Mutual benefit societies didn't arise "due to the inherent weakness of the state" any more than horses appeared because of the need to pull carts. Mutual benefit societies arose because they were ways for people to help each other and to get help. In some places, the state has taken over functions that people used to get through social institutions, and in some places, the state has helped business drive out the mutual benevolence groups (for instance, in the US, banks and insurance companies had politicians make banking and insurance regulations that drove out many of the lending functions that benevolence groups provided.) To some extent, the social institutions were strongest within immigrant ethnic groups and other frontier social groups, and weakened as cities grew and people assimilated into them - in a mass society it's often easier to let the state be the "somebody" who ought to do something rather than doing the work yourself. At 12:43 PM 9/20/00 -0400, R. A. Hettinga forwarded:

From: "Ben Moretti" <bmoretti@chariot.net.au> To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:27:40 GMT Subject: <nettime> Rebirth of Guilds

[the actual report is well worth reading. i have held privately that the mutual benefit societies and groups that played an important role in south australia in the 19th century arose due to the inherent weakness of the state in the colony, and that these groups would re-arise due to the same reasons. i know adecdotally that there is a long line of these stretching back -- freemasons, mechanics institutes, mutual benefit funds, etc -- so it only seems logical as we move into a weak state mode of history, it would happen again. b.]

Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639