Much of the nineteenth century's industrial philosophy dates, actually, from Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", published in 1776. This is really the "capitalist bible" in which the notion that greed has a socially useful role is first popularly put forward. It also puts forward the notion of the "invisible hand" that guides the market to improve the standard of living of everyone, without regard to the actual intentions of its participants. This is the "magic of the marketplace" many capitalists are so fond of referring to.
But, by the late nineteenth century, these concepts of Adam Smith had been distorted and fused, to some extent, with the ideas of Charles Darwin about evolution. This led to the extremely pernicious and largely discredited concept of "Social Darwinism", related to Nazism, in the twentieth century. Social Darwinists believe that only those who are socially successful and powerful should have the right to survive, and that providing assistance and support to the "weak" is, acutally, antisocial. According to this view, society can only progress if the "strong" exploit, suppress and, eventually, destroy the "weak".
Thus, a successful capitalist or imperialist or industrialist in the late nineteenth century would have seen his success as proof of a superior genetic makeup in himself, and proof that he should dominate and destroy inferior races and individuals in society. Thus, the rich, in the late nineteenth century, tended to see themselves as morally, constitutionally, and intellectually superior to the poor. Thus, it was their right to exploit and destroy their inferiors.
I suspect, that in the late nineteenth century, many industrialists would actually have argued that a deficiency of "greed" in a person's personality would actually consititute a genetic defect that should be eliminated from the human race.
2006-07-10 04:27:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by jkraus_1999 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Capitalism and Social Darwinism. The capitalism obviously being Adam Smith and Social Darwinism from Herbert Spencer. Also to keep in mind is "The White's Man Burden" by Rudyard Kipling. In Europe they believed they were actually helping the countries they were imperializing. To some extent also the large nationalism in the 19th century too. Countries in Europe were competing against each other in order to show that their country is better than yours. Also to keep in mind this is the age of rivalry 1871-1914 (Davies (historian) came up with that).
2006-07-10 04:20:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jason 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Certainly depends who you ask. Everybody drones on about global warming but how about the far more pressing concern of water quality and pollution thats legacy begins in the 19th century. That should be job number one for the environmentalists but we could actually gauge results there so they don't want to get into that area. Myself I would like to see a society with more of a healthy mix containing the positive aspects of Industrialization like medical technology and modified transportation but include some of the agrarian aspects that made life more human. That is probably unthinkable.
2016-03-15 22:11:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're going to have to get back to me on that. I'm right in the middle of tweezing my ear hair.
2006-07-10 04:16:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