I wrote about the theocratic nation of The Zlota Sovereignty and the lightly comedic city of craftsmen and Switzerland-esque neutrality called Sentoki, The City of Guilds. This time around we've got a couple more:

The Pangolarian Clans- Provided by Richard

Less a nation and more a loose organization of clans that dwell beneath the earth, the Pangolarian Clans are simultaneously a political entity and a unique species of Demihuman. These squat beings with clawed fingers and toes and scaled bodies (yes they are just pangolin people) have built an extensive network of burrows and under-ways that span the length and breadth of the continent. It is there, in their subterranean dominion, that the Pangolarians mine ores, precious metals, and gems from beneath the earth that they then trade for foodstuffs and products of the surface dwellers that they need to support their society. But this trade occurs only on their terms, and only at specific trading outposts built by the clans on the surface. Rarely are surface dwellers ever allowed into the depths.

The clans are somewhat xenophobic towards outsiders and have a tradition of militancy and martial prowess. Encroachment into their territory is met swiftly by the Phalanx, which is a militia force that be raised at a moment's notice if the need is great enough. Direct familial relationships are generally superseded by a culturally instilled loyalty to the Platoon into which you are born, and the hierarchy that comes with it. Every Pangolarian is part of the army, and the army serves to protect all Pangolarians. Still, it is not entirely beyond imagining to see a member of the clans on the surface. Many crimes against the Clans are punished by exile to the surface, rather than by a death sentence, and young Pangolarians are encouraged to take a pilgrimage out into the wider world when they first reach the age of maturity so that they might decide for themselves if they wish to return to their Platoon or strike out on their own.

For Classes we decided to stick close to the somewhat rebranded dwarf tropes, declaring that the Pangolarians should have a higher than average number of Guardians, Weapon Masters, and Commanders while also having a lower than average tendency towards explicitly magical class archetypes.

The Immarian Empire - Provided by Brady

The Immarian Empire is an ancient kingdom that once held sway over a huge swathe of the continent through their mastery of esoteric magic and astrological understanding of the universe. Evidence of the presence can still be found in the form of crumbling outpost ruins, or the very foundations up which modern cities are built. Theirs was a civilization built on Geomancy and a respect for the natural order, though one in which they harnessed the natural order like a tool... or perhaps an unruly pet.

Unfortunately for the empire, the natural order is not so easily controlled, and due to shifts in the leylines that span the continent, their culture has been forced to contract back in on itself, retreating to their capital and most closely guarded cities which occupy a small archipelago just off the coast. Now they find their position in the world challenged by the advent of the magical industrial revolution. Tension exists between this empire and The Alumen Dominion because The Dominion claims that they are the natural inheritors of the seat of power that The Immarians vacated. Even while The Dominion pays lip service to their former rulers as their driving inspiration, it is clear they have no intention to actually restore the decaying empire to its former state of glory.

For now the Immarian Empire remains quiet, cloistered away in their carefully planned cities, which visually evoke the depictions of what the Aztec or Maya might have looked like at the height of their power. They have become like Militant librarians, keepers of old knowledge. If they can no longer rule, then they will at least attempt to insure that no knowledge is lost to the world.

For classes, we decided that the Empire should definitely be really high in magical potential. Elementalists, Envokers, and Entropists all easily fit into this particular kingdom.

#role playing games #fabula ultima #world building #ttrpg #jrpg #play to find out what happens

7 notes · View notes

hawkepockets · 1 year ago

Text

i’m finally getting to those tav asks. thanks everyone who sent one!! the lovely @dragonologist-phd asked for #1, which includes birthplace & family, and i Got To Thinking in too much detail, much too much detail by far, too detailed, so here’s a separate post for just those elements.

jove grew up in baldur’s gate. they did have a clan, but it wasn’t a biological family unit—it was an all dragonborn craftsmen’s guild! most members were copper, brass, red or gold dragonborn who used their fire or acid breath to manipulate metal and glass. jove wasn’t born with that skill. their mother was a vagabond blue dragonborn, and although jove inherited their father’s brassy scales, they also manifested their mother’s electrical breath type, which wasn’t of any use in metalworking. the clan was warm to insiders but highly competitive and proud of their handiwork, and judged members’ worth almost solely by what they could craft. jove knew they’d be fed and cared for, but only tolerated, unless they excelled at a trade.

as a teenager, jove struck up a friendship with ritika estis, a much older gold dwarf metallurgist from a rival crafting guild. estis taught jove how to use a dwarven forge to work with metal, glass, and jewels using tools instead of relying on naturally heatproof hands and melting breath. estis was tough on jove, working them hard and giving praise sparingly, but every compliment meant the world to the young dragonborn. she built up their confidence to apply for a jeweler’s apprenticeship with their clan.

but estis also noticed that despite their dogged devotion to learning their father’s trade, jove was much more moved by folk songs and carved wood than any bauble made for a baldurian noble. jewelrymaking made them focus and sweat; music made them tap their foot, twitch their tail, and part their lips to try to taste it. it was a different kind of love. the day jove won their jeweling apprenticeship, estis went to them and, in a rare moment of open encouragement, urged them to forget the forge and learn to make music and instruments instead.

jove took up a secret, second apprenticeship with a human master luthier, learning to craft and repair string instruments and, tentatively, how to play the fiddle with their big, clawed hands. when the clan found out, jove was pressured to choose one trade and master it, instead of burning themself out to fail at both. with the self-assurance they’d learned from estis, jove committed to making instruments. many of their older clanmates were deeply embittered toward ritika and her guild for molding a promising young metalworker just to turn them against the family trade, but jove was happy.

after years of practice under the luthier, jove achieved the rank of journeyman and started to make gold for their clan selling handcrafted string instruments and repair services. they were much better at working on instruments than playing them, but had achieved enough skill on the fiddle to play gigs at local taverns and make passersby smile at them on festival days. they were more than content, and would have lived happily as an amateur musician and aspiring master luthier in the gate for the rest of their days.

and then came the bar fight.

fights weren’t that unusual for the cheaper inns and alehouses jove played music at, but this particular brawl started with a human woman harrassing a tiefling bachelor party, talking loudly about how they brought crime and sour luck on baldur’s gate, and shouldn’t be allowed to marry lest their offspring overrun the city. when she implied they killed and ate human children, one of the prouder and drunker tieflings took a swing at the woman. she reacted as though she’d been attacked, unprovoked, by the whole party, and other non-tieflings sprung to her defense. within seconds, the taproom turned into a battlefield, and within minutes all the celebrating tieflings were senseless on the floor. when the guards arrived, it was the tieflings who were arrested for disturbing the peace.

jove watched the whole thing, their bow sliding uselessly off the strings, unsure what they could do short of belching out a cone of lightning that would hit attackers, tieflings, and bystanders indiscriminately—so they did nothing.

when they told their master what happened, he was unsympathetic to the tieflings, saying that the other humans had taken things too far but that they hadn’t been wrong about the “foulbloods.”

jove got up before sunrise, stole their favorite of the violins they’d crafted and a simple glaive from estis’s forge (she would have given it freely if they’d woken her to ask, but jove couldn’t risk talking to her—if estis was as callous about the tieflings as their other mentor had been, it would break their faith completely), and left baldur’s gate. they’ve been roving the sword coast ever since, a vagabond like their mother, determined to protect strangers’ right to live and celebrate life loudly, especially those from “monstrous” races. this became the foundation of their paladin’s oath.

they’ve gotten rusty on the fiddle. but on the night of celebrating peace between the druids and tieflings, they’re compelled to play again.

#bg3 #oc: jove #baldurs gate 3 #dragonborn #antisemitism tw #<- for the coding of tieflings

5 notes · View notes

sleepycatjewelry · 2 years ago

Photo

Was it the lucky socks I wore? Maybe, but, from now on, I'm happy to say, I can call myself a master artisan. This afternoon I was judged by the Haverford chapter on standards held by the PA Guild of Craftsmen and I passed! Thank you everyone for encouraging me to keep striving for quality work in my designs. #sleepycatjewelry #paguildofcraftsmen #silversmith #metalsmith #jewelryartist #jewelrydesigner #ooakjewelry #opthandmade https://www.instagram.com/p/Cpa2Qp0ujci/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

#sleepycatjewelry #paguildofcraftsmen #silversmith #metalsmith #jewelryartist #jewelrydesigner #ooakjewelry #opthandmade

3 notes · View notes

nextmasonic · 3 months ago

Text

Understanding the Significance of Masonic Chain Collars in Freemasonry

Freemasonry, a fraternal organization with deep historical roots, is known for its rich traditions, rituals, and symbols. Among the many symbols that hold significant meaning in Freemasonry are the Masonic chain collars. These ornate and often elaborate collars are not merely decorative; they carry profound symbolism and serve important functions within the Masonic Lodge. In this article, we will delve into the history, symbolism, and significance of Masonic chain collars, exploring their role in the rituals and ceremonies of Freemasonry.

