Karl Marx was a German philosopher and writer who introduced socialism to Europe as means of addressing the social and financial disparity between classes. Marx was a Hegelian thinker; therefore he believed that reality is capable of being expressed in rational terms and could be reduced to a more synthetic unity within a transcendental idealist structure (Alexander 3/23/07).
Marx was disturbed by religion and commerce, which led him to focus on revolutionary change and sparked writings such as The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Das Kapital, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and Capital. A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I (Engels). In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx gives a new perspective on theories of money, while in Capital. A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I he scientifically reduces the political economy of the working class (Engels).
Marx believed that religion fogged reality and clarity and did not offer solutions nor did if offer a change in social standards (Alexander 3/23/07). He also believed that capitalism fosters greed, elitism, exploits women, alienates man from society, and creates a cycle by which the worker can not afford the goods he helps to create. He believes that because manufacturers can’t meet the demands of society and a lust for goods remains which results in poor working and living conditions and an enormous separation in social classes (Alexander 3/23/07). In London workers lived in poverty while manufacturer owners lived in extreme wealth (Zinn 204). In America, capitalism took priority over safe working conditions alienating the poor and causing worker strikes (Zinn 204). Americans sought to end the reign of gold and socialism seemed to allow for greater equality and humanity (Zinn 205).
In a socialist government, manufacturers would be held to government imposed standards for work conditions and wages. Taxes would be pooled to provide education, medical, yet still allow for entrepreneurial ambitions, thus ending the struggle for basic needs. Some communities sought to employ socialism in Utopian type societies, but failed due to religious influence and tyranny such as the Shakers and Oneida (Foner 371,372). In these communities property and assets were shared but standards of living, including sexual relations and self slavery, were imposed and ultimately deteriorated the spirit of their efforts (Foner 371-374).
In the Soviet Union after Lenin’s death in 1924, Joseph Stalin began a reign of terror within his own government by eliminating all those who appeared to be disloyal to him (PBS). The Soviet Union had a government with socialist structure but with a communist outcome. That is to say that socialism was morphed with totalitarianism to create a government operating under tyranny. The union of Adolf Hitler and Joeseph Stalin further impacted the opinion of American’s towards socialism. Socialisms greatest weakness had been exposed and exploited resulting in a massive loss of life (PBS). In America socialism has become synonymous with communism; America was a key player in eradicating communism from the Soviet Union and introducing democracy, so Americans are not tolerant of socialist ideas because of where they have the potential to lead.
Marx’s ideas were in the right place both philosophically and realistically, but the nature of man to allow greed to impose his will on another always seems to find its way into large structures that affect many. While socialism offers a way to help man live in harmony it does not protect against those who use its foundation for wrong.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
JP Morgan Robber Baron or Captain of Industry
J.P. Morgan is a post civil war captain of industry. What separates Morgan from other greats, such as, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Carnegie is his motives and his upbringing. I would define a “robber baron” as an individual whose financial ambitions cause him to knowingly take advantage of others for their own personal gain. A “captain of industry” seeks solutions, not advancements; though the outcome may prove to be monetarily beneficial. Regardless of the distinction between the two labels, it is inevitable that there will be a structure that places wealthy as the most beneficial, and the unwealthy as the least.
