The Medieval City, Guilds etc

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Just finished reading Kropotkins Mutual Aid. The section on this really struck me. I'd be grateful If people could recomend more detailed work in the same vein / on the same topic.

Would be particularly interested in any instances where the City sucessfully emancipated the surrounding peasants.

Cheers

[bcbm]

Tom Hodgkinson's "How to be Free" talks a lot about the medieval period, especially in regards to cities and work. If I can dig out my copy I can give a few more recommendations from the Bibliography.

[ComradeOm]

Would be particularly interested in any instances where the City sucessfully emancipated the surrounding peasantsDepends what you mean by "emancipated". In limited parts of Italy, where the commune movement was most advanced and persisted the longest, there were occasions where feudal land relations were abolished. Of course the peasants could hardly be considered free - the exploitation by the rural noble was simply replaced by exploitation of the urban landlord in a proto-capitalist arrangement. Often this only sharpened the misery of the peasantry as feudal customs (only selectively abolished) were fortified with new measures (such as food-rents) designed to increase agricultural production. The Italian City-State (Philip Jones) deals with this in some detail

Which is the problem with the picture created by Kropotkin - it is almost completely false. The communes are an important feature of medieval Europe - and perhaps more progressive than the surrounding feudal morass (although its important to note that the communes themselves were feudal constructs) - but certainly not the utopian societies that Kropotkin portrays them as. They had their yawning social divides, their state structures and their ruling classes

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Depends what you mean by "emancipated". In limited parts of Italy, where the commune movement was most advanced and persisted the longest, there were occasions where feudal land relations were abolished. Of course the peasants could hardly be considered free - the exploitation by the rural noble was simply replaced by exploitation of the urban landlord in a proto-capitalist arrangement. Often this only sharpened the misery of the peasantry as feudal customs (only selectively abolished) were fortified with new measures (such as food-rents) designed to increase agricultural production. The Italian City-State (Philip Jones) deals with this in some detail

Which is the problem with the picture created by Kropotkin - it is almost completely false. The communes are an important feature of medieval Europe - and perhaps more progressive than the surrounding feudal morass (although its important to note that the communes themselves were feudal constructs) - but certainly not the utopian societies that Kropotkin portrays them as. They had their yawning social divides, their state structures and their ruling classes

You demonstrate that you have not read Kropotkin. His presentation is not utopian, he spends a lot of time talking about their limitations. He discusses the development of social divides and ruling classes (but these did not exist at all times in all places). He also reports instances where the cities colaborated with the nobility and even took over the nobilities relation to the peasantry.

Your monolithic depiction of the free cities is problematic. They developed independently over an entire continent and lasted for centuries, changing a great deal in that time. There was great variety. Sometimes they were as you say, but not always. In Italy the struggle waged against them by the church and nobility was stronger than in many other places, this the primary source of negative features. What do you mean when you say they were 'feudal constructs'? I would imagine your definition of a 'state structure' is markedly different from Kropotkins.

By emancipated the peasants I mean enabled workers self management in agriculture.

Cheers for the recomendations. But the Jones book is over £100 on amazon. Can anyone recomend anything cheaper?

[ComradeOm]

You demonstrate that you have not read Kropotkin. His presentation is not utopian, he spends a lot of time talking about their limitations. He discusses the development of social divides and ruling classes (but these did not exist at all times in all places). He also reports instances where the cities colaborated with the nobility and even took over the nobilities relation to the peasantry" More than that; not only many aspirations of our modern radicals were already realized in the middle ages, but much of what is described now as Utopian was accepted then as a matter of fact" ;)

The impression that Kropotkin gives is, in my opinion, excessively rosy. It is not true that "the more we learn about the mediæval city, the more we are convinced that at no time has labour enjoyed such conditions of prosperity and such respect as when city life stood at its highest" and it is ridiculous to state that "To guarantee liberty, self-administration, and peace was the chief aim of the mediæval city". He sees in their guilds and their charters a worthy expression of his "mutual aid" and this informs every aspect of his description


