Gilda (perhimpunan): Perbedaan antara revisi

Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan
Tidak ada ringkasan suntingan
Baris 76:
Sistem gilda banyak dikecam menjelang akhir abad ke-18 dan permulaan abad ke-19. Gilda-gilda diyakini bertentangan dengan [[perdagangan bebas]] dan menghalangi [[inovasi teknologi]], [[alih teknologi]], dan [[perkembangan usaha]]. Menurut beberapa keterangan dari kurun waktu ini, gilda-gilda kian lama kian terlibat dalam sengketa-sengketa wilayah yang sepele di antara satu sama lain maupun antara gilda-gilda melawan para pelaku usaha di luar gilda.
 
Dua tokoh yang paling keras mengecam sistem gilda adalah [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] dan [[Adam Smith]]. <!--Selain itu, muncultimbul pula tendensikecenderungan di seluruh Eropa untuk menentang kendali pemerintah atas dunia usaha,. danKeinginan akan keinginanterwujudnya unterwujudnyasuatu sistem [[pasar bebas]] yang berhaluan ''[[laissez-faire]]'' wasbertumbuh growingdengan rapidlycepat, anddan makingmerembet itssampai wayke intoranah thepolitik politicaldan and legal systemhukum. TheRevolusi FrenchPrancis Revolutionmenganggap sawgilda guildssebagai assisa-sisa a last remnant ofterakhir [[feodalisme]]. The [[Undang-undang Le Chapelier Law]] tahun 1791 meniadakan gilda di Prancis.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Liana |last=Vardi |title=The abolition of the guilds during the French Revolution |journal=French Historical Studies |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=704–717 |year=1988 |jstor=286554}}</ref><!-- Smith wrote in ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'' (Buku I, Bab X, alinea 72) sebagai berikut:
 
{{quote|It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of wages and profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established. (...) and when any particular class of artificers or traders thought proper to act as a corporation without a charter, such adulterine guilds, as they were called, were not always disfranchised upon that account, but obliged to fine annually to the king for permission to exercise their usurped privileges.}}