The Historical Roots of Masonic Chain Collars

Origins of Freemasonry

To understand the significance of Masonic chain collars, it's essential first to appreciate the origins of Freemasonry itself. Freemasonry traces its roots back to the medieval stonemason guilds of Europe. These guilds were composed of skilled craftsmen who built the great cathedrals, castles, and other monumental structures of the time. Over the centuries, these guilds evolved into a fraternal organization, emphasizing moral and ethical teachings, self-improvement, and mutual support.

Evolution of Masonic Regalia

As Freemasonry evolved, so did its symbols and regalia. The use of ceremonial attire, including aprons, jewels, and collars, became a way to distinguish rank and office within the Lodge. Masonic chain collars, in particular, began to emerge as an essential part of this regalia in the 18th century. These collars were designed to be worn by officers of the Lodge, symbolizing their authority and responsibilities.

The Symbolism of Masonic Chain Collars

The Chain as a Symbol

The chain, as a symbol, carries deep meaning in various cultures and traditions. In Freemasonry, the Masonic chain collar symbolizes the interconnectedness of all members of the Lodge. Just as a chain is composed of individual links, each member of the Lodge is connected to one another, forming a strong bond of brotherhood. This symbolism underscores the Masonic principles of unity, fraternity, and mutual support.

The Collar as a Sign of Office

Masonic chain collars are not merely ornamental; they serve as a sign of office within the Lodge. Each collar is typically adorned with a jewel or emblem representing the specific office held by the wearer. For example, the Worshipful Master's collar may feature a square, symbolizing moral rectitude and fairness, while the Senior Warden's collar might bear the level, representing equality. These symbols serve as a constant reminder of the duties and responsibilities that come with each office.

The Use of Precious Metals

The materials used in the construction of Masonic chain collars also carry symbolic significance. Many collars are made from precious metals such as gold or silver, representing the enduring value of the principles upheld by Freemasonry. The use of these materials also signifies the esteem in which the office and its duties are held within the Lodge.

The Role of Masonic Chain Collars in Rituals and Ceremonies

The Installation of Officers

One of the most important ceremonies in a Masonic Lodge is the installation of officers. During this ceremony, the outgoing officers formally pass their responsibilities to the newly elected officers. Masonic chain collars play a central role in this ritual, as each officer is invested with their collar and jewel, symbolizing the transfer of authority. This ceremony emphasizes the continuity of leadership within the Lodge and the ongoing commitment to the principles of Freemasonry.

Degree Work and Masonic Rituals

Masonic chain collars are also worn during degree work and other Masonic rituals. Each degree in Freemasonry involves specific teachings and symbols, and the officers conducting these rituals wear their collars as a sign of their authority to lead the proceedings. The presence of the collars reinforces the solemnity and significance of the rituals, reminding all present of the profound lessons being imparted.

Public and Private Ceremonies

In addition to their role in private Lodge ceremonies, Masonic chain collars are often worn during public events and parades. When Masons participate in public ceremonies, such as cornerstone layings or memorial services, the officers don their collars as a sign of their office and the Masonic values they represent. This public display of Masonic regalia serves to reinforce the fraternity's commitment to its principles and its role in the broader community.

The Design and Craftsmanship of Masonic Chain Collars

Traditional vs. Modern Designs

Masonic chain collars come in a wide variety of designs, ranging from traditional to modern. Traditional designs often feature intricate links and elaborate jewels, reflecting the craftsmanship and attention to detail that is a hallmark of Masonic regalia. Modern designs, while sometimes simpler, still retain the essential elements of symbolism and dignity that define Masonic collars.

Customization and Personalization

Many Lodges choose to customize their chain collars, incorporating specific symbols or motifs that are significant to their members. This customization allows each Lodge to express its unique identity while maintaining the universal symbols of Freemasonry. The personalization of collars also serves as a reminder of the individual contributions of each member to the collective work of the Lodge.

The Role of Artisans and Jewelers

The creation of Masonic chain collars is a specialized craft, often carried out by skilled artisans and jewelers. These craftsmen use traditional techniques to create collars that are both beautiful and meaningful. The quality of craftsmanship in a Masonic collar is a reflection of the esteem in which the office and its responsibilities are held.

The Importance of Masonic Chain Collars in Today's Freemasonry

Upholding Tradition

In an ever-changing world, Masonic chain collars serve as a tangible link to the traditions and history of Freemasonry. By wearing these collars, Masons reaffirm their commitment to the principles that have guided the fraternity for centuries. The continued use of chain collars in Masonic ceremonies helps to preserve the rituals and symbols that define the organization.

A Symbol of Leadership and Responsibility

Masonic chain collars are more than just decorative items; they are symbols of leadership and responsibility within the Lodge. Each time a Mason dons their collar, they are reminded of the duties they have pledged to uphold. This sense of responsibility extends beyond the Lodge, influencing how Masons conduct themselves in their personal and professional lives.

Connecting Past, Present, and Future

The symbolism of the chain collar as a link between individual members also extends to the connection between past, present, and future generations of Masons. By preserving and passing down these symbols, Masons ensure that the teachings and values of the fraternity continue to be relevant and impactful for future generations.

Challenges and Controversies Surrounding Masonic Chain Collars

Modern Perceptions of Freemasonry

In modern times, Freemasonry has sometimes been the subject of misunderstandings and misconceptions. The use of regalia, including chain collars, can be seen as antiquated or overly secretive by those outside the fraternity. However, Masons understand that these symbols carry deep meaning and are an essential part of the rituals that bind the fraternity together.

Balancing Tradition with Modernity

As with any long-standing tradition, Freemasonry must balance the preservation of its rituals with the need to remain relevant in a changing world. While some Lodges have embraced more modern designs for their regalia, others remain committed to traditional styles. This balance ensures that the essential symbols and values of Freemasonry are preserved while allowing for adaptation and evolution.

The Cost and Accessibility of Regalia

The cost of Masonic regalia, including chain collars, can be a barrier for some members, particularly in smaller Lodges or in regions where economic conditions are challenging. However, many Lodges work to ensure that all members have access to the necessary regalia, often through shared resources or donations. This commitment to inclusivity reflects the Masonic principle of brotherhood and support for all members.

Conclusion

Masonic chain collars are more than just a part of the ceremonial attire; they are a profound symbol of the values, traditions, and responsibilities that define Freemasonry. From their historical origins to their role in modern rituals, these collars serve as a tangible link between the members of the Lodge, connecting past, present, and future generations. As Freemasonry continues to evolve, the significance of these collars remains steadfast, reminding Masons of their duty to uphold the principles of brotherhood, leadership, and moral integrity.

By understanding the rich symbolism and importance of Masonic chain collars, we gain a deeper appreciation for the rituals and traditions that have shaped Freemasonry into the organization it is today. Whether worn in private ceremonies or public displays, these collars are a testament to the enduring values of a fraternity that has stood the test of time.

#artists on tumblr #masonic #chain collar

0 notes

ainews · 4 months ago

Text

During the 1290s, there were several reasons why lessons were considered pensionable for forks, particularly in England.

One of the main reasons was the widespread use of forks in dining. Forks were a relatively new utensil in Europe, and they were primarily used by the wealthy and elite members of society. As such, owning a fork was seen as a symbol of status and luxury, and it was often included in dowries and wedding gifts. This popularity of forks in dining led to an increasing demand for skilled fork-makers, who could create intricate and fashionable designs.

Additionally, the use of forks in dining was also considered more hygienic and sophisticated compared to using one’s hands or the communal knife. During this time, there was a growing awareness of the importance of cleanliness and manners in social interactions, and using a fork to eat was seen as a display of refinement and courtesy.

The demand for fork-makers and the increasing use of forks in dining led to a rise in fork-making apprenticeships and lessons. Fork-makers were highly skilled craftsmen, and they needed to pass on their knowledge and techniques to the next generation. Lessons were pensionable for forks because they were often taught within guilds or apprenticeships, where students paid a fee to learn the trade and the master craftsman would receive a portion of this fee as their retirement fund.

In addition to the financial benefits for the fork-maker, lessons were also pensionable in order to ensure the quality and consistency of fork-making. By carefully selecting and training apprentices, masters could ensure that their craft would continue to be of high quality and that they would have a reliable source of income in their retirement.

Moreover, the 1290s were a time of social and economic stability in England, with a growing wealthy merchant class and the establishment of many trade guilds. As such, there was a significant emphasis on trade and craftsmanship, and fork-making was seen as a valuable skill to pass down.

In conclusion, the popularity of forks in dining, the demand for skilled fork-makers, and the economic and social climate of the 1290s all contributed to why lessons were pensionable for forks. It was a mutually beneficial system, as it ensured the quality and continuation of the craft while also providing a retirement fund for the masters.

#ai generated #fake news

0 notes

teine-mallaichte · 4 months ago

Text

Echoes of the Ancient War - Lore Summary

Historical Context

Ancient War: Centuries ago, a devastating war between elves and humans erupted. The nature of its onset and conclusion remains unclear, but its aftermath was profound. The humans significantly expanded their territories. In contrast, the elves, devastated by the war, withdrew into seclusion, concealing their once-thriving cities with powerful, arcane magics that remain unseen by modern humans.

Human-Elven Relations

Conscripted Elves: After the war a tradition emerged among elite human houses to keep elven "conscripts". These descendants of captured elves are born into servitude. Trained as warriors or used as status symbols, these elves are living trophies, regulated by strict laws to ensure their loyalty.

Symbols of Power: Possessing an elven conscript is a status symbol, showcasing power and influence. These elves often serve as bodyguards, assassins, enforcers, or shown off as decorative trophies at social events.

The Human Perspective

Rarity of Sightings: Most humans have never seen an elf, free elves are almost unheard of and the conscripts are generally hidden from view kept within the grand homes of the wealthy.

Elite Privilege: For elites, owning an elven conscript signifies dominance. These elves are paraded at events, adding to the mystique and prestige of their owners.

Modern Dynamics

Human Politics: The practice of keeping elven conscripts is controversial. Some human factions advocate for their liberation, citing ethical concerns and the potential for rebellion. Others see it as necessary a tradition that should be upheald. Most citizens, however, feel detached from the issue.

Government Stance: The central government remains largely supportive of the status quo, influenced by political alliances and economic interests. While there have been some measures to address abuses, substantial change is slow.

Magic System

Magical Affinities: Mages are born with affinities for one of four magical schools: Healing and Creation, Elemental, Destruction, and Spiritual. Mastery outside one's affinity is rare.

Healing and Creation: Mending wounds, creating enchantments, etc.

Elemental: Manipulating and creating fire, water, earth, air, and lightning.

Destruction: Offensive spells and combat magic.

Spiritual: Connections to otherworldly entities, divination, etc.

Magic permeates daily life, from healing and agriculture to combat and spiritual guidance.

Other Races

Dwarves: Many dwarves have moved into human cities (mostly working as craftsmen or in the guilds) others work as traveling mercenaries, but there are also dwarven cities in the mountains that appear large and industrial to the outside world. Dwarven society is caste-based, valuing craftsmanship and tradition.

Gnomes: Gnomes are known for their curiosity and innovation, often living in secluded communities focused on technological and magical research - though sgnomes noving into human cities has been becoming more common. They are master tinkerers and inventors. Most gnomes have an affinity for creation magic, though ones with enough power to be considered "true mages" are rare.

Their societies are collaborative and emphasize education and innovation. They often create intricate mechanical devices and enchantments.

Halflings: Halflings are a peaceful, and somewhat isolated people living in close-knit communities and generally staying out of race relations and politics. They value simplicity, family, and tradition.

They are known for their hospitality and village wide celebrations/festivals. Despite being stereotypical a fairly insular society halflings are incredibly social and welcoming to any outsider who arrived at their settlements.

Orcs: Orcs are a warrior race known for their honor and traditions. They typically live in tribal societies within harsh environments and are often perceived as aggressive. Orcs prize strength, courage, and martial skill, and their relations with other races vary significantly between clans. Many orcs also exhibit an affinity for destructive magic.

Elves: Very little is known about elven culture due to their extreme reclusiveness. What is known is that all elves possess a slight elemental affinity - connected to emotions and manifesting as an innate part of their being. While elven mages do exist, their prevalence is unknown because of the elves' isolation from the broader world.

Echoes of the forgotten war posts master list

#Echoes of the forgotten war #world building

0 notes

wefindjobsuae · 5 months ago

Text

Landscape Installation Dubai

Beautify your gardens with Green Creation Landscaping Installation services in Dubai, UAE. We specialize in Landscape Design, Stonework, Tree Installation, and Maintenance. With over a decade of hands-on field experience, we offer a fresh and interesting approach to landscape design in Dubai. Our extensive experience in the field gives us the insight to create the landscape of your dreams. Green Creation expert will first meet with you to discuss the needs and wants of your outdoor space. After meeting and creating a design, we will present our ideas to you. The reward for our hard work! We love to impress our clients with our creative, unique, and artistic designs! We strive to use your thoughts and ideas and combine them with our design expertise and construction knowledge to present the best possible plan for your property. We want our clients to feel connected and invested in their green space. To achieve this, we make sure to personalize the landscape design for each of our clients, matching their personal style and spirit, and producing unique gardens of their dreams.Green Creation is a team of highly experienced, comprehensive landscaping experts who provide every aspect of landscaping including design, construction, installation, and maintenance works for residential, commercial, and public properties in Dubai, UAE.

Landscaping in Dubai

With over 14 years of extensive expertise, we are masters in bespoke design, paving, block paving, driveways, groundworks, and all other landscaping services. Green Creation strives for continuous growth and improvement, relishing any chance to explore the latest developments in landscape design and materials throughout Dubai and other emirates. We are very passionate about landscaping, and we understand the potential value added to properties and the importance our clients place on their outdoor areas. We care about our clients and we love delivering impressive, unique landscaping works that create harmonious and pleasant spaces for friends, family, and large businesses. Therefore, we hire only the best professionals in the landscaping trade.

Landscape Design Dubai

Green Creation Landscape Design specializes in creating and transforming your outdoor space, making sure we work closely to meet your needs and maximize your budget. We take pride in going the extra mile and ensuring each job is done professionally, within budget, and on schedule. Innovative landscape design for Dubai gardens, terraces, courtyards, and rooftops. We design install and maintain gardens in Dubai and all of UAE for private residences, hospitals, hotels, parks, and offices. Let us bring a touch of nature to your urban outdoor and indoor space. At Green Creation, we offer the advantage of working with one team from the conception to the completion of your project. We will guild you through the design process, plan the installation of the project, and install every detail of the design. This allows our team of designers, craftsmen, and professional gardeners the ability to work together bringing creativity, quality, and precision to all phases of your project.

Our techniques vary from others, and that's the main reason we are the leading landscaping company in Dubai, UAE. From the initial concept through to the final design and installation, we are on hand every step of the journey to ensure that we always exceed your expectations. Green Creation is a team of friendly management and staff, who always work to an affordable budget and our design team can source a wide range of materials and products to realize your project's vision. So whether you're preparing to embark on an ambitious new project or just looking to repair/renovate your existing landscape, you're in safe hands with Green Creation Landscaping.

0 notes

dailyanarchistposts · 7 months ago

Text

Chapter 8: Mutual Aid Amongst Ourselves (continued)

Labour-unions grown after the destruction of the guilds by the State. — Their struggles. — Mutual Aid in strikes. — Co-operation. — Free associations for various purposes. — Self-sacrifice. — Countless societies for combined action under all possible aspects. — Mutual Aid in slum-life. — Personal aid.

When we examine the every-day life of the rural populations of Europe, we find that, notwithstanding all that has been done in modern States for the destruction of the village community, the life of the peasants remains honeycombed with habits and customs of mutual aid and support; that important vestiges of the communal possession of the soil are still retained; and that, as soon as the legal obstacles to rural association were lately removed, a network of free unions for all sorts of economical purposes rapidly spread among the peasants — the tendency of this young movement being to reconstitute some sort of union similar to the village community of old. Such being the conclusions arrived at in the preceding chapter, we have now to consider, what institutions for mutual support can be found at the present time amongst the industrial populations.

For the last three hundred years, the conditions for the growth of such institutions have been as unfavourable in the towns as they have been in the villages. It is well known, indeed, that when the medieval cities were subdued in the sixteenth century by growing military States, all institutions which kept the artisans, the masters, and the merchants together in the guilds and the cities were violently destroyed. The self-government and the self-jurisdiction of both, the guild and the city were abolished; the oath of allegiance between guild-brothers became an act of felony towards the State; the properties of the guilds were confiscated in the same way as the lands of the village communities; and the inner and technical organization of each trade was taken in hand by the State. Laws, gradually growing in severity, were passed to prevent artisans from combining in any way. For a time, some shadows of the old guilds were tolerated: merchants’ guilds were allowed to exist under the condition of freely granting subsidies to the kings, and some artisan guilds were kept in existence as organs of administration. Some of them still drag on their meaningless existence. But what formerly was the vital force of medieval life and industry has long since disappeared under the crushing weight of the centralized State.

In Great Britain, which may be taken as the best illustration of the industrial policy of the modern States, we see the Parliament beginning the destruction of the guilds as early as the fifteenth century; but it was especially in the next century that decisive measures were taken. Henry the Eighth not only ruined the organization of the guilds, but also confiscated their properties, with even less excuse and manners, as Toulmin Smith wrote, than he had produced for confiscating the estates of the monasteries.[295] Edward the Sixth completed his work,[296] and already in the second part of the sixteenth century we find the Parliament settling all the disputes between craftsmen and merchants, which formerly were settled in each city separately. The Parliament and the king not only legislated in all such contests, but, keeping in view the interests of the Crown in the exports, they soon began to determine the number of apprentices in each trade and minutely to regulate the very technics of each fabrication — the weights of the stuffs, the number of threads in the yard of cloth, and the like. With little success, it must be said; because contests and technical difficulties which were arranged for centuries in succession by agreement between closely-interdependent guilds and federated cities lay entirely beyond the powers of the centralized State. The continual interference of its officials paralyzed the trades; bringing most of them to a complete decay; and the last century economists, when they rose against the State regulation of industries, only ventilated a widely-felt discontent. The abolition of that interference by the French Revolution was greeted as an act of liberation, and the example of France was soon followed elsewhere.

