Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on social darwinism
Industrial revolution today
An essay on social darwinism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on social darwinism
Industrialization was wide spread during the early 19th century largely due to the advancement of the railroad system. A system put into place that allowed businesses to transport their goods throughout the countryside. Unfortunately, the wrought iron that was used for the rails couldn’t hold up long enough under those extreme conditions. For this reason, another alternative was needed to keep everything functioning as it should. Andrew Carnegie, an immigrant from Scotland who started in the textile industry couldn’t let that opportunity slip by and with the use of the Bessemer process he was able to make a stronger metal out of pig iron. The process took off slow in 1872 with him only producing about 70 tons a week but by 1892 the gains …show more content…
he made were substantial once he figured out a plan that would allow him to produce 10000 tons a week. This was fantastic for Andrew but devastating to his employees because they had to endure the back breaking work for 12 hours a day, seven days a week. For this reason, he had to constantly rotate employees in and out often but he didn’t care. In his mind he would always have the manpower to accomplish his goal. Another decision he made was with the creation of vertical integration in which he was able to assume control over production and distribution by owning the companies. In addition to cutting cost wherever he could and demanding that his workers commit to the process of long hours several days a week he would go on to be the largest producer of steel in the world. Andrew Carnegie was very successful, but he wasn’t the only one to take advantage of opportunities that allowed him to become a millionaire. John D. Rockefeller discovered oil in 1859 and from there he went on to be one of the shrewdest businessmen of that era. He opened his first oil company in the 1860s and from there he went on to become the largest oil refiner in the Midwest. This was accomplish by means of undercutting his competition, offering secret rebates, buying out his competitors, and creating a trust/board that he was allowed to sit on which gave him the power to coordinate policies that would eventually affect the other oil refineries. Steps were put in place to try and put an end to Rockefeller’s dealings but through no avail. He simply just moved his businesses to a different state and put the companies in different names as to not show ownership which allowed him to continue on his path of creating the monopoly that he greatly wanted. It was only a matter of time before others decided to take on this way of life as it was very profitable and allowed some to acquire power over the less fortunate.
Social Darwinism which was basically a survival of the fittest module allowed the strongest to keep advancing and the weak and meager to remain stagnant. The ones with money and power didn’t have many obstacles in their way which allowed them to thrive during that era and if a problem presented itself they had the means to solve it. Unfortunately, the less fortunate one had to fend for themselves, but everyone who had attained wealth didn’t have the attitude of letting people suffer and make it on their own. Although Andrew Carnegie was a hard man to work for he did give millions to charity to help others who were in need and also suggested that his others in his position follow suit. Laissez-Faire economics which was named by Adam Smith played a significant role during that time because it allowed businesses to have complete control without the interference of the government. The overall goal was that with this in place employers would be more profitable which they would in turn pass down to the employees, but greed reared its ugly head once again and as a result you had harsh treatment of the workers and disregard for consumer safety which required the government to become more involved to protect the people of the
land.
During this era, businesses supplied large amounts of employment for citizens which created power for these businesses. They had the power to provide bad working conditions, lower wages, and fire their employees without any justification (Doc 1). George E. McNeill, a labor leader, states how “whim is law” and one can not object to it. The government took a laissez-faire approach and refused to regulate economic factors. This allowed robber barons and business tycoons to gain more authority of each industry through the means of horizontal and vertical integration. It wasn’t until later in the time period that the government passed a few acts to regulate these companies, such as the ICC and the Sherman Antitrust Act. One of the main successful industries was
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
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
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
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
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 by arguing 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 of their social class.
In Harold C. Livesay’s Andrew Carnegie and the rise of Big Business, Andrew Carnegie’s struggles and desires throughout his life are formed into different challenges of being the influential leader of the United States of America. The book also covers the belief of the American Dream in that people can climb up the ladder of society by hard work and the dream of becoming an influential citizen, just as Carnegie did.
Document M gives us quotes from Andrew Carnegie’s, “Wealth” in the North American Review, June 1889. He states that he wanted more than just the wealthy to prosper: “The man who dies rich is a disgrace.” He was one of those men who would leave their wealth for public use on his deathbed. He never spent too much of his money because he wanted to “set an example of modest... living…; and… to consider all surplus revenues… as trust funds;” he’s a little bit of a hypocrite. Carnegie’s ideas are criticised for the mistakes along the way, but when his ideas came to be, they made big impacts all around the
He went to London in 1872, saw the new Bessemer method of producing steel, and returned to the United States to build a million-dollar steel plant. Foreign competition was kept out by a high tariff conveniently set by Congress, and by 1880 Carnegie was producing 10,000 tons of steel a month, making $1 1/2 million a year in profit. By 1900 he was making $40 million a year, and that year, at a dinner party, he agreed to sell his steel company to J. P. Morgan. He scribbled the price on a note: $492,000,000.”
Carnegie did not believe in spending his money on frivolous things, instead he gave most of his fortune back to special projects that helped the public, such as libraries, schools and recreation. Carnegie believes that industries have helped both the rich and the poor. He supports Social Darwinism. The talented and smart businessmen rose to the top. He acknowledges the large gap between the rich and the poor and offers a solution. In Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, he states, “the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves” (25). He believes the rich should not spend money foolishly or pass it down to their sons, but they should put it back into society. They should provide supervised opportunities for the poor to improve themselves. The rich man should know “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise- free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind” (Carnegie p. 28). Also, Carnegie does not agree they should turn to Communism to redistribute wealth. Individuals should have the right to their earnings. Corporations should be allowed to act as it please with little to no government
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.
The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century. Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. In this paper, we will discuss three different nineteenth-century thinkers and their conception of Social Darwinism. The conservative, Heinrich von Treitschke, and liberal Herbert Spencer both gave arguments on the usefulness of competition between people on a global scale. The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid.
In the years leading up to the industrial era, manual labor was required across the country in order to produce goods such as wheat, steel, or other raw materials. In order to create these, skilled workers were needed so they could produce the materials. While the materials that the skilled workers made were of a high quality, there was a drawback; in order to make such high quality materials, companies needed to pay these workers more than the average worker. In response to this, companies set out to find a way to make more product for cheaper. A prime example of how they did this is when they created the Bessemer process. This is a machine/process that converts iron into steel via injection of air into the raw iron. The process is credited with launching the steel industry and cheapening the cost of production because it was no longer necessary to employ high skilled workers (Document B). With this, the need for highly paid skilled workers was no longer necessary because steel companies could employ low skill workers and pr...
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
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to