US Declaration of Independence (1776)

United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

This legacy of rights is found in more modern documents.  The United States Declaration of Independence, 1776, appeals to these “Truths” and the ability of men to govern themselves through “Good” Reason directed by ethical principle; the characteristic of this premise is based not simply on “selfish” interest but a form of  “self-interestedness” that comes from a greater awareness of one’s place in society.  Other documents, such as the French Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1792 and the more modern United Nations Declaration of Human Rights statement formulated soon after World War II, echo these beliefs and have helped to shape the importance of the individual and individual-oriented conception.

In England, during the development of increased democratic principles in the seventeenth another historical event redefined politics and the global economy.  This developing trend has been referred to as colonialism.

At the heart of colonialism was the incredible desire of Europeans to gain economic prosperity.  The Europeans started to realize the enormous possibilities for wealth that were available to them, and they looked to the Americas, Africa, the Pacific, and Asia for that wealth.  The early key to prosperity in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries relied upon two important ingredients.

The ability to find and produce new resources such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, and tea for a new emerging world market.  The emergence of the role of the commoner in world affairs is seen in our discussion about rights and seemingly coming from the other trends of the early modern world. The Western world economy adapted to a philosophy of mass production of these resources for public consumption over time.  Thus, natives and slaves were “employed” in this system to keep prices down while harvesting these newly produced goods in sectors worldwide where they had been discovered or were easily grown.

Essential to this system was the Trans-Atlantic trade system that took labor from Africa to the Americas to be used in the growth and production of resources that would eventually be sold in European markets and, by the nineteenth century, worldwide.  As this trading system across the Atlantic emerged, two economic methodologies were working behind it.

The earlier system was referred to as mercantilism, popular during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and was devised in correlation with the rise of absolutistic political theory.  The second system originated in the eighteenth century in the research and arguments of a Frenchman named Quesnay and eventual “father” figure of capitalism, the Scottish thinker Adam Smith: colonialism.

Colonialism

As colonialism emerged, the complete colonization of the Americas took place.  European powers came to claim and dominate all of the Americas in search of resources and for rapid expansion into these new areas to accumulate new products and resources.

Objectives of Mercantilism

1. The health of a nation can be measured by the amount of precious metal [gold or silver] that it possessed
2. Bullion was the source of prosperity, prestige, and strength for a nation
3. A country’s goal should be to create a “favorable balance of trade”
4. Thriving agriculture should be carefully encouraged by a large population base that will be instrumental to colonial growth
5. Colonies would provide captive markets for manufactured goods & sources of raw materials
6. Luxury items should be avoided
7. State action was needed to regulate and enforce all of these economic policies

The development of the first system of economic productivity traced to this era and the colonialism of the period is referred to as mercantilism.  Europeans believed that economic prosperity and market system growth could be traced to direct government control of markets by the setting of price, demand, and the production of goods.  Within a colonial system, mercantilism was productive as land newly retained by explorers was made available to governmental regimes rather than private interests.

Markets were emerging, and countries needed to set the precedent for economic development through state action and, in some instances, direct monopoly-controlled markets.  They did so by following a belief that true economic viability came from what could be called “bullionism,” where the health of a nation was measured by the number of precious metals, namely gold, and silver, that a country possessed.  Spain led in this objective through much of the sixteenth century.  The more bullion the government had, the more buying power that country possessed, and it were assumed during this period that this would create economic success and prosperity.

These aspirations were not completely true as the seventeenth century saw a series of depressions where markets faltered, and the possession of bullion did little to offset the dramatic need for goods that were not readily available.  The goal of mercantilism, beyond bullion acquisition, was formulating a formidable trade balance where the country’s goal was to export more than was imported.  Kingdoms were urged to avoid luxury items and focus on goods needed to propagate a strong economic system.

The production of goods was taxed, and tariffs were established on produced goods more than that of natural resource production.  Agriculture and the reliance upon a large population for a domestic labor force were encouraged for self-sufficiency through colonial possession.  Thus, food and goods produced within one’s empire would allow for a greater tax base and enhanced self-sufficiency.  With that control was the opportunity to create what can best be termed “captive markets” for the country’s profit.  This was done through a series of steps.  Countries created and financed merchant fleets and navies.  Although this system became the standard form of economic development in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, prosperity did not abound. The idea of international development on a more global scale (where private companies were allowed to prosper and develop would over time) surpassed the individual prosperity offered by the system.

Francois Quesnay

• No single document or book summarizes his economic system
• He was concerned about the state of the French economy, especially French agriculture

Capitalism was counter to mercantilism; it eventually dominated the economic beliefs of the Western world.  Due to rapid colonialism, the precepts of free market systems, less government control, and the rise of private industries/companies were studied, argued, and debated in France during the mid-eighteenth century.  Thus the work of Francois Quesnay, a French surgeon, and physiocrat, became most popular until Adam Smith’s developmental text, Wealth of Nations, was published in 1776.