John Pierpont Morgan was born to a wealthy banking family in Hartford, Connecticut. His father was Junius Spencer Morgan, one of the most respected financiers in London (Britannica). Junius Morgan was chosen by George Peabody to supercede him and take over his merchant house and all of its holdings. Peabody was a huge champion of America and vowed to be its strongest supporter in London, so when the time came to choose a new leader, Peabody stated that only an American could replace him (Chernow 4-7). The contract between Peabody and Morgan was that the merchant house would be turned over to him with in ten years of their partnership and it eventually was. In the meantime Junius Morgan began priming his only surviving son, John Pierpont, to become a great banker. Junius had many concerns regarding his son due to John Pierpont’s frail health and unmanageable temper (Chernow 18-19). Junius combated John Pierpont’s “weaknesses” by impressing his influence upon every aspect of John’s life and constantly challenging his intelligence (Chernow 21). Under his father’s direction, John became the American agent for his father’s firm in New York, then he established his own firm with a cousin which failed, thereafter he became partner in the New York firm Drexel, Morgan, and Company which later became JP Morgan and Company (Britannica). John’s father worried that his son’s rash decisions would not follow the conservative approach to money that he had been taught. During the Civil War Pierpont financed a deal for Arthur Eastman to purchase obsolete rifles from the US government, which Eastman modified and improved, and then sold back to the government at six times the original purchase price (Chernow 21). This type of deal was not what Junius had been training Pierpont to support but time and time again Pierpont seemed to be able to identify future opprtunities to invest and negotiate them with a non traditional approach to business. Junius groomed Pierpont to conduct banking business with the traditional “Gentlemen’s understanding” which stated that bankers would not advertise, compete, or accept new clients without clearing it with the client’s prior banking institution. Pierpont adhered to these rules but his tactics for conducting business were much straighter forward.
Pierpont’s deals were on a take it or leave it basis which earned him a reputation of being brusque and abrupt but also fair. He was not driven by a tremendous desire for money but for setting finances right and doing things the right way. John believed in honesty as shown in his managing of a railroad deal with Andrew Carnegie when Carnegie went to collect on a $60,000 investment, John gave him $70,000 instead because he said he underestimated the account. Carnegie refused the money but Morgan insisted, as a result Carnegie vowed to never harm the Morgans’ (Chernow 39). Morgan’s ambitions were not to dominate the financial arena but to ensure that economics were run efficiently and soundly. His interest in organizing assets and investments coined the term “Morganization.” Morgan’s reputation for doing exactly what needed to done is why he was chosen to stabilize the railroad industry, Carnegie Steel Company, and the merger between Edison General Electric and Thompson-Houston Electric (Britannica). Pierpont’s reputation was one of the key reasons for William Vanderbilt choosing him to organize the assets gained from the death of Vanderbilt’ father (Chernow 43). The panic of 1893 displayed the power of Morgan’s financial resources and international connections, as he was integral in forming a syndicate that replenished the US governments depleted gold reserve in order to relieve the Treasury crisis (Britannica). Morgan again came to the country’s rescue in 1907 when the stock market crashed by helping to reorganize large government deposits and he helped to preserve the solvency of several major banks and corporations. Pierpont’s suggestions lead to a national bank and a system that intertwined major banks and corporations to maintain financial integrity (Britannica).
John Pierpont Morgan was the most innovative and influential captain of industries the US has ever seen. Born to a rich family and a matter of fact personality is what kept Pierpont’s focus not on money or competition, but on process and order. Though he did become one of the wealthiest men in our country it is stated time and time again that his motivation was organizing finances to be most productive and beneficial and that is what sets him apart from the robber barons of his era.
