The Enlightenment, a period of intellectual advancement and transformation in the 17th and 18th centuries, promoted massive shifts in human capability, thought, and rationale. Society, government, and education was not the only thing reinvented at the hands of philosophers. New ways to handle the economy, especially government impacts, were reimagined by the physiocrats.

Adam Smith, François Quesnay, and Robert Turgot were all considered revolutionary economic enlightenment thinkers. At one point they were all called Physiocrats (as the term spread from France to the rest of the world). They had unique ideas and economic theories. Adam Smith, (through his revolutionary ideas in The Wealth of Nations) Quesnay (in his writings on the Chinese economy), and Turgot (in his writings on the corruption of trade guilds), economies, policies, and societies were challenged and transformed across the globe. 

Their collective ideas eventually fell under one broad umbrella: Capitalism. A connection can be observed between the physiocrats and the first implementations of practical, laissez-faire-style capitalism in the late 1800s. Here’s why. 

Adam Smith, a philosopher from Scotland, was one of the most important and influential members of the Physiocrats. His work in The Wealth of Nations served to understand how a nation amassed wealth. He concluded that the wealth gained from a nation comes from innovation, a division of labor, and competition. These are all capitalist ingredients centuries before capitalism erupted. Adam Smith and the physiocrats were geniuse- they noticed other philosophers advocating for freedom in society and applied it to the economy, creating the theory of modern capitalism as we know it today.

Adam Smith’s primary goal was to dismantle state-centered mercantilism. He wanted freedom, reduced government supervision, and prosperous companies outside of government control. He argued that not only would companies benefit, or in his case 18th century merchant guilds, but society would too: innovation would automatically emerge as competition increased between companies. What they failed to forsee was that, in some cases, companies would brutalize workers in an attempt to increase productivity and beat the competition. 

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were marked by urbanization and capitalism, specifically seen in the United States and newly industrialized cities. Laissez-faire economics (technically theorized by Adam Smith and coined by Quesnay) became prevalent across the globe. Interestingly enough, the first Laissez-Faire system was first seen in China. Quesnay, a French physiocrat, was known for his writings on the Chinese and admired the structure of the Chinese economy: he wondered if France could do the same thing. 

Quesnay was surrounded by physiocrats, he was one of the most influential of the group and was said to be the leader- with the help of his ‘team,’ he manifested the most popular economic ideas of the 19th and 20th centuries, which drove political changes. “Laissez-faire” was a French word derived from the Chinese, directly translating to “hands-off." In other words, there would be fewer restrictions and regulations on companies. A consequence was dismal work conditions- workers found themselves working incredibly hard for little pay, oftentimes poor immigrants looking for freedom/escape in America found grueling factory work and starvation. Can we blame the Physiocrats for this? Dehumanizing working conditions resulted from competition, and after about 20 years of Laissez Faire policy, something had to change in France. Restrictions on companies and government interference drastically increased, while workers’ rights and unions began to grow. In a way, Quesnay made this possible. 

Turgot’s commentary on trade guilds and the structure of France’s tax system accomplished different things than Smith and Quesnay. The inherent nature of mercantilist trade guilds is to hold on to their power and monopolize the industry. Guilds, groups of wealthy families and merchants, were around for centuries and only contributed to the oppressive peasant weath system/consolidation of capital in Europe. Turgot despised the guilds because they got in the way of his physiocrat theory, despite his theory being capitalist in nature. Turgot never realized that his policies might actually create oppressive guilds (or companies) in the future, even if he advocated for the opposite. 

Turgot was a part of the Physiocrats, he advocated for innovation and competition- capitalism- just as much as the others. Louis XIV appointed Turgot the controller of finances. Using his position of power, he stood up to the trade guilds, especially since they heavily excluded others from starting new businesses, which put forth his ideas. He made it clear, early on, that governments can fight corruption without stifling innovation.  

Similarly, Turgot's intervention ultimately contributed to more competition, more players in the field, and increased innovation despite the resistance from the guilds. In the same ways, using capitalist ideas in practice, he set the standard for political change in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Guilds, as previously mentioned, were more monopolistic- holding onto power, crushing startup businesses, dominating the game. In a way, even if he advocated for factors that contributed to poor working conditions, in practice, he did quite the opposite: Turgot’s dismantlement of the monopolistic guilds provided a basis/groundwork for workers’ rights advocates and unions in the future. In a way, these guilds were like the 20th-century oppressive monopolies and could only be stopped by government intervention. 

Capitalism calls for innovation, prosperity, and freedom from government. Innovation, as it was theorized, would ultimately lead to prosperity for society- the workers, of course, did not agree. Monopolies are a byproduct of capitalism, a result to capitalism’s most extreme "private ownership without government control" nature. Even the ones who created the modern day conception of capitalism (perhaps besides Adam Smith) noticed the issues with this, and worked for at least some intervention in practice. 

Oppressive and negligent monopolies came from Laissez-Faire capitalism. Restriction and "grassroot" political challenge is necessary. These philosophers helped manifest this idea.