Quesnay worked for the French government. He was intrigued by economic theory and formulated the contrary belief that governmental direct control of resources, land, and colonial development, was the best way to prompt economic prosperity.  He grew increasingly concerned with the problems the French monarchy and kingdom faced in the wake of pure mercantilism: famines, depression, great inconsistencies in resource and food acquisition, and failures in economic development.

Reacting against the extreme economic theories of the time, Quesnay argued in Tableau Economique, 1759, that the extreme and misguided tax system that targeted the developing economic classes (particularly in the agricultural sector) resulted in French economic system failures. The taxes seemed to diminish the ability of those at the root of resource acquisition and production to prosper. They kept them from continuing that prosperity within the French market systems.  Productive work in all sectors had to be the “backbone” of economic wealth and prosperity.  If the French wanted to increase its economic standing with greater financial resources for the government and monarchy, it needed to shift its focus to enable the emerging working and middle class to become more prosperous and therefore taxed. A more prosperous society would spend more and spur further production and market expansion.

While Quesnay theorized about economic development in France, Adam Smith, a philosopher, followed a similar path in Scotland.  A product of the eighteenth-century Scottish Enlightenment, Smith (influenced by the analysis of the physiocrats in France), wrote two instrumental texts of the time:  Wealth of Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments.  He attacked the mercantilism system for its controlling factors and basic assumptions about humans.  He advocated for a more productive approach to the government where markets could prosper due to increased individual freedom and rights.  He argued that the basic decision-making unit should be based upon the concept of the nation, which he outlined as people who should be allowed to pursue their interests.  Concepts of greater freedom, the ability to pursue their interests, and eliminating governmental affairs in the market system, would result in enhanced prosperity for all.  At the root of this discussion is the argument that increased individual freedom must be coupled with enhanced individual responsibility, which he outlines in his conclusions on moral theory.

The Formulation of Capitalism

In assessing the successes and failures of mercantilism, Smith deduced that the real factors that defined economic prosperity were not to be found in the accepted notions of previous experts.  According to Smith, they did not fully understand “market behavior”.  Following the ideological trend of the era, Smith espoused the view that societies are more profitable and moral when they follow natural law–the belief that greater individual freedom of choice in all aspects of one’s existence helps yield beneficial results for all.   Thus, prosperous societies were not linked directly with geographical benefits or export/import equations but with the freedom of commoners to pursue their interests through a free market or free markets’ model.

As a result, by the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the world became more heavily influenced by the notion that political (greater democratic process) and economic liberalism (greater market freedom) was productive and ethical.  Smith and Quesnay based their assessment on utilitarian grounds, arguing that capitalistic thinking was the most moral system, as it yielded enhanced prospects for prosperity but also relied upon the “Good” Reason of the citizenry to follow moral principle;  this, in turn, would yield a “net” social benefit by the adherence to citizenry responsibilities within society and the market.  The government’s responsibility should focus on enacting policies and laws that educate, remind, and promote good moral behavior through the protection of private property, enforcement of contracts, the protection of citizens from outside threats, and the building of a strong and productive infrastructure by which economic prosperity could be furthered.

The Search for Resources

While capitalistic theory influenced the world in the ways described earlier, the arguments of Quesnay and Smith were fundamental to the development of modern concepts of trade and economic markets in an international sense. Many approaches have been voiced since the late eighteenth century; several economic hybrids balanced governmental influence and free market sector development. It became obvious that colonialism and economic theories are connected to this worldwide view. They spurred a global approach to resource accumulation but created conflicts over whose items were needed to supply those markets.

The last component of colonialism emerged during this era–namely, the treatment of the native populations.  As mercantilism revealed, one of the objectives of European countries desiring economic prosperity was to use colonial or native population people as a form of economic development. Economies relied on these groups to harvest and produce goods under direct governmental control for the wealth of the “mother country.” At the heart of the workforce conversation became the issue of slavery, an emerging market during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Slavery had always existed in history, but the development of a system of occupation of lands outside of Europe, coupled with the need for mass amounts of workers to use in the production of natural resources and manufactured goods, brought this phenomenon to new heights.  Never before had so many people of Native American, African or Asian descent been forced by Europeans to work under these new conditions.

In the fifteenth century, the Portuguese and Spanish began to enslave Native Americans and, later, Africans to obtain workers to mine and work on resource plantations within the newly discovered lands.  Europeans needed an instant workforce and first relied upon the native population in the Americas, India, and the Pacific for their manpower.  They believed they had the right to force people off the land they had conquered or occupied to do as their government or local officials deemed necessary or allowable. Europeans created systems of landholding and production where locals were forced to work for the benefit of those in power.  As capitalism emerged, the production and harvest of sugarcane, tobacco, and other newly discovered New World crops slowly created a new core of production.