What do you mean when you say they were 'feudal constructs'?As in they were, in their conception and raison d'etre, products of feudal society. The most obvious sign of which being of course the charters granted to them by the Crown or the establishment of the Imperial Free Cities. Only in Italy did the commune movement develop to the point where it could present a viable alternative to feudal relations, and even then only in parts of the peninsula


Your monolithic depiction of the free cities is problematic. They developed independently over an entire continent and lasted for centuries, changing a great deal in that time. There was great varietyExcuse me? I'm not the one arguing that "...when we cast a broad glance upon all the cities of Europe, the local and national unlikenesses disappear, and we are struck to find among all of them a wonderful resemblance, although each has developed for itself, independently from the others, and in different conditions"

Besides, I was specifically describing the Italian commune movement which is typically dated from the 10th to 15th C


In Italy the struggle waged against them by the nobility was stronger than in many other places, this the primary source of negative featuresWhy are you defending these communes? Simply because Kropotkin wrote about them?

In any case, any "negative features" that can be ascribed to the communes in Italy are merely the result of the longevity of the communes on the peninsula. There they reached their fullest expression under the city-states of the Renaissance. Elsewhere the communes were simply tamed as the developing national monarchies rendered their raison d'etre (defence) obsolete. There were an interesting historical movement but no more


I would imagine your definition of a 'state structure' is markedly different from KropotkinsNo doubt. I'd disagree with anyone who claims that the cities were not "centralised states" or looks favourably on the guilds and other feudal hierarchies


By emancipated the peasants I mean enabled workers self management in agricultureEh, no. Certainly not on any scale whatsoever. The work practices of the artisans, who dominated in the towns/cities, are not applicable to the peasantry. In Italy feudal management was replaced by proto-capitalist management. Elsewhere, AFAIK, not even this change took place

Think about what you've just proposed. Why on earth would any medieval city want to encourage "workers self management in agriculture"? This is what happens when you imbue the social relations within a commune with an overly favourable conception of "mutual aid"

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Why are you defending these communes? Simply because Kropotkin wrote about them?
It is obvious that your posts are motivated by a sectarian marxism, rather than a desire to inform. I am not an expert on the medieval cities, but I know a smear when I see one. I share very little of your social theory and am disinclined to trust anything you say. Why are you attacking these communes? Simply because Kropotkin wrote about them.


" More than that; not only many aspirations of our modern radicals were already realized in the middle ages, but much of what is described now as Utopian was accepted then as a matter of fact"As far as I know he is right. He quotes all manner of ordinances which stipulate that "work must be pleasant", bread must be baked "in justice" etc. There is a big difference between seeing a society as utopian and saying it realised +some+ of the demands made by people who are called utopians.


It is not true that "the more we learn about the mediæval city, the more we are convinced that at no time has labour enjoyed such conditions of prosperity and such respect as when city life stood at its highest"When did labour enjoy greater prosperity/respect (before mutual aid was written)?


it is ridiculous to state that "To guarantee liberty, self-administration, and peace was the chief aim of the mediæval city".Why? Of course he is talking about the early period and making a generalisation which doesnt always apply. But in many cases, the early cities were federations of guilds for mutual defense, the guilds federating to best defend their independence and self administration.


As in they were, in their conception and raison d'etre, products of feudal society. The most obvious sign of which being of course the charters granted to them by the Crown or the establishment of the Imperial Free Cities.Bollocks. Thats like calling trade unions "capitalist constructs" and saying that the recognition they have sometimes recieved from capitalists proves it. The charters were concessions won in struggle against feudal rulers.


I'm not the one arguing that "...when we cast a broad glance upon all the cities of Europe, the local and national unlikenesses disappear, and we are struck to find among all of them a wonderful resemblance, although each has developed for itself, independently from the others, and in different conditions"No, you dont add any qualifiers like 'when we cast a broad glance', nor do you mention 'the local and national unlikeness'. You simply say 'this is how the medieval city was'.