With the regulation of wages the State had no better success. In the medieval cities, when the distinction between masters and apprentices or journeymen became more and more apparent in the fifteenth century, unions of apprentices (Gesellenverbände), occasionally assuming an international character, were opposed to the unions of masters and merchants. Now it was the State which undertook to settle their griefs, and under the Elizabethan Statute of 1563 the Justices of Peace had to settle the wages, so as to guarantee a “convenient” livelihood to journeymen and apprentices. The Justices, however, proved helpless to conciliate the conflicting interests, and still less to compel the masters to obey their decisions. The law gradually became a dead letter, and was repealed by the end of the eighteenth century. But while the State thus abandoned the function of regulating wages, it continued severely to prohibit all combinations which were entered upon by journeymen and workers in order to raise their wages, or to keep them at a certain level. All through the eighteenth century it legislated against the workers’ unions, and in 1799 it finally prohibited all sorts of combinations, under the menace of severe punishments. In fact, the British Parliament only followed in this case the example of the French Revolutionary Convention, which had issued a draconic law against coalitions of workers-coalitions between a number of citizens being considered as attempts against the sovereignty of the State, which was supposed equally to protect all its subjects. The work of destruction of the medieval unions was thus completed. Both in the town and in the village the State reigned over loose aggregations of individuals, and was ready to prevent by the most stringent measures the reconstitution of any sort of separate unions among them. These were, then, the conditions under which the mutual-aid tendency had to make its way in the nineteenth century.

Need it be said that no such measures could destroy that tendency? Throughout the eighteenth century, the workers’ unions were continually reconstituted.[297] Nor were they stopped by the cruel prosecutions which took place under the laws of 1797 and 1799. Every flaw in supervision, every delay of the masters in denouncing the unions was taken advantage of. Under the cover of friendly societies, burial clubs, or secret brotherhoods, the unions spread in the textile industries, among the Sheffield cutlers, the miners, and vigorous federal organizations were formed to support the branches during strikes and prosecutions.[298] The repeal of the Combination Laws in 1825 gave a new impulse to the movement. Unions and national federations were formed in all trades;[299] and when Robert Owen started his Grand National Consolidated Trades’ Union, it mustered half a million members in a few months. True that this period of relative liberty did not last long. Prosecution began anew in the thirties, and the well-known ferocious condemnations of 1832–1844 followed. The Grand National Union was disbanded, and all over the country, both the private employers and the Government in its own workshops began to compel the workers to resign all connection with unions, and to sign “the Document” to that effect. Unionists were prosecuted wholesale under the Master and Servant Act — workers being summarily arrested and condemned upon a mere complaint of misbehaviour lodged by the master.[300] Strikes were suppressed in an autocratic way, and the most astounding condemnations took place for merely having announced a strike or acted as a delegate in it — to say nothing of the military suppression of strike riots, nor of the condemnations which followed the frequent outbursts of acts of violence. To practise mutual support under such circumstances was anything but an easy task. And yet, notwithstanding all obstacles, of which our own generation hardly can have an idea, the revival of the unions began again in 1841, and the amalgamation of the workers has been steadily continued since. After a long fight, which lasted for over a hundred years, the right of combining together was conquered, and at the present time nearly one-fourth part of the regularly-employed workers, i.e. about 1,500,000, belong to trade unions.[301]

As to the other European States, sufficient to say that up to a very recent date, all sorts of unions were prosecuted as conspiracies; and that nevertheless they exist everywhere, even though they must often take the form of secret societies; while the extension and the force of labour organizations, and especially of the Knights of Labour, in the United States and in Belgium, have been sufficiently illustrated by strikes in the nineties. It must, however, be borne in mind that, prosecution apart, the mere fact of belonging to a labour union implies considerable sacrifices in money, in time, and in unpaid work, and continually implies the risk of losing employment for the mere fact of being a unionist.[302] There is, moreover, the strike, which a unionist has continually to face; and the grim reality of a strike is, that the limited credit of a worker’s family at the baker’s and the pawnbroker’s is soon exhausted, the strike-pay goes not far even for food, and hunger is soon written on the children’s faces. For one who lives in close contact with workers, a protracted strike is the most heartrending sight; while what a strike meant forty years ago in this country, and still means in all but the wealthiest parts of the continent, can easily be conceived. Continually, even now, strikes will end with the total ruin and the forced emigration of whole populations, while the shooting down of strikers on the slightest provocation, or even without any provocation,[303] is quite habitual still on the continent.

And yet, every year there are thousands of strikes and lock-outs in Europe and America — the most severe and protracted contests being, as a rule, the so-called “sympathy strikes,” which are entered upon to support locked-out comrades or to maintain the rights of the unions. And while a portion of the Press is prone to explain strikes by “intimidation,” those who have lived among strikers speak with admiration of the mutual aid and support which are constantly practised by them. Every one has heard of the colossal amount of work which was done by volunteer workers for organizing relief during the London dock-labourers’ strike; of the miners who, after having themselves been idle for many weeks, paid a levy of four shillings a week to the strike fund when they resumed work; of the miner widow who, during the Yorkshire labour war of 1894, brought her husband’s life-savings to the strike-fund; of the last loaf of bread being always shared with neighbours; of the Radstock miners, favoured with larger kitchen-gardens, who invited four hundred Bristol miners to take their share of cabbage and potatoes, and so on. All newspaper correspondents, during the great strike of miners in Yorkshire in 1894, knew heaps of such facts, although not all of them could report such “irrelevant” matters to their respective papers.[304]

Unionism is not, however, the only form in which the worker’s need of mutual support finds its expression. There are, besides, the political associations, whose activity many workers consider as more conducive to general welfare than the trade-unions, limited as they are now in their purposes. Of course the mere fact of belonging to a political body cannot be taken as a manifestation of the mutual-aid tendency. We all know that politics are the field in which the purely egotistic elements of society enter into the most entangled combinations with altruistic aspirations. But every experienced politician knows that all great political movements were fought upon large and often distant issues, and that those of them were the strongest which provoked most disinterested enthusiasm. All great historical movements have had this character, and for our own generation Socialism stands in that case. “Paid agitators” is, no doubt, the favourite refrain of those who know nothing about it. The truth, however, is that — to speak only of what I know personally — if I had kept a diary for the last twenty-four years and inscribed in it all the devotion and self-sacrifice which I came across in the Socialist movement, the reader of such a diary would have had the word “heroism” constantly on his lips. But the men I would have spoken of were not heroes; they were average men, inspired by a grand idea. Every Socialist newspaper — and there are hundreds of them in Europe alone — has the same history of years of sacrifice without any hope of reward, and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, even without any personal ambition. I have seen families living without knowing what would be their food to-morrow, the husband boycotted all round in his little town for his part in the paper, and the wife supporting the family by sewing, and such a situation lasting for years, until the family would retire, without a word of reproach, simply saying: “Continue; we can hold on no more!” I have seen men, dying from consumption, and knowing it, and yet knocking about in snow and fog to prepare meetings, speaking at meetings within a few weeks from death, and only then retiring to the hospital with the words: “Now, friends, I am done; the doctors say I have but a few weeks to live. Tell the comrades that I shall be happy if they come to see me.” I have seen facts which would be described as “idealization” if I told them in this place; and the very names of these men, hardly known outside a narrow circle of friends, will soon be forgotten when the friends, too, have passed away. In fact, I don’t know myself which most to admire, the unbounded devotion of these few, or the sum total of petty acts of devotion of the great number. Every quire of a penny paper sold, every meeting, every hundred votes which are won at a Socialist election, represent an amount of energy and sacrifices of which no outsider has the faintest idea. And what is now done by Socialists has been done in every popular and advanced party, political and religious, in the past. All past progress has been promoted by like men and by a like devotion.

Co-operation, especially in Britain, is often described as “joint-stock individualism”; and such as it is now, it undoubtedly tends to breed a co-operative egotism, not only towards the community at large, but also among the co-operators themselves. It is, nevertheless, certain that at its origin the movement had an essentially mutual-aid character. Even now, its most ardent promoters are persuaded that co-operation leads mankind to a higher harmonic stage of economical relations, and it is not possible to stay in some of the strongholds of co-operation in the North without realizing that the great number of the rank and file hold the same opinion. Most of them would lose interest in the movement if that faith were gone; and it must be owned that within the last few years broader ideals of general welfare and of the producers’ solidarity have begun to be current among the co-operators. There is undoubtedly now a tendency towards establishing better relations between the owners of the co-operative workshops and the workers.