John Pierpont Morgan was born to a wealthy banking family in Hartford, Connecticut. His father was Junius Spencer Morgan, one of the most respected financiers in London (Britannica). Junius Morgan was chosen by George Peabody to supercede him and take over his merchant house and all of its holdings. Peabody was a huge champion of America and vowed to be its strongest supporter in London, so when the time came to choose a new leader, Peabody stated that only an American could replace him (Chernow 4-7). The contract between Peabody and Morgan was that the merchant house would be turned over to him with in ten years of their partnership and it eventually was. In the meantime Junius Morgan began priming his only surviving son, John Pierpont, to become a great banker. Junius had many concerns regarding his son due to John Pierpont’s frail health and unmanageable temper (Chernow 18-19). Junius combated John Pierpont’s “weaknesses” by impressing his influence upon every aspect of John’s life and constantly challenging his intelligence (Chernow 21). Under his father’s direction, John became the American agent for his father’s firm in New York, then he established his own firm with a cousin which failed, thereafter he became partner in the New York firm Drexel, Morgan, and Company which later became JP Morgan and Company (Britannica). John’s father worried that his son’s rash decisions would not follow the conservative approach to money that he had been taught. During the Civil War Pierpont financed a deal for Arthur Eastman to purchase obsolete rifles from the US government, which Eastman modified and improved, and then sold back to the government at six times the original purchase price (Chernow 21). This type of deal was not what Junius had been training Pierpont to support but time and time again Pierpont seemed to be able to identify future opprtunities to invest and negotiate them with a non traditional approach to business. Junius groomed Pierpont to conduct banking business with the traditional “Gentlemen’s understanding” which stated that bankers would not advertise, compete, or accept new clients without clearing it with the client’s prior banking institution. Pierpont adhered to these rules but his tactics for conducting business were much straighter forward.
Pierpont’s deals were on a take it or leave it basis which earned him a reputation of being brusque and abrupt but also fair. He was not driven by a tremendous desire for money but for setting finances right and doing things the right way. John believed in honesty as shown in his managing of a railroad deal with Andrew Carnegie when Carnegie went to collect on a $60,000 investment, John gave him $70,000 instead because he said he underestimated the account. Carnegie refused the money but Morgan insisted, as a result Carnegie vowed to never harm the Morgans’ (Chernow 39). Morgan’s ambitions were not to dominate the financial arena but to ensure that economics were run efficiently and soundly. His interest in organizing assets and investments coined the term “Morganization.” Morgan’s reputation for doing exactly what needed to done is why he was chosen to stabilize the railroad industry, Carnegie Steel Company, and the merger between Edison General Electric and Thompson-Houston Electric (Britannica). Pierpont’s reputation was one of the key reasons for William Vanderbilt choosing him to organize the assets gained from the death of Vanderbilt’ father (Chernow 43). The panic of 1893 displayed the power of Morgan’s financial resources and international connections, as he was integral in forming a syndicate that replenished the US governments depleted gold reserve in order to relieve the Treasury crisis (Britannica). Morgan again came to the country’s rescue in 1907 when the stock market crashed by helping to reorganize large government deposits and he helped to preserve the solvency of several major banks and corporations. Pierpont’s suggestions lead to a national bank and a system that intertwined major banks and corporations to maintain financial integrity (Britannica).
John Pierpont Morgan was the most innovative and influential captain of industries the US has ever seen. Born to a rich family and a matter of fact personality is what kept Pierpont’s focus not on money or competition, but on process and order. Though he did become one of the wealthiest men in our country it is stated time and time again that his motivation was organizing finances to be most productive and beneficial and that is what sets him apart from the robber barons of his era.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Theophany and Manifest Destiny
Theophany, derived from the Greek language and whose meaning is a visible manifestation of a deity refers to a human form under cataclysmic conditions excelling and progressing (Morse 1222). The conditions under which the new land was created were so complex and abstract. Coming to a new and virtually untouched land, encountering and subduing primitive people, and fighting for independence are all events and circumstance that appear that progress was inevitable and necessary. The idea that being in the new land there is an opportunity to create a country or a place with the people in mind according to how the people see fit is tangible. Many of the towns such as New England, New York, and New Haven expressed the desire for autonomy. Establishing a triangle trade created a viable economy for an emerging country. Listing grievances against the King of England and declaring rights for those in America helped to exercise its God given rights to rule over itself helped to create “American Exceptionalism,” (Foner 169,170). Americans viewed themselves as different and desired to rule themselves and these notions pushed forward progress in creating a government, settling land westward, and declaring independence from England. The “exceptional” image of Americans helped to foster new ideas based on philosophical notions. Actions of early Americans were radical and the opportunity to be free from tyranny led to revolution and a demand for reform. Demanding that Americans should not be taxed by England because the crown was not significantly present in American and revolting against such demands by acts such as the Boston Tea Party position Americans to have to choose; submit or become independent (Foner 160-162).