Native populations usually did not fair well; they often died of diseases from exposure to the Europeans. They experienced European wrath, who were brutal in their work demands.  They were often displaced from their homes and families and forced to work in an industry where they could not fend for themselves.  Frustrated by the local population’s lack of production, Europeans turned to a new approach–the acquisition of Africans through Portuguese trade ports in Africa.  Slave markets emerged all over the Atlantic region between Africa and the Americas, as individuals of African descent were captured, sold, and transported to the New World to maintain the European economic development system.   It is estimated that approximately ten million slaves were taken from Africa and transported across the Atlantic.

As the prosperity of the colonial empires increased, Europeans continued to acquire and enslave people during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  Among the most highly sought-after goods in this economic system were slaves. The system that emerged involving the African slave trade became called the “triangle trade”.  Slaves were taken on Portuguese, Spanish, English, Dutch, or French specially designed slave ships across the Atlantic Ocean.  The conditions on these ships were inhumane, and disease proliferated. Many slaves died on the journey.  Those who survived were often so weakened by starvation or other factors that they could not work or died soon after arriving.

Many enslaved people had to develop new skills or were forced to adapt to their new environments, completely dependent on those in power over them.  Slaves worked in terrible conditions in agriculturally based jobs with inadequate housing, extreme punishment, poor diet, and little or no rights.  It seemed as if the system of capitalism allowed, and in some cases encouraged, the further mistreatment of those who were unable or diminished in their ability to advocate for themselves.

Colonialism and Capitalism

In many ways, we can trace the beginning of the “seeds” of modernity to the progress of colonialism.  With the rise of colonial attitudes steeped in the ideas of the early modern age (Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, Reformation, Religious Wars, Scientific Revolution, Absolutism, and Enlightenment), a new world had emerged that deepened European competition. From the desire to compete and produce economic prosperity at home and abroad, European countries developed economic systems based upon absolutistic ideologies. Later, began to switch to a more capitalistic framework steeped in free markets for profit.  Regardless of the economic system, globalization had begun, and the Western world had a strong hold on this newly developing world order, determined to be “progress.”

Technologies created that were related to resource acquisition contributed to “progress.”  From as early as the 1770s, Great Britain led the way in this regard–dominating the world in terms of land possession, resource accumulation, and technological development.  By 1850, Great Britain was foremost in the Industrial Revolution, believing that these machines, products, and lifestyle changes would offer more progress and advancement than setbacks.  This has continued until today.  Perhaps the best example of technological advancement for the age can be seen in the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London, where over 200,000 separate inventions/industrial machines were put on exhibit as a demonstration by Britain of its leadership in this new modern world and to showcase the benefit that would come from such production.

People flocked to the Great Exhibition, and countries marveled at the colonial resource power, manufacturing system, and societal shift that had occurred in Great Britain and would follow throughout the Western world.

Massive problems began to appear in the nineteenth century.  First, Europe began to see enormous class divisions despite the assertion of many that progress would benefit everyone.  Those who benefited were the newly emerging class of wealthy entrepreneurs or “new” moneymakers who were formerly middle class and began formulating a new class of self-made business-oriented, aspiring industrialists.  The nobles of the time continued to prosper and, in some ways, were threatened by this new emerging “money-made” wealthy group who rivaled their influence in society and government.  Others made small advances, and most middle classes seem to fall into this category.  These individuals seemed to acquire more access to goods and products. They were given opportunities to better themselves in terms of economic success and even, in some instances, education and skill training.

Many did not prosper and were in an equal or worse situation than before the start of the Industrial Revolution. The promise of better lives often trapped these people. They were taken from their primarily agrarian positions and ended up with jobs linked directly to the new emerging factory and manufacturing.  They were not protected by the rights, ideologies, or concepts of the French Revolution and were swallowed up by the system of raw material accumulation and the manufacturing sector. The lower class became the stalwart of the Industrial Revolution but benefited little from their situation and the goods produced by their employment opportunities.   In addition, it is a good reminder of our age as this trend continues in our modern world.

Abuse of the Labor Poverty Reinforcement Unsafe Conditions

Besides the class conflict in the newly formed industrial societies, modern development saw poor labor treatment and dreadful working conditions.  To name a few, factory owners, financial entrepreneurs, and mine overseers were often physically and emotionally abusive toward their workers. Workers were employed at intentionally and extraordinarily low wages due to supply and demand in the labor market. People were required to complete jobs regardless of safety issues.  Many accounts discuss the poverty families were subjected to due to their inability to make adequate money; thus, practically every family member, including children, was employed in some manner in local industries.

One of the most common ways poverty abounded among the lower class was directly related to work-related injuries or physical ailments caused by the employee’s environment.  Workers hurt on the job could not work; thus, their families were forced into poverty regardless of the length of service or the expert manner of the work that had been performed up until that point.  Due to these extraordinary circumstances, lower-class children were not given educational opportunities that might have afforded them a chance to move beyond the plight of their parents–the cycle of destitution continued.

