For me, personally, the answer to this would be “yes.” I think that these men are best described in both of these ways. I will give reasons for each viewpoint and you can decide what your answer would be.
It is clearly possible to see these men as captains of industry. These tycoons were instrumental in making the American economy boom in the late 1800s. The tycoons tried hard to make as much money as they could. Part of how they did this was by driving their costs down as much as possible. They made their industries more efficient and they were able to reduce the prices that consumers had to pay for goods. Without these men, it is possible that the US economy would not have boomed. Because they helped our economy grow, we should think of them as captains of industry.
On the other hand, we can also clearly argue that these men were robber barons. They were ruthless when they competed with one another. They did everything they could to defeat their rivals. As their companies grew, they destroyed many smaller companies by outcompeting them. They were also generally ruthless with their workers. They made them work as hard as possible for the lowest wages that they could get away with paying. In other words, they got rich in part by exploiting workers and by destroying competitors. This makes them ruthless robber barons.
Which of these arguments makes more sense to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment