Never said that the relationship was the same, only that exploitation still existed back then, though I must admit I worded my sentence poorly.
Granted, you’re painting the guild relationships as if they were merely teaching devices, while that’s far from the truth and just falls to medieval ideological propaganda. In reality, they were an early form of “capitalist exploitation” for the lack of a better term in a pre-capitalistic society, it’s very similar to the surplus value extraction that we see today. The master owned the tools, workshop, guild membership, etc which constituted as means of production of that time. The apprentice sold their labor power and essentially themselves thanks to the contracts in exchange for subsistence which is literally what wages are designed to do also.
The other forms were different though, yes, but they were still exploitative. Marx didn’t write “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” for no reason.
Never said that the relationship was the same, only that exploitation still existed back then, though I must admit I worded my sentence poorly.
Granted, you’re painting the guild relationships as if they were merely teaching devices, while that’s far from the truth and just falls to medieval ideological propaganda. In reality, they were an early form of “capitalist exploitation” for the lack of a better term in a pre-capitalistic society, it’s very similar to the surplus value extraction that we see today. The master owned the tools, workshop, guild membership, etc which constituted as means of production of that time. The apprentice sold their labor power and essentially themselves thanks to the contracts in exchange for subsistence which is literally what wages are designed to do also.
The other forms were different though, yes, but they were still exploitative. Marx didn’t write “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” for no reason.