More handpicked essays just for you.
John steinbecks use of imagery and language in the grapes of wrath
John steinbeck the grape of wrath essay
John steinbeck the grape of wrath essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.
The view on the wealthy in the society was different from one person to another and this actually led to publications and criticisms one after another. Actually the discovery of new economic opportunities made United States to be viewed as a land of economic glory and prosperity. This in turn attracted more people from different parts of the world. Ironically, some of the optimistic immigrants got overly involved relentless poverty and had to struggle for cont...
... middle of paper ...
...at George Henry, like many other reformers of the time believed that efforts to create a balance in the society should not compromise or interfere with any individual or a particular class in the society (Johnson).
In a nutshell, it can be argued that in the event of serious economic developments, various people and groups held different views of what exactly a wealthy society should be. It is crystal clear that Andrew Carnegie and William Graham Sumner held same view on wealth accumulation whereas Henry George strongly advocated for policies that would enhance equality.
Works Cited
jlopez007. Andrew-Carnegie-Vs-Henry-George. September 2013. 31 January 2014 .
Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past. Bedford: St. Martins, 2012.
Sumner, William Graham. What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1883.
The inequalities in America during the gilded age came from an unequal distribution of wealth, leaving only a small percentage of individuals with riches while the rest suffered in poverty even with constant overproduction of everyday necessities. People argued that social darwinism would chose who was meant to be rich and the survival of the fittest would deem who was better than the rest. From 1870-1895, journalists and critics dismantled the inequality during the period and some offer their own solutions.
This idea of Social Darwinism gave the robber barons of society the justification for their hostile behavior towards their workers. Andrew Carnegie tried to make the gospel of wealth that argued that the duty of someone with power and a lot of money was to put advancement into the society such as libraries. John D. Rockefeller also used this idea and gave away some of his wealth to education as well. However, many socialists, promoting fair distribution of wealth, tried to write books, which were very popular and best sellers at the time to address the social development issue of the economy. The factory workers had no opportunity to gain the independence and advancement to their social class. As argued in the cooperative commonwealth, they addressed the issue was that having liberty as well as monopoly cannot be happening at the same time in order for society to function in a civilized manner. The Social Gospel became known as relief programs that would take place to establish the mission and the relief to the harsh problems that were brought on by the robber barons of society. The arguments of the wage workers we clearly stating that the church can support the political
In his essay “Land of Opportunity” James W. Loewen details the ignorance that most American students have towards class structure. He bemoans the fact that most textbooks completely ignore the issue of class, and when it does it is usually only mentions middle class in order to make the point that America is a “middle class country. This is particularly grievous to Loewen because he believes, “Social class is probably the single most important variable in society. From womb to tomb, it correlates with almost all other social characteristics of people that we can measure.” Loewen simply believes that social class usually determine the paths that a person will take in life. (Loewen 203)
...ith a clear distinction in wealthy and property between the rich and poor. Finally, the new nation changed with an increased responsive towards the underrepresented when the Bill of Rights was drafted to protect the individual liberties of the people. The situation the people in the new nation faced can extend to today’s problems in the United States. Big name corporations with a lot of money can lobby to protect their economic interests just like the elites writing the Constitution and making laws in order to protect their wealth. The hierarchical society in the late 1700s is still alive today with a small number of fabulously wealthy elite that pass down their wealth to their children, and then the people facing poverty and are living off of minimum wage. There are attempts to respond to the people needs just like in late 1700s because welfare to those who need it.
Time and time again we hear politicians and office holders preach the need for a powerful middle-class. You may then be surprised to hear that “about 82% of America’s net worth belongs to the top 20%, the next 80% of people only own about 18% of America’s wealth” (UCSC). Some may argue that this disproportion is the beauty of capitalism, the chance to create an empire. I argue that the proportions are simply unfair. Why is it that “ the average CEO makes 350X as much as his/her employee” (UCSC)?
...y as “the root of all evil” would be too simplistic; what she suggests, rather, is that the distribution of wealth in mid-nineteenth-century America was uneven, and that those with money did little to effectively aid the workers whose exploitation made them rich in the first place. In her portrayals of Mitchell and the “Christian reformer” whose sermon Hugh hears (24), she even suggests that reformers, often wealthy themselves, have no useful perspective on the social ills they desire to reform. Money, she seems to suggest, provides for the rich a numbing comfort that distances them from the sufferings of laborers like Hugh: like Kirby, they see such laborers as necessary cogs in the economic machinery, rather than as fellow human beings whose human desires for the comfort, beauty, and kindness that money promises may drive them to destroy their own humanity.
