(^244) THE WEALTH AND POVERTY OF NATIONS
Toward the end of the Old Regime, in 1762, the French govern
ment formally recognized the status quo and legitimized rural manu
facture, while a succession of functionaries tried vainly to abolish
corporate privileges or the corporations themselves. In vain; but here
again the revolution accomplished what an inept monarchy could not.
In 1791, the momentarily laissez-faire government abolished trade and
craft corporations—not only workers' guilds but associations of em
ployers. It was all very progressive and impartial, but over the next
three quarters of a century, the law was applied much more strictiy
against labor unions than against employers' associations. Not surpris
ing: the first priority was order, which meant keeping those above on
top and those below in their place.*
In Germany, where the guilds had long been bypassed by employ
ers and interlopers, they remained a force in the cities and in divers
principalities and kingdoms, and it was not until the formation of the
empire in 1870 that they finally gave up the ghost. The issue of their
legitimacy was subsumed in a general debate concerning "industrial
freedom." On one side were the liberals and big business, which felt
that Germany could not hold its own with modern competitors unless
people were free to work, move, and reside where they pleased. What
was the point of a German customs union where goods could pass and
people not? What good the right to establish mills if there were no
hands to hire? On the other side were conservatives and small trades
men and artisans, fearful of such new forms of enterprise as factories
and now department stores. The modern men (among them, the
Jews), the free market, open competition, new wealth... these were
the enemy.
These attempts to hold back the future were doomed in a Germany
still pursuing power. Power meant engines, machines, modern tech
nologies and the rules to go with them. The balance tilted inexorably
toward the aposties of change. The guildsmen had a moment of revival
in 1848-49, when revolutionary disturbances gave them an opportu
nity to make their local power felt. They attempted to reimpose long
abandoned or neglected constraints on entry and movement, but
failed, essentially because this reactionary move was seen as a blow to
- An exception was made for fraternities of journeymen, many of whom did a tour
of the country by way of professional preparation and found hospitality at every stop.
These compagnonnages, as they were called, did networking and supplied intelligence
about jobs and employers, but did not play much of a role in labor conflict. Their se
cret greetings and their peripatetic, often literate membership inspired romantic im
ages. Yet they gave no trouble and got no trouble.