Why did a world capitalist civilization emerge when it did - Essay Example

?Why did a world capitalist civilization emerge when it did? Contemporary analysts have observed that while different nations and s exist, they are bound together in a single system which can loosely described as “the capitalist world economy” (Wallerstein: 1984, p. 165) One word often used in connection with world capitalism in the twenty first century is “globalization” (Amin, 1997) Other ideologies like socialism or feudalism do exist in areas of the contemporary world but they find themselves surrounded by a network of other nations, states and large commercial organizations which largely dictates how resources are transferred from place to place, and ultimately steers the growth, decline or stability of large areas of the planet. There are local differences, of course, since each country develops out of one of a number of previous older and separate civilizations, but there is a sense in which they also join a coherent, single world-wide capitalist civilisation. Wallerstein describes this as capitalist civilisation as “universalism through particularism and particularism through universalism” (Wallerstein, 1984, p. 167). He sees its main characteristic as a continuous search for more and more profit to drive more and more growth. This paper traces the origins of modern capitalism civilisation back to its origins in the past. The question to be answered is when and where it originally emerged. One needs only to think of the hand-to-mouth existence of small, isolated and largely rural societies in the Middle Ages to realise what a significant change global capitalism has brought to the world: “Matters would change dramatically, however, with the violent remaking of the globe that commenced c. 1500 as the Spanish, Dutch, English, and French began seeking their fortunes far beyond their own national domains.” (Bryant: 2006, p. 407). The discovery of new lands full of untapped resources set off a chain reaction that led some two hundred and fifty years later to the industrial revolution. It is clear that capitalist civilisation must have begun after medieval times. Looking back through history it is generally agreed that origins of capitalism as a world civilisation are to be sought in Western Europe in the period around the middle of the eighteenth century that has come to be called “The Enlightenment”. Other parts of the world, notably the Ottoman Empire, Persia and Japan were taking steps in the same direction, and some historians such as Pomeranz (2000) and Goody (2004) have argued that there were parallel moves in the direction of capitalism going on in non-European regions. The fact remains, however, that the scale and speed of European industrial expansion and commercial activity dwarfs anything that historians have been able to prove elsewhere. Vast quantities of goods were shipped to and from the colonies that Western Powers set up, specifically for the purpose of supplying industrial needs back home. Even more significant than that was the extent of the stimulus that occurred with the Enlightenment’s focus on science and technology: “And as economic historians have extensively documented, it was not the comparative cheapness of colonial resources that provided Europeans with their decisive advantage, but the astounding productivity gains that came with mechanization and the factory organization of labour.” (Bryant: 2006, p. 434) An important first step was the invention of labour saving devices which increased food production in the small farms and fields. This in turn released labour to work in newly constructed factories who processed raw materials for local or European markets. By the middle of the eighteenth century the economies of scale that emerged were able to produce surpluses which were then reinvested to drive forward ever greater productivity. This cycle of development contains the germ of a capitalist culture and so we can conclude that the first stirrings of capitalist civilisation emerged in the mid eighteenth century at the height of the industrial revolution. A number of important events in the mid to late 1700s contributed to the growing capitalist momentum. Some analysts pin the origins of capitalism to the American Declaration of Independence which occurred in 1776: “Far from being a national disaster, as it was generally regarded in England and the world at the time, American independence marked the end of an outworn age and the emergence of a new. In this new age there was no room for the West Indian monopoly.” (Williams, 1994, p. 126) . Other historians credit capitalist civilization as the achievement of one nation, the British, above all others, and perhaps even to the theories of one man: “Ever since the publication of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations in 1776, the dominant idea in economics has been that welfare will be maximised when markets are free and competition is intense.” (Jonhnson: 2010, p. 2) Analysts who favour a political view of history see the French revolution of 1789 as the most significant event: “The French revolution propagated two quite revolutionary ideas: One was that political change was not exceptional or bizarre but normal and thus constant. The second was that “sovereignty” – the right of the state to make autonomous decisions within its realm, did not reside in (belong to) either a monarch or a legislature but in the “people” who, alone, could legitimate a regime.” (Wallerstein: 2004, p. 3-4). Parliamentary democracy was seen as a preferred model, giving voice to the people and allowing for political change, while at the same time preserving stability and guaranteeing a number of in-built checks and balances that could not be provided by pure monarchies and oligarchies. In Britain, the parliamentary system was highly developed and was used to particularly great effect in setting up an efficient tax regime and government backed credit schemes which fostered innovation and enterprise. Other states such as Germany, which were wealthy and equally advanced in technology, had a disadvantage in their fragmented political structure. In Victorian Britain the conditions were best suited to capitalist expansion. Large scale production became the goal of industry and the cotton industry in particular can be seen as an example of “the capitalist industry par excellence” (Williams, p. 127). Traders operated highly cost effective international routes which allowed them to travel great distances to Britain, Africa and the Americas with full cargoes of raw cotton and sugar, spices, slaves and finished goods on respective legs of the journey. At first these systems operated on a monopoly basis creating huge international companies, but in time there was a move away from the single suppliers in affiliated plantations. So great was the factories’ greed for raw cotton that the buyers sought out suppliers far beyond their own accustomed