Kevin Moxon
Hist 147
Wealth against Commonwealth
1. What is the author arguing?
The author is arguing against the trend in American economic
development that has put all the resources, means of production and transport,
and financing in the hands of the few.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional
quality), and ethos (the writer’s
perceived character) with their argument?
Mr. Lloyd argues that technical developments have achieved a
state where all of mankind could be easily fed, clothed, and cared for, but
that the fruits of all this progress are being gathered up by a very few,
extremely wealthy individuals. He points out that “liberty produces wealth, and
wealth destroys us” and that Capitalism, as it is, is an unsustainable as well
as a grossly inequitable system.
Mr. Lloyd appeals his audience’s emotions by talking of the
so-called ‘Robber Barons’ as “Corporate Caesars”. He paints a lurid picture of
barbarians “come from above. Our great money-makers have sprung in one
generation in to seats of power kings do not know”. He finally invokes the name
of the Pharaohs “bred in counting rooms as they were in palaces”.
Mr. Lloyd seems to have read something of Karl Marx. His
argument bears many hallmarks of communism. His references to guilds and
slavery say much of his opinion of contemporary socioeconomic trends. He argues
that much of what goes on out of sight of public scrutiny is against the law,
implying a need for organic change to the systems regulating industry and finance.
3. What is the historical
significance/relevance of this document?
This document came out at a time (1894) when the industrial
build up around the Civil War had so altered the American way of life, from the
pre-war mostly agrarian society to a fast growing industrial one. The
self-sufficiency of the small farmer was giving way to the dependency
relationship of industrial labor. As Mr. Lloyd saw it, the process was out of
control and unfair to the vast majority of American’s who must do the labor that
sustained the few who controlled the country’s wealth.
4. Do you find the author’s argument
convincing? Why or why not?
Considering the fact that many of the issues Mr. Lloyd was
addressing are still being debated, sometimes with great heat today, I find the
author’s argument very compelling. While common Americans have many more
protections from predatory employment practices, environmental degradation, and
work place safety, the erosion of things like collective bargaining rights
shows how delicate the balance between ‘wealth and commonwealth’ is.
I also observed the hints to Marxism throughout the text. Mr. Lloyd certainly embodies the bulk of his text with overtones of communism. His arguments against capitalism are provided with ample validity due to your observation of their relevance in society to this day. I whole-heartedly agree with your response to question four. While as a whole we have progressed and are provided more protection these days, we still have further improvements we need to achieve to help separate the class division we have been plagued with. Putting all of our resources in the hands of the few is no way for a country to operate.
ReplyDeleteKevin & Joshua, both of your insight was very helpful. I had to read the document twice and STILL could not cypher through it. Reading your post (Kevin) and your comment (Joshua) really helped to enlighten me as to what the article was about and the message (and underlying message) it delivered. I wish I could involve in an intelligent banter on the subject, but I am grateful that you both were able to contribute so greatly.
ReplyDeleteI am going to disagree with you slightly. It sounds like you are saying the author was arguing that we put all the resources, means of production and transport, and financing in the hands of the few. I thought he was trying to say that the few have taken these things out of selfish desires. I thought it was more about the greed of these few caring more about how they are profiting than how they are affecting the many. Also I think he is saying that the attitude of society is that we are okay with these people controlling these things because we desire to be the few who are controlling the wealth and goods.
ReplyDeleteHey Kevin! I agree with you when you said,” the process was out of control and unfair to the vast majority of American’s who must do the labor that sustained the few who controlled the country’s wealth” because the document states that money makers sprung up to a higher level and made a company that also makes them up. This paragraph especially was strong in the fact of individuals controlling much of the human needs and in a way humans. The document also talked a lot about competition that I thought was important. “Our civilization is builded on competition, and competition evolves itself crime……”. Is competition really bad or on the contrary it support a community. I think this was left out on question 3 as it carries much evidence of the industrial age.
ReplyDelete