In history, it seems inarguably true that when a nation advanced in power and wealth, changes will soon followed. These changes affected the political, economic and social system of that nation, and often came as an advantage for wealthy individuals, while detrimental to others less fortunate. An example of this notion can be seen in American History. After the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era, America quickly surpassed Great Britain in industrial production thus became the leading nation in industrialization. However, great things do not come without a cost; the rapid technological expansion in the US would initiate the crisis of the 1890s. The crisis of the 1890s was the shift from the rural and agrarian society to a modern urban and industrial society.
The rapid development of global economy with the opening of new markets worldwide gave way to the development of new means of production and also to the change of ideologies across the world. Alongside with that, the division between different groups or classes within societies became more apparent as some people got richer and other poorer. These two phenomena, the worldwide development of industries and consequent class struggles, have been analyzed by two major thinkers of their times, Karl Marx and Robert Reich. Their essays have been influential and are similar in sense that they analyze existing conditions of societies and give projections on future fates of people, or more specifically, fates of classes. In this paper, the main focus will be on the fate of the wealthiest people; these are the bourgeois for Marx and symbolic analysts for Reich. More specifically, it will be argued that the rich people will be in the worst position according to Marx and this position will cover two aspects: material aspect, which is how well the rich will eventually manage their properties, and the inherent antagonism of classes and its consequences for the wealthy.
Socialism as defined by the parameters of the post revolution into the pre industrial period was the nearly universally marked by the race to empower the working class. Yet, within this broad definition of socialism, Karl Marx, Gracchus Babeuf, and Robert Owen differ in their views of a utopian society and how it should be formed. It was to be their difference in tradition that caused their break from it to manifest in different forms. Although they had their differences in procedure and motive, these three thinkers formed a paradigm shift that would ignite class struggle and set in motion historical revolutions into the present. Within their views of a utopian community, these men grappled with the very virtues of humanity: greed versus optimism.
The Gilded Age, known for the economic boom and a time of great industrialization, along with the promises of America brought immigrants from all over seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness though the many great opportunities that America had to offer. However, the opportunities that America had to offer were compromised by corruptions during this era, which were seen in the cities during this time. Once entered into the cycle that so many immigrant workers were stuck in, it was difficult to gain independence and to truly have lived out the American Dream, which brought these immigrants to America in the first place.
The rich tycoons of their society refused to share their money with the poor. Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gompers both wrote their essays towards the wealthy with hopes to make a difference for the poor workers and unemployed. Rich tycoons would do anything to
Everyone has his or her own ideas of how wealth should be distributed properly. Some people believe wealth should be left to family, left for public services, or become the property of others. Others believe that people should not have excess wealth, resulting in non-existent class distinctions. An alternative view is that wealth is not distributed; instead, the wealthy continue to grow wealthier while those in poverty can not escape it and fall further into a life of poverty. The beliefs discussed above come from three different writers. Those writers include Andrew Carnegie, Karl Marx, and Robert B. Reich. These writers all have different opinions on how wealth should be distributed properly.
The growth of factories and all other associated businesses created numerous opportunities for those seeking to increase their wealth. It wasn’t just the Rockefellers and the Carnegies that benefitted from this period in American history. Many small businesses were also created as a result of the tremendous development of the cities. Income growth for all Americans saw significant increases. Prior to this period, most income was gained from farming and most farmers earned enough to sustain their homestead from year to year. Machinery soon replaced the hand tools and animal-powered farm implements which allowed the farmers to increase their crop yields per season as they were able to farm more land effectively. Higher yields equalled higher profits for farmers. Before the Civil War it took 61 hours of labor to produce an acre of wheat. By 1900, it took 3 hours, 19 minutes. Those who left the farms for the cities were greeted by factories and businesses in dire need of a work force. This also created many opportunities for jobs ‘in the middle’, those jobs between the elite monopolists who owned the businesses and the lower paid laborers who worked the assembly lines at the factories. The American middle class has its roots in the Industrial Revolution.
The purpose of this paper is to explain and evaluate wealth and poverty in the United States and explain the differences between people that may or may not cause a disparity in wealth distribution within the United States. The topics addressed within the brief include ethnicity, culture, job placement, class, education/libraries, wealth distribution, and subgroups of modern poverty. Not everyone who is considered impoverished is equal and many factors exist to show a discrepancy between the impoverished. Education is a key element in distinguishing the impoverished from the wealthy, but also distinguishing between the levels of impoverished. The library system benefits the community and the person seeking an education and can turn poverty
Kerbo, H. R. (2012). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.