Americans are faced with an undisputed and obvious divine right to progress and settle westward, stated John O’Sullivan, a journalist from the New York Times (Foner 290). The mission was clear, more railroads, create towns, identify government policies and identify its own form of tyranny in slavery. Manifest destiny fostered ideas of race superiority as territorial expansion moved forward by government projects such as Indian removal acts, the continuation of blacks being enslaved and Mexican landowners losing their land as the United States is established (Foner 406). An example is the Texas constitution protected slavery and denied civil rights to Indians and Blacks. Only whites could own land; only upper class “Spanish” Mexicans were permitted to keep their land (Foner 405-407). One of President James Polk primary goals in his presidency was to bring California into the Union and settle the dispute over Oregon ownership (Foner 403). These goals are clearly impacted by manifest destiny because they exemplify the desire to make the country whole and establish it as our own. The impact of expansion and the atrocities they caused are viewed as the price of progress, freedom, and are necessary for independence.
Citations
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty an American History. VolumeOne. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2006
Morse, John. Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth. Springfield,
Massachusettes: Merriam-Webster, 1999.
Monday, October 1, 2007
National Government, for You or for Me?
National governments are for all those who claim to be citizens of such nation. All documents crafted for the purpose of declaring freedom from British rule, unification of American colonies, and the rights of men were written with the spirit of individual rights and national cohesiveness. With that said, the question becomes who is a citizen and what rights shall said citizens be entitled to?
Thomas Jefferson’s argument that natural laws dictate that men should govern men and these rights were not granted on the basis of royal heredity or aristocracy, but are innate and equal to all (Foner 169). Influenced by John Locke, Jefferson’s ideas were considered radical and would become the foundation of American freedom. The purpose of rejecting the crown was to establish a new way of thinking that involved the inclusion of all men, not just the wealthy, the landowners, or the most educated. The movement to separate church and state significantly impacted American’s due to states denouncing their specified religious ties so that citizens may have free exercise to which ever religion they chose (Foner 187). Establishing equality and freedom from tyranny was at the heart of the US Constitution, where choosing a system by which government could be fair and balanced was of the utmost importance (Foner 213).
Again, what citizens had rights, and who was the national government working for? Native Americans were losing their freedom as American’s were gaining theirs. As representatives drew boundary lines and designated areas for where Native American people could live in peace, they were taking the desired land by force and without a democratic process or representation for the Native American people (Foner 196,197). Clearly Americans did not view the natural rights of Native Americans as a significant factor when compared to the price of progress. However, for black slaves the idea of freedom in the Constitution seemed to have the potential to be available to them as well. James Otis, an advocate of equality for all, of Massachusetts, asked “What man is or ever was born free if every man is not?” (Foner 198).
Over time and throughout history our national government has stood to provide an equitable way of life for its citizens, as shown in either specific language or purposefully omitting language in the Constitution that could be interpreted to benefit any one particular class of citizen. There are always those who fear their lifestyle will be affected by the will of the people or who look for potential weakness in the government to exploit for personal gain/profit.
Our national government serves us, but it is up to its citizens to keep opportunist at bay, as well as carry out the energetic language used in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.
Bibliography
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty an American History. Volume
One. New York: WW Norton and Company, 2006.
Thomas Jefferson’s argument that natural laws dictate that men should govern men and these rights were not granted on the basis of royal heredity or aristocracy, but are innate and equal to all (Foner 169). Influenced by John Locke, Jefferson’s ideas were considered radical and would become the foundation of American freedom. The purpose of rejecting the crown was to establish a new way of thinking that involved the inclusion of all men, not just the wealthy, the landowners, or the most educated. The movement to separate church and state significantly impacted American’s due to states denouncing their specified religious ties so that citizens may have free exercise to which ever religion they chose (Foner 187). Establishing equality and freedom from tyranny was at the heart of the US Constitution, where choosing a system by which government could be fair and balanced was of the utmost importance (Foner 213).