Another problem that became more difficult to deal with in Europe and other industrialized areas was the issue of pollution.  As people flocked to manufacturing centers in previous urban centers or newly emerging urban situations, the congestion of these new living quarters and increased industrial output and waste caused the air and water quality to decline.  London’s population grew from one million in 1800 to 2.3 million by 1850.

The overpopulated conditions resulted in an oversubscribed sewer, an unbearable smell, and increased air pollution. The health conditions were deplorable, and the citizenry, especially the lower class, suffered. The government within these urban centers did not know how to deal with these new problems.  In some instances, they did not believe that it was their problem.   As such, and without adequate social support, zoning, and legal provisions, pollution raged out of control, causing people to get sick and significantly altering the quality of life of the citizens of these various communities.

Industrial Revolution

As cities became more cramped and living conditions more difficult for most people in urban centers, other problems besides class divisions and pollution emerged.  The wealthy began to shun the city to avoid problems that plagued these areas.  As a result, class divisions were made worse, with the middle and lower classes living in these scenarios without political or economic power or influence to make definite and productive changes to better the conditions.  In some situations, whole families were cramped into row house rooms where many lived in cellars or occupied horrific living conditions.  Crime, violence, consumer fraud, and social problems of every kind skyrocketed.  This increased the stress placed on families and communities; people were more prone to increasingly negative reactions to changes in their lives.  Some studies emphasize the possibility of increased psychological trauma and abnormal behavior tied directly to new social and cultural patterns.

Problems Inherent in Capitalism

As these problems emerged, many people wondered whether capitalism was moral.  The problems of dominant land possession, resource accumulation, and technological development in the Western world indicated significant issues with how capitalism had evolved.  These problems slowly moved to other regions of the world.  Relentless acquisition of resources by individuals and/or countries resulted in excessive and unchecked greed and abuse of power.  As time went on, it became more and more apparent that the responsibilities of those benefiting from capitalistic and democratic evolution were ignored in some capacity.  As population bases grew and markets expanded, it seemed easy to overlook direct moral responsibilities based on natural law. Individualistic ideological conceptions and competitive processes became more prevalently accepted and retained as necessary for prosperity.  The dilemma of the by-products, or what economists refer to as externalities of economic exchange, became more obvious.  The cost or outcome of exchange within the market systems seemed to be increasingly creating problems worldwide.  Many externalities of exchange and production were discussed earlier.

The prevalent issue of externalities often went unresolved and significantly impacted societies, their people, and their ability to prosper.  It became obvious that institutions and individuals would not always function from a moral premise promoting goodwill and positive intentions for everyone.  Instead, the system seemed to be moving towards greater “self-focus” with a greater “isolationistic” understanding that would diminish or retard the reliance on individual moral conscience and the desperately needed will fundamental to ensure proper actions within governments and economic markets.  Michael Sandel, the famous author of  Justice, discusses the importance of not allowing the market to dictate moral responsibility in his talk  Why We Shouldn’t Trust Markets With Our Civic Life.  Look for arguments that confirm the need to avoid system-wide ethical problems that come from capitalistic market dictation.

Karl Marx became an outspoken critic of colonialism, capitalism, and democratic practice.  Outraged by what he believed to be the marginalization of those who were the basis of the system itself, namely the workers and the underclass, Marx argued that the era of capitalism and colonialism had encouraged extensive selfish greed for a few while taking away the rights to opportunity and “Good” from those who were less powerful or influential within society.  He wished to reverse the trend of greater monopolization of working conditions in larger institutions and desired to encourage mobility for workers through the process of direct instruction/training through the apprentice, journeyman, and master tradition training practice where worker training and independence were more highly valued, offering individuals increased freedom rather than the increased “slave-like” conditions that factories or larger institutions forced on their employees.  Instead of the prospect of being one’s own master, Marx argued people sold their labor for wages that would never allow them to become a strong, independent entity within society.  Thus, capitalism diminished and even destroyed the majority of people and their independence for the benefit of those who could gain power and institute their will on others through economic prosperity–prosperity these individuals gained from the underclass, not of their own initiative or hard work.

For Marx, capitalism and true democracy could not be achieved until society was dramatically changed.  He believed that the government needed to be reformulated away from a predisposition to protect the wealthy and powerful, who lived off of the degradation of the poor and were oriented towards the enhancement of the rich.  In Marx’s estimation, the system, both politically and economically, had defaulted on its moral responsibility to each individual, leaving unfair economic, political, and social situations in its wake. In his most famous work, the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that people within capitalistic societies lose their freedom as they fail to control their ability to do their jobs and are unable to authorize the products they instruct with their work and the means of production (raw materials, technology, land) is taken out of their hands.  This scenario forces common people into confrontational situations with their fellow workers by their capitalistic employers who use such tactics to diminish wages and keep the working class in constant flux and disorganization for their financial benefit.  Marx advocated for massive change where ownership would be replaced by moral authority from experts or peoples’ representatives, who would replace capitalists. Societal decisions should be based on the welfare of all.  Ironically, the ideologies of capitalism and democracy had created a reactionary belief system that looked to quell the abuses of developments but had created great moral problems worldwide.