Besides, I was specifically describing the Italian commune movement which is typically dated from the 10th to 15th CYour second paragraph argues that Kropotkin was wrong for all medieval europe.


In any case, any "negative features" that can be ascribed to the communes in Italy are merely the result of the longevity of the communes on the peninsula.Why should I believe this?


Why on earth would any medieval city want to encourage "workers self management in agriculture"Because this would help the city in its struggle against the nobility. Where do I say anything about the same production techniques in the city as in the country? A system from which both the peasantry and the city benefits makes for a stronger alliance against the nobiity than one where the city exploits the peasants. In certain circumstances it would also be easier to create - the city simply aiding a peasant uprising rather than having to fight both nobles and peasants. etc.

[ComradeOm]

It is obvious that your posts are motivated by a sectarian marxism, rather than a desire to inform. I am not an expert on the medieval cities, but I know a smear when I see one. I share very little of your social theory and am disinclined to trust anything you sayWell then I suggest that you don't ask for help on this forum again. I'd like to think that over the past few years I've developed a reputation, in this particular subforum at least, for helping people with historical questions. That you have construed my disagreement with Kropotkin as being motivated by some sectarianism is nothing but your own paranoia and narrow-mindedness

If you want a discussion on medieval cities and society then you post in the History forum. If your subject of interest is Kropotkin and his writings then Theory or Philosophy are more suited


As far as I know he is right. He quotes all manner of ordinances which stipulate that "work must be pleasant", bread must be baked "in justice" etc. There is a big difference between seeing a society as utopian and saying it realised +some+ of the demands made by people who are called utopiansAnd tell me, just how much do you know about medieval European society? What other texts have you read on this subject? The fact is that Kropotkin was a non-historian writing at the turn of the last century. Our knowledge of medieval Europe, or indeed most areas of history, has advanced enormously since then and Kropotkin's idyllic view of the past simply does not hold true


Bollocks. Thats like calling trade unions "capitalist constructs" and saying that the recognition they have sometimes recieved from capitalists proves it. The charters were concessions won in struggle against feudal rulersNonsense. Charters were a hugely important document in the average medieval city (the major exception again being Italy) because they legitimised the governance of the town and enshrined its rights. Which is a major point - all authority, even in nominally independent cities, was derived from the King. The charter established the ruling structures (and limits of franchise) in the town, enabled the organisation of autonomous courts, and, most importantly, permitted the town to conduct trade in the lord's lands

Nor were these 'wrested' from a reluctant nobility. Typically they were purchased and in many cases granted as a form of investment - by some estimates (Norman Pounds) "more than half the towns in late medieval Europe had been established by feudal lords... because they gained financially from it". Exceptions to the case, and clearly there were those mentioned by Kropotkin, tended to occur around the 10th when the feudal state was only emerging from the chaos of the previous centuries

And yes, trade unions are a capitalist construct in that they are part of the fabric of capitalist society and a product of capitalism. The similarities with the medieval communes and cities (organisations of the emerging bourgeoisie recognised by the nobility) is also clear, if undoubtedly coincidental


Why should I believe this?Then don't. Ignore my input entirely in favour of someone with a black/red avatar. I can't force you to listen or learn


Because this would help the city in its struggle against the nobility. Where do I say anything about the same production techniques in the city as in the country? A system from which both the peasantry and the city benefits makes for a stronger alliance against the nobiity than one where the city exploits the peasants. In certain circumstances it would also be easier to create - the city simply aiding a peasant uprising rather than having to fight both nobles and peasants. etc.And this is exactly my issue with Kropotkin and his work. He, and you, are ascribing non-existent motivations to the communes. The latter were simply not, beyond the 11th C at least, in some form of bitter struggle with the nobles and nor were the cities stunningly progressive. There was of course continual political and economic competition (as the cities jealously guarded their independence) but it was one conducted within the framework of the medieval politics