Again, what citizens had rights, and who was the national government working for? Native Americans were losing their freedom as American’s were gaining theirs. As representatives drew boundary lines and designated areas for where Native American people could live in peace, they were taking the desired land by force and without a democratic process or representation for the Native American people (Foner 196,197). Clearly Americans did not view the natural rights of Native Americans as a significant factor when compared to the price of progress. However, for black slaves the idea of freedom in the Constitution seemed to have the potential to be available to them as well. James Otis, an advocate of equality for all, of Massachusetts, asked “What man is or ever was born free if every man is not?” (Foner 198).
Over time and throughout history our national government has stood to provide an equitable way of life for its citizens, as shown in either specific language or purposefully omitting language in the Constitution that could be interpreted to benefit any one particular class of citizen. There are always those who fear their lifestyle will be affected by the will of the people or who look for potential weakness in the government to exploit for personal gain/profit.
Our national government serves us, but it is up to its citizens to keep opportunist at bay, as well as carry out the energetic language used in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.
Bibliography
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty an American History. Volume
One. New York: WW Norton and Company, 2006.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Heroes or Villains?
This is a great way to pose the question of whether or not a person should be deemed as great because of specific actions or their overall life or character. Though this is more of an editorial than a fact based musing, I think the question bears great importance to our moral fiber. Through out American history and history as we know it, great leaders have been depicted as great people for their accomplishments, despite their character or their not so great actions. In 1517 Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenburg church, opposing the beliefs and actions of the Catholic Church. His public display was viewed as bold, heroic, and brave; it is said that he was revered as a good man and true to his faith in god. However, the complaints Martin made were made by another ten years prior and the result was the death of the individual, and he was viewed as naive and juvenile (Alexander). In recent American history we see politicians, such as, Bill Clinton, who appears to be the worst husband/man of all time, but a tremendous leader for our country. America has a long history of being eternally optimistic with regards to those who help our nation succeed. From the realm of pop culture I personally can’t stomach hearing how wonderful John Lennon was because he cared so deeply for peace, mankind, and humanity; he chose such causes in lieu of being a parent to his first son. They never go into detail about that on VH1. Americans will never speak of men like General William Sherman, and his ambition to annihilate the Confederate Army during the Civil War, as blood thirsty, instead our history books tell us that were it not for men of his stature, the south would have won the war and slavery would still exist (Civil War).
Do these acts make these people heroes or villains? I suppose if we look at the philosophical perspective we could apply the foundation of utilitarianism from John Stuart Nell, “The greatest good for the greatest number of people,” (Snell). The only problem with that is slavery was once considered for the greater good.
I think history should always be presented fact based and unbiased, so that those studying it can determine whose birthday they want to celebrate, or who they feel best represents the integrity and fortitude of their country. Propaganda should have no part in the shaping of our minds, so that we may be able to speak more intelligently, and express our views more completely. These ideas may seem simplistic and impossible, but I believe in the whole truth always.
Bibliography
Alexander, Ken. "Religion Cause of Division." Los Medanos College.
Brentwood Center, Brentwood. 25 January 2007.
Alexander, Ken. “Civil War.” Los Medanos College.
Brentwood Center, Brentwood. 07 September 2007
Snell, Mary. “Ethics.” Los Medanos College.
Brentwood Center, Breentwood. 01 February 2007
Do these acts make these people heroes or villains? I suppose if we look at the philosophical perspective we could apply the foundation of utilitarianism from John Stuart Nell, “The greatest good for the greatest number of people,” (Snell). The only problem with that is slavery was once considered for the greater good.