The change came in other ways as well.  With the dawn of scientific exploration, new theories emerged about life and nature.  Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species during this time, proposing the concepts of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and eventually, in later works, the basic tenets of evolution.  In the scientific and philosophical realms, this represented a major change in how people began to understand themselves, humankind, nature, and the point of life.

Darwin’s theory later became associated with the work of other thinkers, such as Herbert Spencer, a British philosopher, who argued that the principles of Darwinism could be applied to humanity in many degrees.  In Social Statics, Spencer argued that humanity was involved in the process of natural selection, with those ethnic groups who were naturally superior gaining the edge to survive. In contrast, others were left destitute and/or relegated to inferior lives.  Because of their genetic station, humanity followed the same pattern as all other natural participants.  The world was founded on survival and competition; Europeans demonstrated their inherent superiority, while natives or others who could not compete had their inferiority.

Social Darwinism’s Impact on Western Society

As a result, the government or any other entity/institution should not interfere in the workings of nature.  According to these theorists, nature dictated the individual roles of those involved in the “progress” of the world.  Thus, there could be no more moral or realistic options for the world.  There will always be “winners” and “losers” within society and the world.  Thus, the social Darwinist was under no moral mandate to do anything about these apparent discrepancies or worry about the plight of social injustice or the general welfare of society overall.  The fact that a more “free” market approach within the world naturally created such differentials reinforced the notion that people who were poor or disadvantaged, as a result of gender, race, ethnicity, or any other biological factor, were destined to be marginalized, as those who were superior in those categories would eventually “win” by living longer, by accumulating more resources at the expense of others and eventually by attaining more power in economic, political and social terms.  This phenomenon was not only a reality but also preferable, as those who were more “worthy” in all realms of life, as far as their overall contribution to this progress, would be rewarded by a longer life, legacy, and influence. In contrast, those who were “less worthy” would “naturally” contribute less and have a minimal impact or, in certain situations, be eliminated.  Physical characteristics often dictated determining who was in the superior camp, as portrayed by the image above.

The fourth contributing characteristic is the concept of nationalism.  The French Revolution and the liberal ideas that followed this occurrence caused many ethnic groups and regional areas to advocate for their right to govern.

In the wake of this fervor, the ideology of nationalism fully emerged. Nationalism is the shared religious, cultural, heritage, or institutional ideology supported by strong group identification.  Groups worldwide combined their desire for independence and right acquisition with loyalty to their identified group in the form of “national” interest.

Unlike the political ideology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, where the basic unit of patriotism was defined in correlation with a monarch or the term “kingdom”, this new trend advocated for loyalty to the group and the people who made up that political establishment.  This was even the case when “true” representation or right acquisition was not apparent in these countries; it could even be argued that in many cases, the idea of nationalism became a tool by which the upper class could gain support from the masses to hold the group together within a country.

Though this may seem radical, nationalism coincided with the rise of the masses’ rights to the citizenry and the increase in their ability to self-determine their own lives—factors of liberalism.  With nationalism emerging, the iconic symbols of that change became prevalent in the nineteenth century.  This change in thinking included the introduction of flags, currency development, history, heritage reclamation, national sports team identification, and international competition.  Though not all of these factors are inherently negative, they did lead to some problematic outcomes.

German philosopher and thinker Fichte encapsulated the essence of nationalism when he characterized it as the innate inclination to embrace and identify with one’s ethnic group or cultural heritage. According to Fichte, this natural phenomenon fosters a deeper self-awareness and contributes to developing a more harmonious and prosperous society. Solidifying the ideas of “progressive or cyclical wholeness” found in German philosopher Hegel’s thought, Fichte epitomized this new trend in the early nineteenth century, leading to nationalistic movements throughout Europe, especially the German states.

The rise of the nationalistic movement in the world directly correlated with the rise of the industrial revolution and the need for states to expand to access much-needed resources and territories.  To gain connection to these resources and territories, countries began to see themselves in direct competition with other countries, employing the principles of social Darwinism, where the strongest group would survive while the weaker would be diminished.  As the rise of nationalism increased worldwide, the military became an important part of reinforcing one’s superiority and attaining the lands/resources that were needed.  That is why it is important to explore, later in this study, the ideology of imperialism.  As ethnic and cultural groups began to identify with their own unique needs or desires, nationalism attempted to connect these diverse groups and give these various interests some form of connection.  By the end of the nineteenth century, it had become very apparent that a few countries had gained an advantage:  Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, and an emerging new German Confederation.  They could do so by formulating a strong ideology of nationalistic fervor and identification.  As time passed, this very strength would cause problems for each of these countries as they faced groups within their regions who wished to create their form of nationalistic awareness.