The importance of co-operation in this country, in Holland and in Denmark is well known; while in Germany, and especially on the Rhine, the co-operative societies are already an important factor of industrial life.[305] It is, however, Russia which offers perhaps the best field for the study of cooperation under an infinite variety of aspects. In Russia, it is a natural growth, an inheritance from the middle ages; and while a formally established co-operative society would have to cope with many legal difficulties and official suspicion, the informal co-operation — the artél — makes the very substance of Russian peasant life. The history of “the making of Russia,” and of the colonization of Siberia, is a history of the hunting and trading artéls or guilds, followed by village communities, and at the present time we find the artél everywhere; among each group of ten to fifty peasants who come from the same village to work at a factory, in all the building trades, among fishermen and hunters, among convicts on their way to and in Siberia, among railway porters, Exchange messengers, Customs House labourers, everywhere in the village industries, which give occupation to 7,000,000 men — from top to bottom of the working world, permanent and temporary, for production and consumption under all possible aspects. Until now, many of the fishing-grounds on the tributaries of the Caspian Sea are held by immense artéls, the Ural river belonging to the whole of the Ural Cossacks, who allot and re-allot the fishing-grounds — perhaps the richest in the world — among the villages, without any interference of the authorities. Fishing is always made by artéls in the Ural, the Volga, and all the lakes of Northern Russia. Besides these permanent organizations, there are the simply countless temporary artéls, constituted for each special purpose. When ten or twenty peasants come from some locality to a big town, to work as weavers, carpenters, masons, boat-builders, and so on, they always constitute an artél. They hire rooms, hire a cook (very often the wife of one of them acts in this capacity), elect an elder, and take their meals in common, each one paying his share for food and lodging to the artél. A party of convicts on its way to Siberia always does the same, and its elected elder is the officially-recognized intermediary between the convicts and the military chief of the party. In the hard-labour prisons they have the same organization. The railway porters, the messengers at the Exchange, the workers at the Custom House, the town messengers in the capitals, who are collectively responsible for each member, enjoy such a reputation that any amount of money or banknotes is trusted to the artél-member by the merchants. In the building trades, artéls of from 10 to 200 members are formed; and the serious builders and railway contractors always prefer to deal with an artél than with separately-hired workers. The last attempts of the Ministry of War to deal directly with productive artéls, formed ad hoc in the domestic trades, and to give them orders for boots and all sorts of brass and iron goods, are described as most satisfactory; while the renting of a Crown iron work, (Votkinsk) to an artél of workers, which took place seven or eight years ago, has been a decided success.

We can thus see in Russia how the old medieval institution, having not been interfered with by the State (in its informal manifestations), has fully survived until now, and takes the greatest variety of forms in accordance with the requirements of modern industry and commerce. As to the Balkan peninsula, the Turkish Empire and Caucasia, the old guilds are maintained there in full. The esnafs of Servia have fully preserved their medieval character; they include both masters and journeymen, regulate the trades, and are institutions for mutual support in labour and sickness;[306] while the amkari of Caucasia, and especially at Tiflis, add to these functions a considerable influence in municipal life.[307]

In connection with co-operation, I ought perhaps to mention also the friendly societies, the unities of oddfellows, the village and town clubs organized for meeting the doctors’ bills, the dress and burial clubs, the small clubs very common among factory girls, to which they contribute a few pence every week, and afterwards draw by lot the sum of one pound, which can at least be used for some substantial purchase, and many others. A not inconsiderable amount of sociable or jovial spirit is alive in all such societies and clubs, even though the “credit and debit” of each member are closely watched over. But there are so many associations based on the readiness to sacrifice time, health, and life if required, that we can produce numbers of illustrations of the best forms of mutual support.

The Lifeboat Association in this country, and similar institutions on the Continent, must be mentioned in the first place. The former has now over three hundred boats along the coasts of these isles, and it would have twice as many were it not for the poverty of the fisher men, who cannot afford to buy lifeboats. The crews consist, however, of volunteers, whose readiness to sacrifice their lives for the rescue of absolute strangers to them is put every year to a severe test; every winter the loss of several of the bravest among them stands on record. And if we ask these men what moves them to risk their lives, even when there is no reasonable chance of success, their answer is something on the following lines. A fearful snowstorm, blowing across the Channel, raged on the flat, sandy coast of a tiny village in Kent, and a small smack, laden with oranges, stranded on the sands near by. In these shallow waters only a flat-bottomed lifeboat of a simplified type can be kept, and to launch it during such a storm was to face an almost certain disaster. And yet the men went out, fought for hours against the wind, and the boat capsized twice. One man was drowned, the others were cast ashore. One of these last, a refined coastguard, was found next morning, badly bruised and half frozen in the snow. I asked him, how they came to make that desperate attempt?” I don’t know myself,” was his reply. “There was the wreck; all the people from the village stood on the beach, and all said it would be foolish to go out; we never should work through the surf. We saw five or six men clinging to the mast, making desperate signals. We all felt that something must be done, but what could we do? One hour passed, two hours, and we all stood there. We all felt most uncomfortable. Then, all of a sudden, through the storm, it seemed to us as if we heard their cries — they had a boy with them. We could not stand that any longer. All at once we said, “We must go!” The women said so too; they would have treated us as cowards if we had not gone, although next day they said we had been fools to go. As one man, we rushed to the boat, and went. The boat capsized, but we took hold of it. The worst was to see poor drowning by the side of the boat, and we could do nothing to save him. Then came a fearful wave, the boat capsized again, and we were cast ashore. The men were still rescued by the D. boat, ours was caught miles away. I was found next morning in the snow.”

The same feeling moved also the miners of the Rhonda Valley, when they worked for the rescue of their comrades from the inundated mine. They had pierced through thirty-two yards of coal in order to reach their entombed comrades; but when only three yards more remained to be pierced, fire-damp enveloped them. The lamps went out, and the rescue-men retired. To work in such conditions was to risk being blown up at every moment. But the raps of the entombed miners were still heard, the men were still alive and appealed for help, and several miners volunteered to work at any risk; and as they went down the mine, their wives had only silent tears to follow them — not one word to stop them.

There is the gist of human psychology. Unless men are maddened in the battlefield, they “cannot stand it” to hear appeals for help, and not to respond to them. The hero goes; and what the hero does, all feel that they ought to have done as well. The sophisms of the brain cannot resist the mutual-aid feeling, because this feeling has been nurtured by thousands of years of human social life and hundreds of thousands of years of pre-human life in societies.

“But what about those men who were drowned in the Serpentine in the presence of a crowd, out of which no one moved for their rescue?” it may be asked. “What about the child which fell into the Regent’s Park Canal — also in the presence of a holiday crowd — and was only saved through the presence of mind of a maid who let out a Newfoundland dog to the rescue?” The answer is plain enough. Man is a result of both his inherited instincts and his education. Among the miners and the seamen, their common occupations and their every-day contact with one another create a feeling of solidarity, while the surrounding dangers maintain courage and pluck. In the cities, on the contrary, the absence of common interest nurtures indifference, while courage and pluck, which seldom find their opportunities, disappear, or take another direction. Moreover, the tradition of the hero of the mine and the sea lives in the miners’ and fishermen’s villages, adorned with a poetical halo. But what are the traditions of a motley London crowd? The only tradition they might have in common ought to be created by literature, but a literature which would correspond to the village epics hardly exists. The clergy are so anxious to prove that all that comes from human nature is sin, and that all good in man has a supernatural origin, that they mostly ignore the facts which cannot be produced as an example of higher inspiration or grace, coming from above. And as to the lay-writers, their attention is chiefly directed towards one sort of heroism, the heroism which promotes the idea of the State. Therefore, they admire the Roman hero, or the soldier in the battle, while they pass by the fisherman’s heroism, hardly paying attention to it. The poet and the painter might, of course, be taken by the beauty of the human heart in itself; but both seldom know the life of the poorer classes, and while they can sing or paint the Roman or the military hero in conventional surroundings, they can neither sing nor paint impressively the hero who acts in those modest surroundings which they ignore. If they venture to do so, they produce a mere piece of rhetoric.[308]

The countless societies, clubs, and alliances, for the enjoyment of life, for study and research, for education, and so on, which have lately grown up in such numbers that it would require many years to simply tabulate them, are another manifestation of the same everworking tendency for association and mutual support. Some of them, like the broods of young birds of different species which come together in the autumn, are entirely given to share in common the joys of life. Every village in this country, in Switzerland, Germany, and so on, has its cricket, football, tennis, nine-pins, pigeon, musical or singing clubs. Other societies are much more numerous, and some of them, like the Cyclists�� Alliance, have suddenly taken a formidable development. Although the members of this alliance have nothing in common but the love of cycling, there is already among them a sort of freemasonry for mutual help, especially in the remote nooks and corners which are not flooded by cyclists; they look upon the “C.A.C.” — the Cyclists’ Alliance Club — in a village as a sort of home; and at the yearly Cyclists’ Camp many a standing friendship has been established. The Kegelbrüder, the Brothers of the Nine Pins, in Germany, are a similar association; so also the Gymnasts’ Societies (300,000 members in Germany), the informal brotherhood of paddlers in France, the yacht clubs, and so on. Such associations certainly do not alter the economical stratification of society, but, especially in the small towns, they contribute to smooth social distinctions, and as they all tend to join in large national and international federations, they certainly aid the growth of personal friendly intercourse between all sorts of men scattered in different parts of the globe.