Similarly the communes were fundamentally local artisans and merchants banding together to protect their own interests. There was no sympathy for the peasants and nor were they driven by some altruistic desire to spread "worker self-management". Rather, where those communes did come to supplant the feudal nobility in managing the land (Italy being the prime example) they merely replaced one set of overlords with another. And why shouldn't they? That such a transfer of power had even taken place demonstrates that, in these particular circumstances, the commune was strong enough to either oppose the nobility on its own or co-opt the latter into its structures

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Well then I suggest that you don't ask for help on this forum again.Little chance of that, I’m afraid. Other posters have been quite helpful. You, however have acted with arrogance. You made sweeping statements, and when I questioned them you asked ‘why are you defending these communes, because Kropotkin talked about them?’ You were the first to attack motives. It is obvious that your analysis of medieval communes is heavily influenced by your Marxist theory of history. I don’t hold this theory, so am disinclined to believe you and will ask you for substantiation/evidence. I don’t think that’s at all unreasonable. By analogy, if there was an area of history you were interested in, but didn’t know much about, and a hardline capitalist who knew a lot about it was giving you a particular interpretation which clearly flowed from his social theory, would you take it at face value?


why should I believe this
Then don't. Ignore my input entirely in favour of someone with a black/red avatar. I can't force you to listen or learnAsking for evidence/reasons is not ignoring you. You think you can simply state ‘this happened for these reasons’ and someone of very different views will just take you at your word?


Charters were a hugely important document in the average medieval city (the major exception again being Italy) because they legitimised the governance of the town and enshrined its rights. Which is a major point - all authority, even in nominally independent cities, was derived from the King. The charter established the ruling structures (and limits of franchise) in the town, enabled the organisation of autonomous courts, and, most importantly, permitted the town to conduct trade in the lord's landsNeither I nor Kropotkin dispute this. Of course this was a legal recognition of an existing balance of power between the nobles and the city. The King/Lords was saving face and the cities were getting a better guarantee of peace. The charter was what the cities got the King/nobles to sign because it represented what was important to them, rather than it being important to them because the nobles signed it. Are there any instances (before the 15th C) of the city calling in the Kings forces to use his authority against their own? If not its a dead letter.


The latter were simply not, beyond the 11th C at least, in some form of bitter struggle with the nobles ... There was of course continual political and economic competition (as the cities jealously guarded their independence) but it was one conducted within the framework of the medieval politicsCome off it, ‘political and economic competition within the framework of medieval politics’ often meant open warfare. But hang on, if, as you say, the charters weren’t wrested from a reluctant nobility, why did The Cities need to jealously guard their independence? Why did they go to the Herculean effort of surrounding themselves with walls? If, as you say, they weren’t in bitter struggle with feudalism, feudalism was certainly in bitter struggle with them. This can be seen from their eventual fate. They would have been in bitter struggle with the nobles to the extent they knew what was good for them.

Your calling trade unions "capitalist constructs" reveals the term as a meaningless product of your determinist social theory. Let me rephrase, why should we care if something is a "feudal construct"?


Similarly the communes were fundamentally local artisans and merchants banding together to protect their own interests. There was no sympathy for the peasants and nor were they driven by some altruistic desire to spread "worker self-management". Rather, where those communes did come to supplant the feudal nobility in managing the land (Italy being the prime example) they merely replaced one set of overlords with another. And why shouldn't they?Because the new overlords would and did turn on them. I (and Kropotkin) completely accept that this was the common occurrence. But I think that it is an entirely reasonable expectation for there to have been some instances of cities surrounded by free peasants, at least in the early period. There were plenty of peasant uprisings – why is it unreasonable to imagine one happening in the vicinity of a city engaged in struggle with the nobles, the city supporting the peasants leading to the development of forms of organisation primarily determined by the peasants?

At this point, I am going to ask you to quote specific things which Kropotkin says which you believe to be untrue and provide evidence for this.