As the countries of Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and Italy followed a nationalistic orientation, they also became increasingly active in international affairs outside of Europe.  The increase in European activity in Africa and Asia, and the influence in the Americas, grew as countries followed a policy of strengthening their nations by creating empires that dominated weaker countries and people.  This became known as the era of Imperialism.  Imperialism, referred to in the nineteenth century, was the extension of control or authority over foreign areas through political, economic, social, and military means.  As the modern world began to emerge, the policies of countries from Europe and the West built upon their roots of colonialism, going further into the interior of these areas, controlling regions directly, and instituting policies that gave them dominance worldwide.  As a result, the Western World began to set the tone for world production and order.  The map above demonstrates the extent of the influence of Imperialism in the world by the year 1900.  Notice which countries were in control of the largest tracts of territory.

Several factors aided the movement from colonialism to imperialism.  One, Europeans were motivated by the desire to prosper economically.  Their intentions were clear–they strongly desired to gain wealth by accumulating resources from all over the world.  They competitively did this, working hard to gain greater access to more and more materials and people by advocating for the assuredness that this control would continue by bringing their language, religion, customs, ideologies, and culture to these new areas to spread productive influence for all.  In addition to this motive, Europeans desired to spread their nationalistic power.  Adding other people to their empire enhanced their political, economic, and social influence and allowed those imperializing to enhance their defense should challenges from other powers arise.  Third, to keep one power from gaining the upper hand, imperialism “righted” the balance of worldwide politics by ensuring that powerful countries stayed that way and kept the order for their benefit.  Last, as we will discuss later, Europeans also involved themselves in imperialistic activities, which by the way, cost a good sum of investment out of an obligation to bring the best of the Western world, medicine, religious beliefs, proper morals, etc., to these natives in hope of making their worlds more efficient, more advanced and more civilized.  This is called the “ideology of the empire or The White Man’s Burden.

The Rise of Western Power

The European powers divided the world by 1914 or the beginning of World War I.  The white areas are those tracts considered independent, while the colored areas revealed directly controlled areas and home countries.  One important factor to remember is that the white areas, though they may be technically independent, did not mean they were solely operating apart from European or Western influence. The Arabian Peninsula is a good example of this, as both the Ottoman Empire and Britain had a strong influence on the perspectives and policies of the Arabs during this period.  As we will discuss at the end of World War I, the superpowers discussed in this power point ended up dictating world policy through the League of Nations and later the United Nations because of their significant stature, making or breaking countries depending on how it influenced their interests.

As outside powers dominated these areas, the evolving theme of imperialism took on an additional component.  Europeans and Americans began to claim that it was their obligation or duty to aid in better developing the natives they had conquered or controlled.  Though the poem The White Man’s Burden can be interpreted in various ways, it has become the symbol of the era’s attitude–the justification for continued European or Western direct control and even indoctrination in the wake of imperialistic profit-making.

As Imperialism gained ground in the world, Europeans and Americans relied upon the by-products of their technological gains through the Industrial Revolution to reinforce their superiority.  Firearms, ships, extensive railroad networks, medicines, and communication advantages helped the West maintain control.  Thus, the other modern trends further reinforced the system that Europeans and Americans devised.

Nineteenth-century ideologies produced enormous changes in the world.  The political changes of liberalism, the nationally and socially based revolutions of this era, as well as the expansion of nationalistic intention through the outlet of imperialism, caused the world to be dominated by Western thought and conception.  Business, military exploits, technology, and even culture and custom in most areas of the world were shaped by those gaining power as a direct result of these new trends.  The world was moving towards modernity with many positive outlets: increased research in life-saving medicines enhanced individual world knowledge and an emerging middle class who benefited socially from their newfound status.  Along with positive outcomes, there were negative outcomes.  Outcomes led to extensive competition, the abuse of many people all over the globe, and a radical change of mindset from self-sufficiency production to varying shades of consumerism.  Perhaps the most notable negative outcomes became worldwide conflicts and the influence of these events on human life and the planet.

I have covered contributing factors to our understanding of capitalism and democracy, and we can begin to see the components that have played a significant role in formulating world issues.  At the core of the development of Western ideology, which has created some troubling prospects and significant benefits.  However, sometimes turn a “blind eye” to global issues such as pollution, individual human rights violations, poor working conditions, unfair trade practices, warring conflicts, and incredible political and economic corruption.

In the twentieth century, the extension of the ideologies seemed to be reinforced by a prevailing economic solution that advocated capitalistic practice. Capitalistic practice increased individual and market freedom to such an extent that the sole responsibility of institutions within the modern, developing society was to produce a profit.  The work of Milton Friedman best exemplified this in his book Capitalism and Freedom (1962).  Friedman argued that the core of American capitalism emphasized the belief that institutions should be concerned with only promoting profits. At the same time, other entities within society would determine proper morality or societal leadership.  For Friedman, true economic freedom was directly linked to political freedom.  He believed that the only responsibility of leaders of these institutions lay in correlation with the lawfulness of their decisions and the institution’s fiduciary outcome for its shareholders.  He wrote, “Salaried executives of a public corporation by implicit legal contract have a fiduciary responsibility to the firm’s shareholders that gives them the right to use corporate resources only to increase the wealth of those stockholders by seeking profits”.  More and more institutional leaders became convinced that the desire for profit was foremost and perhaps all that mattered. They believed stockholders were less likely to be concerned with the moral ramifications of decisions and adamant about financial outcomes.  Accumulation of wealth had become their primary motivating factor.  This ideology infiltrated institutions and shape policy for years.  Watch the documentary Enron:  The Smartest Guys in the Room and The World of Monsanto to see where a system built upon these conditions nurtured the lack of responsibility.

