So I learned today that noblemen in 17th-18th century France, were not allowed to conduct or own businesses. Of course, they used to proxies to get round this but this seems so stupid, why was this? Was it to limit the potential power/wealth they could accrue? It seems to lead, inevitably, to the clash between nobles and bourgeoisie that happened in the Revolution.
>>1326875
The French kings basically kept the French nobility in a state of luxury on purpose. They made up the whole ballroom culture just to keep an eye on the nobility and to keep them pacified. What came out of this culture was a bunch of faggy men so rich and indulgent all of France looked at them with disgust. But by keeping the nobility useless the French monarchys power was absolute.
>>1326875
This was actually common among nobles going back to roman times. Engaging in merchant work was seen as crass, even immoral. You got wealth from serving the state or owning land, not buying and reselling things.
But then by today it's gone full circle, the interest-seeking industry is about as bad as the rent-seeking/protection-racket industry.
>>1326875
It actually stems from middle ages' attitudes and distinction between the warrior class and the rest.
Practically up to the Industrial Revolution trade and crafts were generally shunned and considered dishonorable. In many countries noblemen could lose their status if they took part in them. The only economic activity that was considered befitting a nobleman was agriculture - either as a landowner or labourer.
>>1326918
>The French kings basically kept the French nobility in a state of luxury on purpose.
Wat? The "golden cage" held only the cream of nobility.- the superwealthy highest born, who would otherwise pose a threat to the throne. The majority of nobility didn't live in luxuries. Actually, many lived in poverty and sometimes had to work as laborers almost unrecognizable from peasants asie from few meaningless privileges (like the right to carry a sword or to work in gloves).
>>1327030
>Actually, many lived in poverty and sometimes had to work as laborers almost unrecognizable from peasants asie from few meaningless privileges (like the right to carry a sword or to work in gloves).
Never heard of this before. Any good references?
>>1326875
It was a different society. We live in a bourgeois society of merchants where work is good and gives you social status, it "purifies". But this is the product of 18th and 19th century revolutions (although you can trace the origins way more back in time even to the late middle ages).
In a society still controled by the european nobles of medieval origin, even one where agrarian landlords are no longer the most powerful group de facto, work is not good. It vilifies, it degrades you.
>>1327216
What do you mean "work"? I'm getting the sense that agricultural labor was still seen as dignified.
>>1327259
>I'm getting the sense that agricultural labor was still seen as dignified
If you were an agricultural laborer maybe. The most dignified thing was to not work at all, living from the profits of your land (worked by someone else) or the military. Getting cash from the king because you comb his wig are okay too if you can't do better.
>>1327272
>profits from the military
IIRC officers had to pay for all their shit themselves, weren't allowed to pillage and loot, and were payed almost nothing.
>>1327281
At least in spain nobility, specially the lower one, enlisted in the military regularly to avoid poverty.
>>1326875
>it seems to lead, inevitably, to the clash between nobles and bourgeoisie that happened in the Revolution
If the nobility had been directly active in the commercial sphere, it would have made the clash even more pronounced because of inevitable advantages that their political power would give them.
>be a French merchant
>spend your whole life building up a little business
>struggle and persevere and finally enjoy success
>the local Count sets up a competing business and exempts himself from taxation and regulation so he can sell the same product at half the price and still make more money than you
>he bans you from advertising your business and raises your taxes
>confiscates your property if you complain
Yeah, mixing political and economic power never goes well unless you're going to go full-totalitarian and have all business in the hands of the ruling class.
>>1327305
I don't think there would be a bourgeoisie as we know it at all had the nobility been able to become the bourgeoisie themselves from the start.
>>1326875
usury was a sin.
I mean is a sin but they knew that. I dont know why jews do it if they made the rule.