[PRC-UTE]

"leninwasarightwingnutcase",


It is obvious that your posts are motivated by a sectarian marxism, rather than a desire to inform. I am not an expert on the medieval cities, but I know a smear when I see one. I share very little of your social theory and am disinclined to trust anything you say

Sine ira et studio.

ComradeOM is an asset to this forum, and he's telling the truth, all the while backing it up with sources.

[ComradeOm]

Little chance of that, I’m afraid. Other posters have been quite helpful. You, however have acted with arrogance. You made sweeping statements, and when I questioned them you asked ‘why are you defending these communes, because Kropotkin talked about them?’ You were the first to attack motives. It is obvious that your analysis of medieval communes is heavily influenced by your Marxist theory of history. I don’t hold this theory, so am disinclined to believe you and will ask you for substantiation/evidence. I don’t think that’s at all unreasonable. By analogy, if there was an area of history you were interested in, but didn’t know much about, and a hardline capitalist who knew a lot about it was giving you a particular interpretation which clearly flowed from his social theory, would you take it at face value?First of all, I apologise if I've misinterpreted your motives. I may have gotten the wrong impression from the tone of your posts and accusations of sectarianism. In particular the "red/black avatar" dig was not intended as a response to a simple reference request

However this will be my last post on the subject. I'm happy that one or two other posters have found the discussion interesting but if you, as the OP, do not feel that my input is useful then I'm wasting my time. To be blunt, I don't have to sit here taking time to elaborate on medieval social structures only to have my input compared unfavourably to someone complimenting your username. You can call that arrogance but I simply have other things to do that are more rewarding

Oh, and as a final note I'd suggest that only accepting information from those you deem ideologically pure is not the way to go. History, particularly pre-modern, does not have to be a political minefield in which every issue is subjected to doctrinal approval, every fact need fit your current political orientation, or every input be evaluated on its source rather than its content


Asking for evidence/reasons is not ignoring you. You think you can simply state ‘this happened for these reasons’ and someone of very different views will just take you at your word?Frankly, yes. Unless of course you have a particular reason to doubt my interpretation. Granted, this is not my beloved 19th C but I would still consider myself to be relatively well read on the development and features of medieval society. Now I can try and list every book I've read that deals with this subject or you can simply accept (or reject!) my interpretation and query specific details. If you disagree with my interpretation then feel free to conduct your own research... just don't pretend that Kropotkin counts as such


Come off it, ‘political and economic competition within the framework of medieval politics’ often meant open warfareNo. During the early medieval period (and this is pertinent to the establishment of the first communes) this was true. The rise of the castellans was a particularly violent period but it also marked the establishment of a stable feudal society. Dynastic struggles were of course common (obviously this would not affect the city) but after the 11th C there was a considerable drop in violence... or at least it was no longer so arbitrary as medieval politics, in Western Europe at least, largely stabilised on the local level. (Italy again would be the exception with the Papal/Imperial conflict raging)

Which is not to say that the average medieval city had no need to defend itself from the 12th C onwards but they usually didn't have to fear the local lord simply pulling up and burning the settlement to the ground. The extension of royal authority, coupled with the benefits of co-existence, kept both parties happy and limited noble/burgher violence. This shows in other ways as well - the Pax Dei movement, which was also a reaction to violent castellans, similarly disappeared during the 12th C or so. From this point on the greatest threat to a city's defence would be being caught up in a wider war being waged by two larger powers/nobles (ie, being in the wrong place at the wrong time) with all the hardships that that brings

(I don't think he deals with the cities/communes directly but Tom Holland's Millennium is a decent introduction to these turbulent centuries. Not a particularly academic work - an understatement - but then it was written for an audience new to the field and is very readable)


But hang on, if, as you say, the charters weren’t wrested from a reluctant nobility, why did The Cities need to jealously guard their independence?Its the nature of privileges to be defended and the burghers had a sweet deal going and they recognised it. It was in their interest to keep royal interference to a distance (while close enough to avail of their protection) and ensure that power within the city was concentrated in their own hands