The Alpine Clubs, the Jagdschutzverein in Germany, which has over 100,000 members — hunters, educated foresters, zoologists, and simple lovers of Nature — and the International Ornithological Society, which includes zoologists, breeders, and simple peasants in Germany, have the same character. Not only have they done in a few years a large amount of very useful work, which large associations alone could do properly (maps, refuge huts, mountain roads; studies of animal life, of noxious insects, of migrations of birds, and so on), but they create new bonds between men. Two Alpinists of different nationalities who meet in a refuge hut in the Caucasus, or the professor and the peasant ornithologist who stay in the same house, are no more strangers to each other; while the Uncle Toby’s Society at Newcastle, which has already induced over 260,000 boys and girls never to destroy birds’ nests and to be kind to all animals, has certainly done more for the development of human feelings and of taste in natural science than lots of moralists and most of our schools.

We cannot omit, even in this rapid review, the thousands of scientific, literary, artistic, and educational societies. Up till now, the scientific bodies, closely controlled and often subsidized by the State, have generally moved in a very narrow circle, and they often came to be looked upon as mere openings for getting State appointments, while the very narrowness of their circles undoubtedly bred petty jealousies. Still it is a fact that the distinctions of birth, political parties and creeds are smoothed to some extent by such associations; while in the smaller and remote towns the scientific, geographical, or musical societies, especially those of them which appeal to a larger circle of amateurs, become small centres of intellectual life, a sort of link between the little spot and the wide world, and a place where men of very different conditions meet on a footing of equality. To fully appreciate the value of such centres, one ought to know them, say, in Siberia. As to the countless educational societies which only now begin to break down the State’s and the Church’s monopoly in education, they are sure to become before long the leading power in that branch. To the “Froebel Unions” we already owe the Kindergarten system; and to a number of formal and informal educational associations we owe the high standard of women’s education in Russia, although all the time these societies and groups had to act in strong opposition to a powerful government.[309] As to the various pedagogical societies in Germany, it is well known that they have done the best part in the working out of the modern methods of teaching science in popular schools. In such associations the teacher finds also his best support. How miserable the overworked and under-paid village teacher would have been without their aid![310]

All these associations, societies, brotherhoods, alliances, institutes, and so on, which must now be counted by the ten thousand in Europe alone, and each of which represents an immense amount of voluntary, unambitious, and unpaid or underpaid work — what are they but so many manifestations, under an infinite variety of aspects, of the same ever-living tendency of man towards mutual aid and support? For nearly three centuries men were prevented from joining hands even for literary, artistic, and educational purposes. Societies could only be formed under the protection of the State, or the Church, or as secret brotherhoods, like free-masonry. But now that the resistance has been broken, they swarm in all directions, they extend over all multifarious branches of human activity, they become international, and they undoubtedly contribute, to an extent which cannot yet be fully appreciated, to break down the screens erected by States between different nationalities. Notwithstanding the jealousies which are bred by commercial competition, and the provocations to hatred which are sounded by the ghosts of a decaying past, there is a conscience of international solidarity which is growing both among the leading spirits of the world and the masses of the workers, since they also have conquered the right of international intercourse; and in the preventing of a European war during the last quarter of a century, this spirit has undoubtedly had its share.

The religious charitable associations, which again represent a whole world, certainly must be mentioned in this place. There is not the slightest doubt that the great bulk of their members are moved by the same mutual-aid feelings which are common to all mankind. Unhappily the religious teachers of men prefer to ascribe to such feelings a supernatural origin. Many of them pretend that man does not consciously obey the mutual-aid inspiration so long as he has not been enlightened by the teachings of the special religion which they represent, and, with St. Augustin, most of them do not recognize such feelings in the “pagan savage.” Moreover, while early Christianity, like all other religions, was an appeal to the broadly human feelings of mutual aid and sympathy, the Christian Church has aided the State in wrecking all standing institutions of mutual aid and support which were anterior to it, or developed outside of it; and, instead of the mutual aid which every savage considers as due to his kinsman, it has preached charity which bears a character of inspiration from above, and, accordingly, implies a certain superiority of the giver upon the receiver. With this limitation, and without any intention to give offence to those who consider themselves as a body elect when they accomplish acts simply humane, we certainly may consider the immense numbers of religious charitable associations as an outcome of the same mutual-aid tendency.

All these facts show that a reckless prosecution of personal interests, with no regard to other people’s needs, is not the only characteristic of modern life. By the side of this current which so proudly claims leadership in human affairs, we perceive a hard struggle sustained by both the rural and industrial populations in order to reintroduce standing institutions of mutual aid and support; and we discover, in all classes of society, a widely-spread movement towards the establishment of an infinite variety of more or less permanent institutions for the same purpose. But when we pass from public life to the private life of the modern individual, we discover another extremely wide world of mutual aid and support, which only passes unnoticed by most sociologists because it is limited to the narrow circle of the family and personal friendship.[311]

Under the present social system, all bonds of union among the inhabitants of the same street or neighbourhood have been dissolved. In the richer parts of the large towns, people live without knowing who are their next-door neighbours. But in the crowded lanes people know each other perfectly, and are continually brought into mutual contact. Of course, petty quarrels go their course, in the lanes as elsewhere; but groupings in accordance with personal affinities grow up, and within their circle mutual aid is practised to an extent of which the richer classes have no idea. If we take, for instance, the children of a poor neighbourhood who play in a street or churchyard, or on a green, we notice at once that a close union exists among them, notwithstanding the temporary fights, and that that union protects them from all sorts of misfortunes. As soon as a mite bends inquisitively over the opening of a drain — “Don’t stop there,” another mite shouts out, “fever sits in the hole!” “Don’t climb over that wall, the train will kill you if you tumble down! Don’t come near to the ditch! Don’t eat those berries — poison, you will die.” Such are the first teachings imparted to the urchin when he joins his mates outdoors. How many of the children whose playgrounds are the pavements around “model workers’ dwellings,” or the quays and bridges of the canals, would be crushed to death by the carts or drowned in the muddy waters, were it not for that sort of mutual support. And when a fair Jack has made a slip into the unprotected ditch at the back of the milkman’s yard, or a cherry-cheeked Lizzie has, after all, tumbled down into the canal, the young brood raises such cries that all the neighbourhood is on the alert and rushes to the rescue.

Then comes in the alliance of the mothers. “You could not imagine” (a lady-doctor who lives in a poor neighbourhood told me lately) “how much they help each other. If a woman has prepared nothing, or could prepare nothing, for the baby which she expected — and how often that happens! — all the neighbours bring something for the new-comer. One of the neighbours always takes care of the children, and some other always drops in to take care of the household, so long as the mother is in bed.” This habit is general. It is mentioned by all those who have lived among the poor. In a thousand small ways the mothers support each other and bestow their care upon children that are not their own. Some training — good or bad, let them decide it for themselves — is required in a lady of the richer classes to render her able to pass by a shivering and hungry child in the street without noticing it. But the mothers of the poorer classes have not that training. They cannot stand the sight of a hungry child; they must feed it, and so they do. “When the school children beg bread, they seldom or rather never meet with a refusal” — a lady-friend, who has worked several years in Whitechapel in connection with a workers’ club, writes to me. But I may, perhaps, as well transcribe a few more passages from her letter: —

“Nursing neighbours, in cases of illness, without any shade of remuneration, is quite general among the workers. Also, when a woman has little children, and goes out for work, another mother always takes care of them. “If, in the working classes, they would not help each other, they could not exist. I know families which continually help each other — with money, with food, with fuel, for bringing up the little children, in cases of illness, in cases of death. “‘The mine’ and ‘thine’ is much less sharply observed among the poor than among the rich. Shoes, dress, hats, and so on, — what may be wanted on the spot — are continually borrowed from each other, also all sorts of household things. “Last winter the members of the United Radical Club had brought together some little money, and began after Christmas to distribute free soup and bread to the children going to school. Gradually they had 1,800 children to attend to. The money came from outsiders, but all the work was done by the members of the club. Some of them, who were out of work, came at four in the morning to wash and to peel the vegetables; five women came at nine or ten (after having done their own household work) for cooking, and stayed till six or seven to wash the dishes. And at meal time, between twelve and half-past one, twenty to thirty workers came in to aid in serving the soup, each one staying what he could spare of his meal time. This lasted for two months. No one was paid.”