I think history should always be presented fact based and unbiased, so that those studying it can determine whose birthday they want to celebrate, or who they feel best represents the integrity and fortitude of their country. Propaganda should have no part in the shaping of our minds, so that we may be able to speak more intelligently, and express our views more completely. These ideas may seem simplistic and impossible, but I believe in the whole truth always.
Bibliography
Alexander, Ken. "Religion Cause of Division." Los Medanos College.
Brentwood Center, Brentwood. 25 January 2007.
Alexander, Ken. “Civil War.” Los Medanos College.
Brentwood Center, Brentwood. 07 September 2007
Snell, Mary. “Ethics.” Los Medanos College.
Brentwood Center, Breentwood. 01 February 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
Look to Nature
In Jared Diamond’s discussion on geographic determinism he poses the idea that some countries developed and advanced technologically due to their environment not due to intellect or biological superiority or inferiority. His views are in line with the philosophical writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Men. I have come to this comparison because Diamond asks us to look to nature to find the answers to developmental differences among people in many different geographic locations, much the same as Rousseau’s ideals of finding reason and the nature of all men. Rousseau states that man is born good, but becomes corrupt due to desires to acquire more or excess (Fiero, 134). Diamond suggests that favorable geographic conditions advance technology and man’s desire for expansion. Rousseau claims that in primitive environments, man is content with his rate of progress as long as his basic needs are met (Fiero, 135). In harsher environments cooperation is necessary for survival and to maintain natures order (Fiero, 135). In my opinion, the two ideas support one another when we compare other species, such as insects, animals, or plant life. An example in plant life would be the growth rate and expansion of a vine called morning glory. When morning glory is given adequate sun light, water, and space it can flourish and expand to the point of chocking out its surrounding vegetation. Also in optimal environments is has an opportunity to mutate into a new variation of the same plant through pollenization. However, the same plant grown in an environment lacking one or more of its essential elements for survival will not expand or flourish but adapt to its environment, if it can survive at all. This may seem like a far fetched comparison, but over the years we have seen nature adapt due to the impact of natural disasters, the extinction of species, and the interference of man. Both Diamond and Rousseau are suggesting that man is pragmatic in his sensibilities, that is to say that man’s progression is based on his available resources, their accessibility, and whatever is required to meet demands of the people. A current example of this is the spider phenomenon occurring in Texas. North America is not known for cooperative living amongst spiders; however, in Texas a massive spider web has been created, with several different spider species living together (Monster Spider Web). Scientists believe that because of excessive flooding in that region, mosquitoes are populating in large numbers which provides an excess of food for the spiders; hence the mosquitoes aren’t trapping each other for food but instead creating a massive web to trap the insects and feed (Monster Spider Web). This type of adaptation and communal cooperation is what Diamond is suggesting leads to exploration and technological progression. On a smaller scale, geographic determinism affected the expansion and development of the United States. Settlements in the north, lumber mills, cod fishing, and the establishment of the triangle trade between New England, England, and the West Indies, allowed the north to become more populated and gain easier access to education, art, and ideas from Europe; more so than our southern counterparts (Alexander). People in the south were not biologically inferior, they were geographically unfortunate. Diamond’s discussion is presented purely scientifically drawing from anthropology and his tone is very matter of fact. This approach does not allow for racial or sexist biases, rather it relies on rational thought. Diamond poses reasonable explanations for the susceptibility to disease, the establishment of fixed communities or migrating communities, and the advancement in tools, weapons, etc. Citations Alexander, Ken. "Revolutionary Movement In Enlightenment." Los Medanos College. Los Medanos Brentwood Center, Brentwood. 31 August 2007. Fiero, Gloria. The Humanistic Tradition Book 4. Fifth. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. "Monster Spider Web Spun in Texas." CNN.com/US 31 August 2007 31 August 2007.
YouTube - Monster Spider Web in Texas _loop fixed
YouTube - Monster Spider Web in Texas _loop fixed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)