If, as you say, they weren’t in bitter struggle with feudalism, feudalism was certainly in bitter struggle with them. This can be seen from their eventual fateReally? This is where a general stereotype breaks down so I'll briefly detour into national examples

England: This was the most centralised of the European kingdoms and here the commune movement never got started. All cities possessed a royal charter either granted in exchange for payment or to further the Crown's agenda (eg, settling a particular area or encouraging economic growth in a region). The cities had traditional autonomous rights (which set them aside from the rule of the lower nobility) but were never independent of the Crown and relied entirely on its authority

France: The archetypical feudal society, France threw up a good few communes and independent cities during the early years of the second millennium. As the power of Ile de France slowly strengthened both feudal lords and city burghers were slowly absorbed into the French state apparatus. This was not a victory for "feudalism" or the countryside swallowing the city but the modern state that was emerging from such. Indeed it was the feudal lords themselves, the grand dukes of France, that bore most of the pain - the power of the Valois kings was secured by confiscating the lands and fortifications of the nobles

Germany: Essentially France without the growing central authority. Here the cities (formally enshrined as Free Imperial Cities) did survive, although not in their commune form, until Napoleon came knocking at the beginning of the 19th C. These were perfect examples of the degree to which the cities could become enmeshed in the framework of a feudal society

Italy: Well, as I've mentioned many times, Italy was a special case. It was here that the communes (as a result of geography or history) survived the longest and the movement reached its peak with inter-communal alliances and warfare. Eventually they transformed into traditional city states in their own right (signoria) before surviving until Napoleon (in some cases Italian unification). What's particularly interesting here is that throughout many parts of the peninsula feudal land relations were abolished and in their absence the peasantry was subjected to a proto-capitalist regime. But I've talked about that previously

So the eventual fate in each case was the absorption of the cities not by some neighbouring feudal lord but the emerging apparatus of the central state. In Germany and Italy their independence was secured until the bourgeois revolutions swept Europe a mere two hundred years ago. Nor can the degeneration of the communes be laid at the foot of feudal competition


They would have been in bitter struggle with the nobles to the extent they knew what was good for themWould've, should've, could've. Probably the thing I dislike the most about the version of history propagated by yourself and Kropotkin is that its based almost entirely on political assumptions. You assume that the communes were of a particular nature and therefore insist that certain actions or features would be logical. The reality is that the features/actions that you expect to have emerged did not, to the best of my knowledge, do so. Do you not think that it is time to revisit the base assumption?


Your calling trade unions "capitalist constructs" reveals the term as a meaningless product of your determinist social theory. Let me rephrase, why should we care if something is a "feudal construct"?Ignoring the insult, the importance of this is that the medieval city was part of feudal society and not "a fortified oasis amidst a country plunged into feudal submission" or one that "had to make room for itself by the force of its arms". While feudal land relations may not have applied directly to the cities they cannot be divorced from the wider fabric of medieval society. There was a huge degree of interaction (of which the charters were merely the most formal) between the urban and rural worlds and, whatever about class competition, these were not opposing forces pitted in unending conflict. In Germany, for example, quite elaborate legal mechanisms were developed to govern interaction between the cities, the Imperial structures, and the regional nobility

For example, Kropotkin casts the Italian communes as faced in a constant "fierce contest with feudalism, imperialism, and papacy". That many cities sided with one side or another is explained away by simply asserting that Church "policy was to divide the cities and to arm them against each other". I mean this is a ridiculously simplistic summary of the division between Guelphs and Ghibellines. Indeed that particular conflict only emphasises the degree to which the cities were part of the established fabric of medieval Europe

And this is where it becomes personally frustrating. Am I to reference half a dozen works I know that deal with the Investiture Controversy in part? Or do you want me to spell out a history of this period and chart the developing differences between secular and religious authorities and their impact on Italian politics?