My friend also mentions various individual cases, of which the following are typical: —

“Annie W. was given by her mother to be boarded by an old person in Wilmot Street. When her mother died, the old woman, who herself was very poor, kept the child without being paid a penny for that. When the old lady died too, the child, who was five years old, was of course neglected during her illness, and was ragged; but she was taken at once by Mrs. S., the wife of a shoemaker, who herself has six children. Lately, when the husband was ill, they had not much to eat, all of them. “The other day, Mrs. M., mother of six children, attended Mrs. M—g throughout her illness, and took to her own rooms the elder child.... But do you need such facts? They are quite general.... I know also Mrs. D. (Oval, Hackney Road), who has a sewing machine and continually sews for others, without ever accepting any remuneration, although she has herself five children and her husband to look after.... And so on.”

For every one who has any idea of the life of the labouring classes it is evident that without mutual aid being practised among them on a large scale they never could pull through all their difficulties. It is only by chance that a worker’s family can live its lifetime without having to face such circumstances as the crisis described by the ribbon weaver, Joseph Gutteridge, in his autobiography.[312] And if all do not go to the ground in such cases, they owe it to mutual help. In Gutteridge’s case it was an old nurse, miserably poor herself, who turned up at the moment when the family was slipping towards a final catastrophe, and brought in some bread, coal, and bedding, which she had obtained on credit. In other cases, it will be some one else, or the neighbours will take steps to save the family. But without some aid from other poor, how many more would be brought every year to irreparable ruin![313]

Mr. Plimsoll, after he had lived for some time among the poor, on 7s. 6d. a week, was compelled to recognize that the kindly feelings he took with him when he began this life “changed into hearty respect and admiration” when he saw how the relations between the poor are permeated with mutual aid and support, and learned the simple ways in which that support is given. After a many years’ experience, his conclusion was that “when you come to think of it, such as these men were, so were the vast majority of the working classes.”[314] As to bringing up orphans, even by the poorest families, it is so widely-spread a habit, that it may be described as a general rule; thus among the miners it was found, after the two explosions at Warren Vale and at Lund Hill, that “nearly one-third of the men killed, as the respective committees can testify, were thus supporting relations other than wife and child.” “Have you reflected,” Mr. Plimsoll added, “what this is? Rich men, even comfortably-to-do men do this, I don’t doubt. But consider the difference.” Consider what a sum of one shilling, subscribed by each worker to help a comrade’s widow, or 6d. to help a fellow-worker to defray the extra expense of a funeral, means for one who earns 16s. a week and has a wife, and in some cases five or six children to support.[315] But such subscriptions are a general practice among the workers all over the world, even in much more ordinary cases than a death in the family, while aid in work is the commonest thing in their lives.

Nor do the same practices of mutual aid and support fail among the richer classes. Of course, when one thinks of the harshness which is often shown by the richer employers towards their employees, one feels inclined to take the most pessimist view of human nature. Many must remember the indignation which was aroused during the great Yorkshire strike of 1894, when old miners who had picked coal from an abandoned pit were prosecuted by the colliery owners. And, even if we leave aside the horrors of the periods of struggle and social war, such as the extermination of thousands of workers’ prisoners after the fall of the Paris Commune — who can read, for instance, revelations of the labour inquest which was made here in the forties, or what Lord Shaftesbury wrote about “the frightful waste of human life in the factories, to which the children taken from the workhouses, or simply purchased all over this country to be sold as factory slaves, were consigned”[316] — who can read that without being vividly impressed by the baseness which is possible in man when his greediness is at stake? But it must also be said that all fault for such treatment must not be thrown entirely upon the criminality of human nature. Were not the teachings of men of science, and even of a notable portion of the clergy, up to a quite recent time, teachings of distrust, despite and almost hatred towards the poorer classes? Did not science teach that since serfdom has been abolished, no one need be poor unless for his own vices? And how few in the Church had the courage to blame the children-killers, while the great numbers taught that the sufferings of the poor, and even the slavery of the negroes, were part of the Divine Plan! Was not Nonconformism itself largely a popular protest against the harsh treatment of the poor at the hand of the established Church?

With such spiritual leaders, the feelings of the richer classes necessarily became, as Mr. Pimsoll remarked, not so much blunted as “stratified.” They seldom went downwards towards the poor, from whom the well-to-do-people are separated by their manner of life, and whom they do not know under their best aspects, in their every-day life. But among themselves — allowance being made for the effects of the wealth-accumulating passions and the futile expenses imposed by wealth itself — among themselves, in the circle of family and friends, the rich practise the same mutual aid and support as the poor. Dr. Ihering and L. Dargun are perfectly right in saying that if a statistical record could be taken of all the money which passes from hand to hand in the shape of friendly loans and aid, the sum total would be enormous, even in comparison with the commercial transactions of the world’s trade. And if we could add to it, as we certainly ought to, what is spent in hospitality, petty mutual services, the management of other people’s affairs, gifts and charities, we certainly should be struck by the importance of such transfers in national economy. Even in the world which is ruled by commercial egotism, the current expression, “We have been harshly treated by that firm,” shows that there is also the friendly treatment, as opposed to the harsh, i.e. the legal treatment; while every commercial man knows how many firms are saved every year from failure by the friendly support of other firms.

As to the charities and the amounts of work for general well-being which are voluntarily done by so many well-to-do persons, as well as by workers, and especially by professional men, every one knows the part which is played by these two categories of benevolence in modern life. If the desire of acquiring notoriety, political power, or social distinction often spoils the true character of that sort of benevolence, there is no doubt possible as to the impulse coming in the majority of cases from the same mutual-aid feelings. Men who have acquired wealth very often do not find in it the expected satisfaction. Others begin to feel that, whatever economists may say about wealth being the reward of capacity, their own reward is exaggerated. The conscience of human solidarity begins to tell; and, although society life is so arranged as to stifle that feeling by thousands of artful means, it often gets the upper hand; and then they try to find an outcome for that deeply human need by giving their fortune, or their forces, to something which, in their opinion, will promote general welfare.

In short, neither the crushing powers of the centralized State nor the teachings of mutual hatred and pitiless struggle which came, adorned with the attributes of science, from obliging philosophers and sociologists, could weed out the feeling of human solidarity, deeply lodged in men’s understanding and heart, because it has been nurtured by all our preceding evolution. What was the outcome of evolution since its earliest stages cannot be overpowered by one of the aspects of that same evolution. And the need of mutual aid and support which had lately taken refuge in the narrow circle of the family, or the slum neighbours, in the village, or the secret union of workers, re-asserts itself again, even in our modern society, and claims its rights to be, as it always has been, the chief leader towards further progress. Such are the conclusions which we are necessarily brought to when we carefully ponder over each of the groups of facts briefly enumerated in the last two chapters.

16 notes · View notes

bondenoshoes · 6 months ago

Text

The Evolution of Shoemaking Apprenticeships: Tradition and Modernity

Shoemaking is an ancient craft, deeply rooted in tradition and artisan skills. Over the centuries, the method of passing down these skills has primarily been through apprenticeships. These apprenticeships have evolved significantly, adapting to changes in society, technology, and industry needs. This blog post explores the history of traditional shoemaking apprenticeships and how they have transformed in the modern era.

The Origins of Shoemaking Apprenticeships

Shoemaking as a profession dates back to ancient civilizations, where skilled artisans created footwear to protect and adorn the feet. The earliest records of shoemaking can be traced to ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, where shoemakers were highly regarded craftsmen. The apprenticeship system began to take shape during the Middle Ages, a period marked by the rise of guilds.

Medieval Guilds and Apprenticeships

In medieval Europe, guilds played a crucial role in regulating trades and ensuring the quality of goods produced. The shoemakers' guild, like other craft guilds, established a structured apprenticeship system to train new craftsmen. Young apprentices, typically boys aged 12 to 14, were bound by contract to a master shoemaker. This contract, often lasting seven years, stipulated that the apprentice would live with the master, learn the trade, and perform various tasks in exchange for food, lodging, and training.

The apprenticeship process was rigorous and comprehensive. Apprentices began with basic tasks such as cleaning the workshop, fetching materials, and assisting with simple tasks. Over time, they learned the intricate skills of shoemaking, including cutting leather, stitching, shaping, and finishing. The master shoemaker closely supervised their work, ensuring that the apprentices adhered to the high standards set by the guild.

The Traditional Shoemaking Apprenticeship

The traditional shoemaking apprenticeship was more than just a means of learning a trade; it was an immersive experience that shaped the apprentice's entire lifestyle. The apprenticeship was not merely about acquiring technical skills but also about instilling values, work ethic, and pride in craftsmanship.

The Master-Apprentice Relationship

The relationship between the master and the apprentice was central to the traditional apprenticeship model. Masters were not just teachers; they were mentors, role models, and sometimes surrogate parents. They imparted knowledge through hands-on training, demonstrations, and direct supervision. This close-knit relationship ensured that the apprentice absorbed not only the technical skills but also the nuances of the craft, including problem-solving techniques, quality control, and customer relations.