Over the decades, as world markets expanded, certain trends have emerged.  The belief that capitalism could not be economically inclusive became obvious.  For capitalism to work well, it must promote and “capitalize” on the most disadvantaged.  Recent trends also emphasized this conception, a formulation where “winners”, either within society or on the global level, are created often at the expense of “losers”; or people gaining what they deserve based upon the market.  These conclusions were often been based on the assumption of equal opportunity and market fairness qualifiers.  Some experts would argue that these two factors are disputable.

Another trend within the system is the “northern” and “southern” countries.  This emerging phenomenon continues to be a problem for leaders as they assess the moral climate of our world.  Underdeveloped countries and regions created a disproportionate trade balance, limited global market profitability, and technological access restrictions.

Countries in the “south” have been dominated by “northern” regions.  The “North” has been in control of financial policy and can therefore dictate political and social policies to its advantage.  This has created a situation where “underdevelopment” has been an economic advantage to the “north”.  Whole regions were settled and developed to provide resources to the “north.”  As trade has expanded, some of these goods have made their way to other underdeveloped countries–but those items are still controlled by institutions in the “north.”

The “north” excels in technological advances and has the power to institute its will on those countries in the “south”, leading many experts to argue that “predatory” capitalistic policy has severely damaged the possibilities of “southern” regions to being economically sustainable and to contribute strongly to our current world economic system.  In pursuing the resources of “southern” regions, environmental abuse and exhaustion continue at a pace unseen.

Consumption of resources is further fueling these issues.  In the twenty-first century, there was an increased movement towards greater and greater resource acquisition and use.  One only needs to pay attention to which regions are increasing their economic consumption and the economic factors creating that movement to notice where most resources are created.  The United States and other Western powers have traditionally been the greatest consumers. However, China and India are impacting the global market substantially.  The documentary Black Gold is a great demonstration of how the commodity of coffee demonstrates how resource allocation and control play a part in this worldwide system (you can access it through Hulu or NetFlix).

Abuses of the System

As described earlier, the impact of societal shifts to more technological advances requires greater resource acquisition, which has only heightened this problem.  As more resources were demanded, “northern” regions turned to unethical practices and made questionable decisions to protect their interests in their own countries and the areas of “southern” countries.  Within societies and on a global scale, we see the differential increase between the wealthy and the poor.  Many experts argue that the “stratification of social classes” trend is an increasingly dangerous prospect as the reality of the economic solidity of the middle class seems to be eroding.

In some countries, the concept of “middle class” had never existed, thus weakening the social fabric of societies.  Perhaps most telling for Western countries can be found in the commentary of psychologist Oliver James.  His recent use of “affluenza” has become a popular description of a new twentieth-first-century phenomenon that has culminated in all the trends studied here.  The psychological belief that “affluence” is the key to happiness permeates our societies.  The competitive need for more, coupled with the belief that extravagance is preferred, has infiltrated our mindsets to such an extent that we cannot even conceptualize any other form of living possibilities.  As James states, we have caught an “economic perception” sickness that ironically offers us benefits while creating a risk that we fail to see the dangerous by-products that could have serious consequences for everyone.  Finally, these dangerous trends have “blinded” or diminished the positives of democratic practice and capitalistic theory for many people, leading many to turn to alternative systems that are potentially immoral.  In short, many experts have argued that the outcomes of our unhealthy practices on a global level have created gross misunderstandings of what democracy and capitalism are supposed to be.

The controversial documentary The End of Poverty in 2008 covers several issues.

As we trace the development of these ideologies and historical trends that resulted in the creation of the Western world through the lens of capitalism and democracy, one can see that the world has several problems.  The point is not to point out these issues but to argue that there are solutions for these problems and that ethical leadership seems to be the place to start.  As experts develop solid advances and policies to move people toward “betterment,” we must promote good and ethical determination. This is vital so that progressive ideas can produce productivity while creating a world community that builds and cultivates moral values promoting peace, longer and healthier lives, and greater fairness and justice for all.  To do this, we need to cultivate a resurgence of strong ethical leadership.  Education is at the root of ethical leadership.  We, as a world community, need to be willing to take a “real” and “difficult” look at the world to see both the “good” and the not so “good” trends.