There were plenty of peasant uprisings – why is it unreasonable to imagine one happening in the vicinity of a city engaged in struggle with the nobles, the city supporting the peasants leading to the development of forms of organisation primarily determined by the peasants?Because it did not happen. I'm sorry but that's the simple reality. Where the cities did encroach on the peasantry on any real scale (ie, Italy) the result was domination of the latter by the former


At this point, I am going to ask you to quote specific things which Kropotkin says which you believe to be untrue and provide evidence for thisI'd be here all day. We haven't even gotten onto the actual emergence of feudal society from the 'barbarians'. From what I recall of his work, correcting the base assumptions of that particular section is a whole discussion on its own. This is just not a solid or modern work of history. I would not stand up before a group of anthropologists with a copy of Engels' Origin of the Family and insist that it was all historically correct and up to date

[Random Precision]

Pogue, please do not spam the thread. You can consider yourself verbally warned.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

now i can try and list every book i've read that deals with this subjectthat’s exactly what i was after (or at least a few). Thanks for the jones recommendation but (being a worker and all) i’m not prepared to shell out £100. I’d find it very helpful if you would do this.

so the eventual fate in each case was the absorption of the cities not by some neighbouring feudal lord but the emerging apparatus of the central state the state which emerged was a feudal state. This is what i meant, sorry if you misunderstood me. Against this, isolated cities could not survive. Their freedom was dependant on the freedom of others – which would thus have been in their interest. This was my point.

probably the thing i dislike the most about the version of history propagated by yourself and kropotkin is that its based almost entirely on political assumptions. You assume that the communes were of a particular nature and therefore insist that certain actions or features would be logical.i don’t think that’s the case. I think you read a marxist caricature of anarchism into kropotkin. He discusses the transformation of the communes after the early period, class divisions and how this caused the communes to abandon the principles of mutual aid which would have best ensured their survival. His account is basically yours, take this for example:


And there is yet another cause of the decay of communal institutions, which stands higher and lies deeper than all the above. The history of the medieval cities offers one of the most striking illustrations of the power of ideas and principles upon the destinies of mankind, and of the quite opposed results which are obtained when a deep modification of leading ideas has taken place. Self-reliance and federalism, the sovereignty of each group, and the construction of the political body from the simple to the composite, were the leading ideas in the eleventh century. But since that time the conceptions had entirely changed. The students of roman law and the prelates of the church, closely bound together since the time of innocent the third, had succeeded in paralyzing the idea -- the antique greek idea -- which presided at the foundation of the cities. For two or three hundred years they taught from the pulpit, the university chair, and the judges' bench, that salvation must be sought for in a strongly-centralized state…

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

No one can recomend me a serious history book for under £100?

[Dave B]

For information only there is a passage in German Ideology on the guild system;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01c.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01c.htm)

As something was mentioned earlier on the introduction of a capitalistic outlook into feudal production and a kind of fusion of the two;

Volume one



SECTION 2, THE GREED FOR SURPLUS-LABOUR. MANUFACTURER AND BOYARD





But as soon as people, whose production still moves within the lower forms of slave-labour, corvée-labour, &c., are drawn into the whirlpool of an international market dominated by the capitalistic mode of production, the sale of their products for export becoming their principal interest, the civilised horrors of over-work are grafted on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, &c. Hence the negro labour in the Southern States of the American Union preserved something of a patriarchal character, so long as production was chiefly directed to immediate local consumption.


But in proportion, as the export of cotton became of vital interest to these states, the over-working of the negro and sometimes the using up of his life in 7 years of labour became a factor in a calculated and calculating system. It was no longer a question of obtaining from him a certain quantity of useful products. It was now a question of production of surplus-labour itself: So was it also with the corvée, e.g., in the Danubian Principalities (now Roumania).


The comparison of the greed for surplus-labour in the Danubian Principalities with the same greed in English factories has a special interest, because surplus-labour in the corvée has an independent and palpable form. ……..
Blah blah

You need to read the rest of it really.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm)