Implications Of Capitalism In The 18th, 18th And 19th Century

As capitalism began to spread to nations across the world, the profit motive and competition as a socioeconomic culture began to take shape in the 18th and 19th century. The United States adopted economic advancement religiously, in what Joyce Appleby described as “intrinsic[ally] a part of its emerging national character.” Market competition between great powers began as Germany fought a near “magnetic” pressure Britain exerted on them by exacting tariffs to protect its new-born industries. (Appleby 2011, p. 164) Domestically, a profit-above-all-else social culture began to come to the forefront, as a wade span of innovators and industrialists began moving to profits above all else. The famous British potter, Josiah Wedgwood created a division

Marx likely would have agreed that a “fact, fact, fact” societal mentality, where ones worth is measured and calculated, solely on capital acquisition is dangerous and the cultural push for this in the 18th and 19th century would contribute to Marx’s overarching argument that capitalism would eventually be forced to break into communism. (Dickens, p.

Marx described the same sort of competition that Smith did between the social classes, but limited the classes to the laboring Proletariat and capitalist Bourgeoisie. He believed that competition between the classes not only to not be benevolent as Smith asserted, but describes a form of “resentment at every level.” (SSK, p. 54-55) Not only did Marx not believe capitalism to be a system based on conflict between individuals and business, but he believed that there was no opting out, that all individuals in a society were drawn into a cycle of capital accumulation. Using the example of Ford from above, the worker in a Ford factories creativity is gutted. Instead of building one car from start to finish, he is now reduced to a machine, solely building a handle or a switch over-and-over again. Labor, through the capitalist system, became “external to the worker…he does not feel content, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced;” according to Marx. (SSK, p. 65) Due to Marx’s deep historical knowledge, he realized that coercion had not been relieved from the