If you have not yet had an opportunity to respond to one of the previous questions, you can respond to this one as well. Remember: you need to make 4 comments total. You need to respond to two questions and then make two further comments, either to the question again or to someone's response. Your responses don't need to be long, but must have a specific example to back up your point.
Zinn recognizes a strange dichotomy of the Gilded Age: America's non-regulation of business enabled corporations to exploit workers and make people either very wealthy or very poor. At the same time, however, the free-market system enabled individuals from very humble origins (ie Carnegie) to become self made millionaires. Evaluate Zinn’s notion that “the government of the United States was behaving almost exactly as Karl Marx described a capitalist state: pretending neutrality to maintain order, but serving the interests of the rich.”
Discussion responses will be cut off Friday night at 9 pm, so make sure you respond.
Also, check to make sure your response was saved and recorded. If it's not here, you're not getting credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I find Zinn's argument to be completely correct. By having a free-market where the government can claim that it's hands-off on their part, it's able to fake its neutrality on economic matters. The system did allow people like Carnegie to rise up from nothing; this served as supposed proof that the government's uninvolved role was the best way to run things. At the same time, though, the government's claimed "neutrality" allowed for the terrible exploitation of human beings. The government may have said that it was hands-off and unbiased, but the Sherman Anti-Trust Act proves otherwise. It posed as a front to the people, promising to equalize the gap between the super rich and the poor. What it actually turned out to be was a defense for the corporations, attacking labor unions for their gain. This, in turn, made it possible for corporations to exploit workers and further the separation between classes. I agree with Zinn that Karl Marx's description matches the U.S very well during the Gilded Age.
I would also agree with Zinn and Marx about their view of a capitalistic state and its influence on the "Gilded" age. There is no doubt that the non-regulation of American businesses helped certain people rise above their original poverty (i.e. Carnegie). Although true, i don't think that this statement can be used so generally. Carnegie was one of the few, if not one of the only, to complete the true "american dream". Rockefeller and Vanderbilt didn't come from such "humble" origins. Rockefeller, a son of a doctor, was never poor or even middle class. He was thoroughly schooled and lived a life such that of a upper class citizen would. Vanderbilt also came from a more modest background, but not nearly the same as some working class 1900s families would consider themselves. The original family was of dutch origins and a relative of the patrician family, Van Der Bilt. Zinn's explanation of a free-market system enabling corporations to exploit workers and create a large wealth gap is also valid. Without government regulation corporations could implement extremely low wages and unhealthy working hours/conditions. The factory owners and corporation leaders could use the money saved on wages for personal means. Workers thus began getting stuck in a system of extreme poverty. They were worked hard to the core while the rich only benefited from their misery. Additionally, Karl Marx's idea of government pretending neutrality is clearly seen in the "gilded" age. Like Sara said, the Sherman Anti-Trust act served as a cover up for the government's true interest in aiding the rich and banning unions. This pretend neutrality can also be seen in the application of 14th amendment during this time. While it stated that every person has certain rights, the amendment also identified corporations as people and gave them rights to use as loopholes for getting around the Sherman anti-trust act and other prejudices about monopolies. Therefore although Zinn's argument is general, it is still accurate for the time period, as well as is Marx's description of a capitalist state.
I would agree with Zinn's point 100%. I completely agree with Sara and Miranda in their arguments of talking about how with having less regulation it allowed more people to rise up. They were maintaining order by pretending neutrality, but they did become involved by attempting to enact the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and several Supreme Court cases of the 14th amendment were regulated by the government. The U.S. government favored the rich by giving them land for railroads and factories, which is becoming very involved. Zinn's argument is completely true because the U.S. was pretending to be neutral to maintain order but they were in favor of the rich.
Howard Zinn's "People's History of America" claims that the American government of the "Gilded Age" declared itself neutral, while still helping the rich. Zinn has several valid points in making this arguement, exclaiming that the govornments policy of giving free land to corporations and siding against the laboror more often than not. In the case of creating an atmosphere of neutraility, Grover Cleveland was elected President. His administration over-invested in a "steel navy". This navy was built off of extremely overpriced steel made by Carnegie's impovershed laborors. Cleveland denied aid to Texas farmers, saying that it would encourage them to expect "paternal care". At the same time, Cleveland and the following administrations handed prime land to railroad companies. Any honest attempt at reform was immediatly turned against the common man for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a bill poorly worded but with good intentions, was turned on it's head by courts to prosecute unions instead of real corporate trusts.
Zinn basically pinpointed the exact thinking of the time period. Workers were in deep poverty and many had to keep working in order to supply their families with food. There was no extra money for most labor. While this was going on, people like Rockefeller were making millions easily. Many of the rich members of society believe in Social Darwinism where the poor were mean't to be poor by the acts of God. The Government probably believed in this too due to their actions during the Gilded Age. Almost no business regulations were passed to help workers barely making it, and the Sherman Act did very little to stop trusts and monopolies. The 14th amendment, which was to help blacks gain equal rights, was used for corporations to get the same rights as a human being, yet many human workers were being exploited. These examples show that during this time period, the Government pretended to be a neutral ground in the fight of rich vs poor, but the evidence shows that the actions taken were to help the rich.
I think Zinn’s notion is completely true. The government wasn’t neutral, just look at the creation of railroads. The government gave away thousands of acres of land and money with the building of the transcontinental railroad. And then there was the government’s interpretation of the 14th amendment. Instead of being about blacks rights, it became a way to protect the property of corporations, as they were now seen as “people.” Then the government passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to supposedly protect people from monopolies and trusts. Yet when actually enforced, it was to disband unions – helping the very trusts that were supposed to be “illegal.” Like Jen said, “Zinn was 100% correct” in saying capitalist governments served the rich.
In "The Communist Manifesto," Karl Marx states that capitalism can create an illusion of a so-called level playing field while still favoring the rich. This is exactly how the American economy functions. I think Sara's example of Carnegie being used as proof that anyone can achieve greatness is excellent, because that cannot apply to everyone. The average worker could not afford to focus on higher ambitions while struggling for subsistence in an economy that only supported those who already had power. The Robber Barons might say, "Okay, get power like us and then you'll be fine," but how DO you get power in a nation where every industry already has a captain?
Sam brought up a wonderful point, backed with historical evidence, which I overlooked: the government contributions to industry while still feigning neutrality. Any government in any country will support those who will give it more power. In a capitalist society, entrepreneurs will favor the government in if the government favors the entrepreneurs, which, I guess, answers the first discussion question posted: it is a reciprocating cycle, of sorts, that powers Big Business and government..
One of the most important aspects not mentioned above (that i forgot as well) is that the state of capitalism that the corporations claimed to support and the type capitalism that they abused are two entirely different things. When Adam Smith wrote Wealth Of Nations corporations were short lived entities with small sectors of business, that were created with the intention of public benefit. Ironically, the Industrialists of the 1890s were the exact opposite. Beyond this, their claim to government subsidy proved the hypocrisy and the nerve they possesed to exploit the nation.
I agree with Sam, in that, "the government wasn't neutral." I also agree with Sam's strong evidence of using the railroad system. I agree with Peter, as well, saying that they could play the field, but also favor the rich. Zinn's argument is completely correct.
Post a Comment