Skills and Techniques

Traditional shoemaking involves a wide range of skills and techniques, each requiring precision and expertise. Apprentices learned to work with various materials such as leather, rubber, and fabric. They mastered the use of specialized tools like awls, lasts, hammers, and knives. Key techniques included pattern making, leather cutting, stitching, sole attaching, and polishing.

One of the most important aspects of traditional shoemaking was customization. Shoemakers often created bespoke shoes tailored to the exact measurements and preferences of individual customers. This level of personalization required apprentices to develop a keen eye for detail and an understanding of human anatomy.

Cultural and Social Aspects

Traditional shoemaking apprenticeships were deeply embedded in the cultural and social fabric of communities. In many cases, shoemaking families passed down the craft from generation to generation, with each new apprentice continuing the family legacy. Shoemakers often held a respected position in society, contributing to local economies and serving the needs of their communities.

The Decline of Traditional Apprenticeships

The Industrial Revolution brought significant changes to the shoemaking industry, leading to the decline of traditional apprenticeships. The advent of mass production and mechanization transformed shoemaking from a craft-based industry to a factory-based one.

Industrialization and Mechanization

The introduction of machines such as the sewing machine and the lasting machine revolutionized shoemaking. These machines increased production speed and reduced the need for skilled manual labor. As a result, many traditional shoemakers struggled to compete with factory-produced shoes that were cheaper and more readily available.

Shift to Factory Work

With the rise of factories, the demand for skilled shoemakers decreased. Many craftsmen and apprentices were forced to adapt to new roles as factory workers, where the focus shifted from craftsmanship to repetitive tasks on assembly lines. The factory system prioritized efficiency and uniformity over customization and artistry.

Impact on Apprenticeships

The decline of traditional shoemaking had a profound impact on apprenticeships. The structured, mentor-based apprenticeship system gave way to more informal, on-the-job training in factories. The focus on mass production meant that workers learned specific tasks rather than the holistic craft of shoemaking. The rich tradition of passing down skills through generations began to wane.

The Revival of Shoemaking Apprenticeships

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in traditional crafts and artisanal skills, including shoemaking. This revival has led to the re-establishment of formal apprenticeships, blending traditional techniques with modern innovations.

Modern Artisanal Shoemakers

A growing number of artisanal shoemakers are dedicated to preserving the heritage of traditional shoemaking while incorporating contemporary design and technology. These modern craftsmen often operate small, independent workshops, focusing on high-quality, handcrafted shoes. They emphasize the importance of sustainability, ethical practices, and personalized service.

Structured Apprenticeship Programs

To support the revival of traditional shoemaking, various organizations and institutions have developed structured apprenticeship programs. These programs aim to provide comprehensive training, combining hands-on experience with theoretical knowledge. Apprentices learn the entire shoemaking process, from design and pattern making to cutting, stitching, and finishing.

One notable example is the apprenticeship program offered by the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers in London. This historic organization, dating back to the Middle Ages, continues to support the craft of shoemaking through scholarships, grants, and apprenticeships. Their program offers aspiring shoemakers the opportunity to train with experienced masters and gain valuable industry insights.

Integration of Technology

While modern apprenticeships emphasize traditional techniques, they also recognize the importance of integrating technology into the craft. CAD (Computer-Aided Design) software, 3D printing, and digital pattern making are increasingly being used to enhance precision and efficiency. Apprentices learn to balance the use of technology with the principles of traditional craftsmanship, ensuring that they are well-equipped for the future.

Collaborative Learning

Modern shoemaking apprenticeships often adopt a collaborative learning approach. Workshops and studios provide a communal environment where apprentices can learn from multiple mentors and peers. This collaborative atmosphere fosters creativity, innovation, and the exchange of ideas. Apprentices benefit from a diverse range of perspectives and experiences, enriching their learning journey.

Case Studies: Modern Shoemaking Apprenticeships

To illustrate the evolution of shoemaking apprenticeships, let's explore a few case studies of contemporary programs and their impact on the industry.

Stefano Bemer

Stefano Bemer, an Italian shoemaker renowned for his exquisite craftsmanship, has also established a comprehensive apprenticeship program. Their program combines traditional techniques with modern technology, providing apprentices with a well-rounded education. Trainees work alongside experienced artisans, learning the intricacies of shoemaking and the art of customization. The program also includes modules on business management and customer service, equipping apprentices with the skills needed to succeed in the industry. Stefano Bemer's commitment to apprenticeships reflects their dedication to preserving the heritage of Italian shoemaking while embracing innovation.

The New English Workshop

The New English Workshop is an organization dedicated to promoting traditional woodworking and shoemaking skills in the UK. Their apprenticeship program focuses on teaching traditional techniques, including hand-stitching, pattern making, and leatherworking. The program collaborates with experienced shoemakers and industry experts to provide apprentices with a comprehensive education. The New English Workshop emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship, sustainability, and ethical practices. Their program aims to inspire a new generation of artisans and ensure the continuation of traditional skills.

The Benefits of Modern Shoemaking Apprenticeships

Modern shoemaking apprenticeships offer numerous benefits for both apprentices and the industry as a whole. These programs provide aspiring shoemakers with valuable skills, industry knowledge, and the opportunity to learn from experienced mentors.

Skill Development

Apprenticeships offer a structured and immersive learning experience, enabling trainees to develop a wide range of skills. Apprentices learn the technical aspects of shoemaking, including pattern making, cutting, stitching, and finishing. They also acquire problem-solving abilities, attention to detail, and an understanding of materials and tools. These skills are essential for creating high-quality, bespoke shoes that meet the needs and preferences of individual customers.

Industry Insights

Apprenticeships provide trainees with valuable insights into the shoemaking industry. Apprentices learn about the history and heritage of the craft, as well as contemporary trends and innovations. They gain an understanding of the business aspects of shoemaking, including marketing, customer relations, and supply chain management. This holistic education equips apprentices with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in a competitive industry.

Preservation of Craftsmanship

One of the most significant benefits of modern apprenticeships is the preservation of traditional craftsmanship. By passing down skills and techniques from one generation to the next, apprenticeships ensure that the heritage of shoemaking is not lost. Apprentices learn the principles of quality, precision, and artistry that define traditional shoemaking. This preservation of craftsmanship is essential for maintaining the unique value and appeal of bespoke shoes.

Innovation and Creativity

Modern apprenticeships encourage innovation and creativity in the craft of shoemaking. Apprentices are exposed to new technologies, materials, and design concepts, enabling them to push the boundaries of traditional techniques. The collaborative learning environment fosters the exchange of ideas and the exploration of new possibilities. This blend of tradition and innovation ensures that the craft of shoemaking continues to evolve and adapt to changing customer needs and market trends.

Challenges and Opportunities

While modern shoemaking apprenticeships offer numerous benefits, they also face challenges. The industry must address these challenges to ensure the continued success and growth of apprenticeship programs.

Funding and Support

Securing funding and support for apprenticeship programs can be challenging. Governments, industry organizations, and private enterprises must recognize the value of apprenticeships and invest in their development. Financial support, grants, and scholarships can help aspiring shoemakers access training opportunities and ensure the sustainability of apprenticeship programs.

Awareness and Accessibility

Raising awareness about the value of shoemaking apprenticeships is essential. Many young people may not be aware of the opportunities available in the craft of shoemaking. Outreach programs, partnerships with educational institutions, and industry events can help promote apprenticeships and attract new talent. Making apprenticeship programs accessible to diverse populations is also crucial for fostering inclusivity and ensuring a vibrant and diverse industry.

Balancing Tradition and Innovation

Modern apprenticeships must strike a balance between preserving traditional techniques and embracing innovation. Apprentices should learn the principles of traditional craftsmanship while also gaining exposure to new technologies and design concepts. This balance ensures that the craft of shoemaking remains relevant and appealing to contemporary customers.

Conclusion

Shoemaking apprenticeships have a rich history, deeply rooted in tradition and craftsmanship. While the advent of industrialization brought significant changes to the industry, the revival of artisanal shoemaking has rekindled interest in traditional apprenticeships. Modern shoemaking apprenticeships blend the principles of traditional craftsmanship with contemporary innovations, ensuring the preservation and evolution of the craft.

These apprenticeships offer aspiring shoemakers valuable skills, industry insights, and the opportunity to learn from experienced mentors. They play a crucial role in preserving the heritage of shoemaking, fostering innovation, and ensuring the continued appeal of bespoke shoes. By addressing challenges and investing in the development of apprenticeship programs, the industry can ensure a vibrant and sustainable future for the craft of shoemaking.

In conclusion, shoemaking apprenticeships represent a vital bridge between tradition and modernity. They embody the values of quality, precision, and artistry that define the craft of shoemaking. As the industry continues to evolve, apprenticeships will remain essential in nurturing the next generation of master shoemakers and ensuring the enduring legacy of this timeless craft.

0 notes