Western Europe That Capitalism First

¶ … Western Europe that Capitalism first became Established

Capitalism is a concept that defies a simple definition. Yet, from the end of feudalism in the West, to the rise of mercantilism, and finally with the development of the nation-state and the origins of competition, there appears a more definitive system that defines capitalism. The question of why Western Europe established this system is complex. There are circumstances which lead to the proliferation of a capitalist Western Europe. There are also reasons why "the rest" failed or simply was not constituted to follow the mode that would dominate future economic realities.

By all accounts the West lagged behind or was almost an equal to the rest of the world in economic development until the 19th Century. Mercantilism and advanced trade were a trademark of the Muslim world that controlled the Mediterranean. (Banaji 2007, p. 51). The principles of the Roman Empire had been preserved and advanced as ports grew and wealth was accumulated. Yet, the Muslim world lacked a number of advantages that were fundamental to the growth of capitalism. They lacked a nation-state system that encouraged competition and investment. They were also deficient in military terms as the Ottoman Empire expanded and wielded its dominion over areas that where not predisposed to ideas of capitalism. As the West became more prominent, with the ascension of Portugal and Spain, and demonstrated its control of the sea lanes, the Muslim world was subjugated to and forced to find new means of identity.

China was equally well disposed to become a forerunner of capitalism. Before the Spanish launched their famous exploration of the Atlantic, the Chinese had ships of far more sophistication and size. (Zakaria 2009, p. 50). The progress in exploration was only stopped by a change in regime, or dynasty, as the Ming dynasty died out and the following Shun and Qing dynasties explicitly prohibited ship-building.

Thus China, while the most populated country in the world was, left in a position of self-reliance. Though a pervasive Confucian ideology is difficult to discern, a sense of it and its inclusive nature were apparent in society. Of a country so diverse and bound to what now seem obscure principles, capitalism was unlikely to occur despite the nation's geographical dominance. The stagnation of Chinese capitalism can be explained as a function of imperialist rule and societal acceptance. Just as the delay of India's economy, one of the newest entrants to capitalist world, can be explained by colonial rule and exploitation.

The Middle East gave the most serious impressions of a capitalist culture. While expanding on the Roman culture of trade the people of this region developed modes of money and commerce that were not surpassed for some time. The Dinar became the common currency but the later instability of the Ottoman Empire relegated this previous dominance to a search for new identities. The exploration and dominance of the West usurped the commercial dominion of the Muslim world and gave the region a reason to move toward religion as a mode of identity. (Wallerstein 2002, p. 51).

Russia suffered many of the problems that were prevalent in other cultures where capitalism could have beenimagined to develop. Like Japan, Russia had a centralized government that controlled society and eliminated any chance of private enterprise and limited the ownership of land. It was not until the Revolution of 1905 that the serfs attained true freedom. (Figes 2002, p. 331). Afterwards, the nation was dominated by Marxist policies that purposely conflicted with capitalist ideology. Before all this, despite the efforts of Peter the Great, Russia remained beholden to its traditional mode of thinking. This was a type of thought that avoided competition and encouraged the growth of prominent families who most often had connections with the nation's elite.

In Latin America capitalism was stifled by many of the familiar reasons. While the West was endowed with a capitalist spirit, one which could be connected to a protestant ethic and its inherent nature of proselytizing, Latin America maintained an indigenous culture that did not concern itself or acknowledge other parts of the world within a capitalist framework. (De Soto 2003, p. 208). For the most part, authoritarian governments seized on the clash of cultures and made profit from those who were held by notions of security.