The rags-to-riches story is always a classical and inspirational tale that tries to touch our hearts. These stories seeks to arouse the warm, intrinsic emotions that all humans get when they proudly achieve a long-term goal. Andrew Carnegie’s life is the exception. Andrew Carnegie was an industrialist who guided the expansion of the American steel industry in the 1800s. During this period, the United States was a demanding country for steel to use in the rail roads. Andrew Carnegie was not a hero but a heartless capitalist because he sabotaged his competitors in the steel industry, applied his belief that “(competition) insures the survival of the fittest in every department” into social standards, and, maintained his employees in unfair working …show more content…
This thinking was the brainwork that Hitler himself used; he pursued “Survival of the (non-jewish) Germans” in his dictatorship. Carnegie had a similar mindset that would only benefit the richest men in society. Everyone else was left as unworthy of appreciation. Carnegie said in his article from 1889 “The Gospel of Wealth” that “It is … essential, for the progress of the race that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best”’ (Doc B). It is evident that Carnegie says that those that are not “highest and best” must not be rewarded with luxurious homes. He states that we must praise this behavior because “It is to this law (of competition) that we owe our wonderful material development, … it is best for the race … it ensures the survival of the fittest” (Doc B). Carnegie didn’t support social equality with this mindset when he states that it is “Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor…” (Doc B). Carnegie applied his belief that “(competition) insures the survival of the fittest in every department” into social standards, which is Social Darwinism and subsequently a political view that doesn’t support the groups of society
The captain of industries were businessmen who also benefitted society through their accumulation of wealth, using methods such as increased productivity, the expansion of markets, offering up new jobs to the working class, and other acts of generosity. All of the notable industrialists dubbed “robber barons” were also named “captain of industries” as well. Therefore, there have been many debates as to whether the term “robber barons” really did justice to the industrialists, when taking into account of their effects on America’s economy, and not just the negative aspects. While the robber barons did harm specific groups of people in order to meet their selfish goals, as well as execute ruthless tactics to surpass their competitors, they have also created an economic boom in which they created larger manufacturing companies, created many employment opportunities for the working class. Even though robber barons went to extreme measures and harmed others in their pursuit of wealth, they have also, and built a stable and prosperous
Both Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller dominated giant corporations, but they dictated much of the employees and greatly tried to divide out the employees from desperately trying to organize the reforms that would essentially stop the robber barons from taking advantage of them. The robber barons insisted that if you cannot work the day you are supposed to other than the Fourth of July, some other person will be a willing participant to come and take your job. The economy was dramatically failing because the wealth had been handed out unfairly and much the industry workers in the mining factories decimated during the accidents that occurred in those horrible working conditions. Due to the corruption of the government in the Gilded age, which lasted from the 1870 to the 1900s, most of the working class poor were barely struggling to stay alive and more family members had no choice but go into the labor force to provide for the family. The robber barons were held with much hostility in the society of American Capitalism. The society tried to look at the world in a scientific perspective that according to Social Darwinist’s theory in America, the human society was viewed in regards to the working class poor and the issues of poverty as a result of their own failure, the lack
At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most
The Gilded Age marked a period of industrial growth in America. Mark Twain termed the period of 1865 to 1896 as the “Gilded Age” to {indicate} the widespread corruption lying underneath the glittering surface of the era. Known as either “captains of industry” or “robber barons,” several prominent figures shaped this time period; these capitalists gained great wealth and success with their industries. Corrupt and greedy are two words associated with the term “robber barons,” which referred to the capitalists who acquired their great wealth in less than admirable and ethical ways. On the other hand, many referred to the capitalists as the “captains of industry” that were celebrated as admirable philanthropists; their way of acquiring extreme
In the article, "A Nation of Grinders," Brooks uses sagacious allusions as well as a pedagogic tone to accentuate the fact that the societal perception of success as being comprised of monetary accumulation is flawed and that success or joy is ultimately bred by assiduity. By constantly referencing a multitude of prominent historical figures the author is able to effectively generate common ground with his audience as well as make analogies that they find relatable through the usage ...
Speaking of where that money, in document #10 we see a small cartoon post from The Saturday Globe, Utica, New York, July 9, 1892. At the bottom it conveys, “Forty Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role” With this message, it displays Carnegie both giving away a Library to Pittsburgh and money to Scotland, and cutting wages from workers. This drawing signifies what he does with the money rather than paying his workers with that money. Looking at wages in document #7 helps to see how much a worker are paid in a chart, even though iron and steel workers look like they have decent wages(daily hrs. 10.67, daily wages 1.81), it was to many unfair wages. Compare this to Carnegie’s daily “wage” was ninety two grand! Confirming wages are unfair.
Industrial development of the late 18th century (around 1865-1900) is often characterized by it’s affluent, aggressive and monopolistic industrial leaders of the likes of men such as Andrew Carnegie, William H. Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller. Due to their ruthless strategies, utilization of trusts, and exploitation of cheap labor in order to garner nearly unbreakable monopolies and massive sums of wealth, these men are often labelled as “robber barons”. At the same time, they are also often referred to as “industrial statements” for their organization, and catalyst of, industrial development; not to forget their generous contributions to the betterment of American society. Therefore, whether or not their aforementioned advances in industry were undertaken for their own personal benefits, one cannot ignore their positive effects on America. Thus, one can conclude that not only were the captains of industry both “robber barons” and “industrial statements”, but that that these two labels, in fact, go hand-in-hand.
Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.
On the other hand, Carnegie understands that there exists inequality, but he believes that the superior can cooperate with the inferior to gain equality. In fact, it the document he clarifies, “There remains…only one mode of using great fortunes…in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor−a reign of harmony” (Carnegie, 54). Carnegie does not particularly consider inequality a problem. He understands that in order for wealthy to facilitate the lives of the poor, there must be inequality to establish status, but he also discerns that by helping the poor they are given a chance to reach equality. In fact, Carnegie says, “Individualism will
Even though these men attempted to build a stable foundation for America to grow on, their negative aspects dramatically outweighed the positive. Even though Andrew Carnegie donated his fortunes to charity, he only acquired the money through unjustifiable actions. As these industrialists continued to monopolize companies through illegal actions, plutocracy- government controlled by the wealthy, took control of the Constitution. Sequentially, they used their power to prevent controls by state legislatures. These circumstances effect the way one
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
Social Darwinism and The Gospel of Wealth were two late 19th century ideas that helped shape America’s views on social, economic, and political issues. The former applied the theory of natural selection to sociology and politics while the latter outlined a way for the country’s newly minted rich to redistribute their surplus wealth to the needy. Both concepts offer insight into the 1877-1900 period in American history known as the Gilded Age.
In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could be built for the enjoyment of society.
What is the American Dream? There are a myriad of aspects to it, but one general idea: the ideal life. It is making a lot of money, being respected, and triumphing difficult situations. The American Dream has been pursued by many, but only few make it all the way.
There are some arguments, having a faint measure of plausibility, that have served politicians, charlatans and assorted do-gooders for well for over a century in their quest for control. One of those arguments is: capitalism primarily benefits the rich and not the common man. That vision prompts declarations such as: Congressman Richard Gephart's assertion that high income earners are "winners" in "the lottery of life." Then there's, Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, who says high income earners the "fortunate fifth." These nonsensical visions lead to calls for those who've been "blessed" to "give back" either voluntarily or coercively through the tax code.