colonial partners. Over time there was also increasing distaste for the traffic in human beings, and so the reliance upon slaves also began to decline. Attempts by some buyers and suppliers of critical commodities to drive through protectionist measures sugar, cotton, corn were made, but they failed. The free market was born to feed the booming trades that sprung up in the industrial revolution. Capacity increased as mechanisation increased, and this created the modern capitalist civilisation. An important consideration in the rise of early capitalism is that there does seem to be a link between a nation’s mastery of global trade and a tendency to achieve military dominance. This can be explained by the time lag between the build-up period, when resources are ploughed into infrastructure and growth, and the mature market period, when other states may have caught up, and competition grows tougher. Those who were once economically powerful find their surpluses eroded, and feel a need to compensate by military defense, and even aggression. Kennedy cites Britain in the 1860s as an example of the growth phase, and Britain in the second decade of the twentieth century as an example of the start of decline: “Great Powers in relative decline instinctively respond by spending more on “security” and thereby divert potential resources from “investment” and compound their long-term dilemma.” (Kennedy: 1987, p. xxiii) So it is that we see in the late nineteenth century and above all in the cataclysmic wars of the first half of the twentieth century a sudden militarization on a global scale. These events suggest that there might be inherent problems with capitalist civilisation which cause instability in the system. Marxist economists and historians, for example have pointed out that power relations between different sectors of society are also a source of potential instability. In a Marxist analysis of capitalism, the concept of a “labour theory of value” is used, and it is argued that the surplus that capitalist leaders constantly seek is obtained at the expense of the workers, driving down wages to the point where workers were so poor that they could not afford the goods that were on offer in the market place: “Capitalism was then an exploitative system, riddled with tensions, conflicts and inherent contradictions which would ultimately cause it to collapse.” (Steans, 2005, p. 77). Not everyone agrees with the Marxist position, however, and a more right wing view sees the risk of some negative consequences for some of the population as a necessary price to be paid for the general prosperity of the majority: “The leftist opponents of globalization naturally regard it as no more than the latest manifestation of a damnably resilient international capitalism. By contrast, the modern consensus among liberal economists is that increasing economic openness raises living standards, even if there will always be some net losers…” (Ferguson: 2004, p. xix) While conceding that the British Empire’s response to famine in Ireland was “negligent”, and its reaction to political challenges in its colonies “brutal”, Ferguson claims that “no organization in history has done more to promote the free movement of goods, capital and labour than the British Empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (Ferguson: 2004, p. xxi) From this perspective expansionism, for all its faults, was a good thing which brought many benefits alongside its well documented moral deficits and practical failings for large numbers of enforced participants. Stability here came from strong leadership by one culture which was not afraid to wield its economic and, at times, military power. In Ferguson’s view the United States of America has replaced Britain as the great driving force behind global capitalism: “It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is an empire in denial.” (Ferguson: 2004, p. 317) In the modern world it could be argued that a combination of economic, military and cultural dominance ensures that the United States of America, supported by transnational organisations like NATO, plays the same as earlier European industrialist nations, albeit with reluctance, and in a context where competing ideologies make their resistance known all to clearly in acts of terrorism or aggression. The situation is not the same now, as in the eighteenth century however, since there are many other nations who have caught up in terms of development and who will not allow any one nation to assume a monopolist position, either on resources or on military power. Thanks to Marxist ideologies, too, societies are more aware of the risks and dangers of extreme capitalism, and so there is a greater chance that checks and balances will be imposed and capitalism its worst excesses will be avoided. On balance, then, there are risks of financial and social instability in the current world capitalist system, but the balance of power in the world and a wider appreciation of issues relating to social justice should ensure that these risks are contained. References Amin, S. 1997. Capitalism in an Age of Globalization. London: Zed. Braudal, F. 1993. A History of Civilizations. London: Penguin. Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds.). 1985. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryant, J. M. 2006. The West and the Rest Revisited: Debating Capitalist Origins, European Colonialism and the Advent of Modernity. Canadian Journal of Sociology. 31 (4), pp. 403-444. Available online at: http://www.yale.edu/ccr/workshop/papers/BryantWestRestRevisited.pdf DeHasa, G. de la 2006. Winners and Losers in Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Doyle. W. 1992 (2nd edition). The Old European Order, 1660-1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, N. 2004. Empire: How Britain made the Modern World. New York: Basic Books. Goody, J. 2004. Capitalism and Modernity: The Great Debate. Cambridge: Polity. Johnson, P. 2010. Making the Market: Victorian Origins of Corporate Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, P. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Harper Torchback. Plant, R. 1987. Sugar and Modern Slavery. London: Zed. Pomeranz, K. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Smith, A. and Sutherland, K. 2008. Wealth of Nations : A Selected Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steans, J. et al. 2005. Introduction to International Relations: Perspectives and Themes. Harlow: Pearson. Wallerstein, I. 1984. The Politics of the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallerstein, I. 1989. The Modern World System Vol 3: The Second Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840’s. San Diego: Academic Press.004. Wallerstein, I. 2004. World-Systems analysis: An Introduction. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Williams, E. 1944, reprinted 1994. Capitalism and Slavery. London: The University of North Carolina Press. Read More