Westerners can disrupt our concept that everything is good and that the “Western” reality is the world’s reality.  Through education and greater awareness, this acknowledgment allows us to see how we might fix problems more clearly and is often the ethical leader’s task.  It has become increasingly apparent that our world must work against the historical, ideological inclination that emphasizes prosperity and success are directly linked with reinforcing “selfishness”.  Rather, we need to learn to temper our interests with the interests of others and recalculate a new equilibrium that works towards a new definition of “community”.  This new formulation must reconfirm the good in “self-interest” as we look out for ourselves in conjunction with others; through this, we fully realize that our prosperity and success are intrinsically linked with those around us.  The realization must include a moral response to others’ needs, defined and upheld by strong leadership.  This will allow us to redefine the concept of “community responsibility” and to link moral ideology with a re-emphasis on the capitalistic system’s positive outcomes.  Ethical leadership will help to move our society away from this concept and practice of “predatory” capitalism while focusing on the solid understanding that profits and proper ethical behavior can work together for the good of all people no matter what their location.

Watch:  Dr. Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for founding and working with the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.  How does his work perhaps reflect true components of a more moral approach to capitalistic practice?

The Need to Re-evaluate Adam Smith’s Works

Adam Smith, in A Theory of Moral Sentiments, writes we should focus on moral values as we move towards greater ethical leadership.  Smith’s analysis and assessment highlight the fundamental values central to true capitalistic practice.  He argued that the key to moral and productive capitalism is adherence to justice or just treatment for all. This includes long-term planning, which considers careful stewardship of finances and resources. This includes the willingness to share benefits and goodness with others and to develop a strong discipline of one’s willingness to do what is “Right”.  These virtues were understood to be important to the overall prosperity of the economic system and have enormous moral benefits for all of society.  Then, we can move forward with moral and economically prosperous leadership.  The idea of social responsibility is discussed by Jess Jackley, who discusses the importance of adhering to Smith’s chief virtues of justice, prudence, benevolence, and self-command.

How do we uphold the true capitalistic principle?

When we look at capitalism and democracy from the standpoint of their true intentions–to promote the betterment of those who participate in the systems above–we come to understand the importance of ethical values and the need to return to those values to “right” the “wrongs” that have infiltrated both ideologies.  Then, we can make strides forward.

In an analysis of Smith’s work, Younkins writes in Adam Smith’s Moral and Economic System that true capitalism must be built upon the concept of the “prudent” individual who demonstrates self-control and cultivates habits that emphasize unselfish inclinations.  This reciprocity of exchange and the moral concern focuses on a greater concern that “free-market” systems prosper as it is understood that one’s prosperity is directly intertwined with the prosperity of others.

Freedom in political, economic, and social terms reinforces the important moral concept of “rights and responsibilities” in the individual and collective ideology.

The lower virtue of prudence guides the virtuous man in pursuing his well-being. The commercial man is part of a virtuous man and performs his proper function when he attends to his happiness by pursuing fundamental goods such as property, health, and reputation. In part, he desires wealth for the approval it will attain for him in the eyes of other men who gain pleasure when they see him as successful and productive. A prudent man demonstrates self-command when he denies himself present pleasure for future pleasures that he believes will be greater. A prudent man’s habits of economy, industry, attention, discretion, frugality, and application of thought are self-interested and praiseworthy. A prudent man realizes that production is good, that labor is more productive when it is more specialized, and that the more people involved in mutual exchange, the more specialized each person can be.” (Younkins, 2005)

 In conclusion, experts relay that if we curb many of the potentially destructive unethical trends and habits that have developed in the world, we need to return to the core of what these two important system concepts were built upon–the notion that the responsibility of proper moral conduct is important and that ethical leadership is key in helping us redefine how we ought to live, making a difference in our collective future.

References

Enrique, C. (2016, December 30). Best Documentary 2016 – Full Documentary Monsanto – New BBC Documentaries. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9tiHaEUKQk

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005). (2018, April 09). Retrieved from http://watchdocumentaries.com/enron-the-smartest-guys-in-the-room/

Friedman, M. (1972). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jackley, J. (2010, July). Poverty, money — and love. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jessica_jackley_poverty_money_and_love

Jefferson, T. (2009). United States Declaration of Independence. Borgo Pr.

Patai, R. (2014). The Arab mind. Tucson, AZ: Recovery Resources Press

Professor Muhammad Yunus Addresses the One Young World 2012 Summit. (2012, December 05). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USddwTvRdJc

Quesnay, F. (1973). The economical table. New York: Gordon Press.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2012). Understanding intercultural communication. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandel, M. (2013, June). Why we shouldn’t trust markets with our civic life. Retrieved from  https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_why_we_shouldn_t_trust_markets_with_our_civic_life

Smith, A. (1777). The theory of moral sentiments. Dublin.

Spencer, H. (2013). Social statics. The classics Us.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. San Diego: Acacemic Press.

Universal Declaration of human rights. (1949). Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O.

Wilfrid, V. Z. (1975). Sociology: A systematic approach. New York: Ronald Press.