Orion Digest №3 — The Modern Era of Nationalism

The greatest development of the last few centuries, standing above the Industrial Revolution and the technology of the 20th century, is arguably the Age of Enlightenment spanning the 17th to 19th centuries. In an era of kings and traditional power, people thought critically about how we had grown to view the world, both scientifically and politically, and realize that we didn’t have to stay frozen in a gridlock of monarchial power.

Democracy had existed for many centuries, but it hadn’t been implemented in a widespread fashion since the fall of Rome, leaving family bloodlines and single personalities to dominate the world, with only perhaps councils to advise and aid royalty in some select places and times. However, with Enlightenment era thinkers studying the philosophy of their ancient counterparts, they began to suggest the possibility of a full scale democracy in the modern era.

Some of the central political ideas from the earlier Enlightenment years concerned the relationship between citizens and their government, with several thinkers claiming government to be founded on the “consent of the governed.” As powerful as government is in the lives of citizens, it is ultimately a system designed to serve the citizens’ need for organization, not the other way around. Thinking back to the basic concept of society, government is not above the mechanical workings of a nation — it is yet another cog in the machine, and its power is a tool for its job, not a reward to be sought after.

The natural progression of this idea of an ideal government that serves its people was a reflection on the government systems in play at the time. If a government was not acting as it should, and was a hindrance to the rights and prosperity of the people, what should be done? With the analogy of a machine, any cog that directly prevents the machine from running is faulty, and if a government is faulty, unlike people, it can be replaced. The concept came about that, if a government does not have the consent of the governed, it could simply be overthrown and recreated to match the people’s desires.

Naturally, if you happen to be the one in power, this is a very dangerous idea to you, no matter how true it is. Unfortunately, most leaders respond to revolution not by trying to understand their own mistake, but by trying to discourage the people from expressing themselves. In a democracy, where people can decide and bring about change themselves, this is not a problem, but in the kingdoms of old, inadequate leadership had no natural authority but itself to amend the issues. The king only answered to the king, and that was that.

With the North American colonies revolting in 1776 and the people of France revolting in 1789, two landmark examples of striking back against a monarchial system entered the world’s consciousness, and showed many nations that there was an alternative, which would spark an overall trend towards democracy over the next few centuries. Revolution wasn’t a new invention by any means, but this was the first time for many that the idea of the people having power over the government was in display in full force.

However, this wasn’t the only major idea about systemic upheaval that rocked the world in this Age of Enlightenment. You may notice that my definition of the Age of Enlightenment’s time period conflicts with the usual established version by history, and that is acknowledged and intentional. Around the latter half of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, technological and economic development led to what is known as the Industrial Revolution, which created machines and systems of organized labor that increased production rates exponentially and put masters of craft at the top of the food chain in the new economies that emerged.

Instead of the mere aristocrats of ‘old money’, the Industrial Revolution saw businessmen of ‘new money’, the wealthy who saw a chance for power and grasped it, taking any opportunity whatsoever to take it and hold onto it. Just like government in the beginnings of society craved power at any cost, so did the leaders of these markets, using dubious practices and dealings to skyrocket their wealth upward and upward. A working class was created that now were faced with a problem beyond government — their very livelihoods were not subservient to the whims of corporations, and that was not something often regulated by the government.

Enter Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. I will not talk at length about the theories of Marxism and its associated branches; at least not here, not now. But to summarize, these two thinkers and writers approached the growing system of capitalism with a theory of cyclic power balances and class warfare that had flip-flopped throughout history, and declared that the only way to combat corruption in the economy was to give the power of production to the workers who did the actual labor, rather than leave them out of the decision-making progress.

This theory began to catch on in the next century and a half, and still persists today. Workers, after all, are at the mercy of their employers when it comes to what to produce, with little options outside of that for either making money or purchasing necessary goods and services. But perhaps now that I have introduced the theory of revolution and capitalism, I should save the rise of communism and the corruption of modern democracy for the next issue. I will write more in this coming week, next time on the 20th century, but not at length about the events, but the basic political theories that emerged from its numerous wars.

- DKTC FL