Social Darwinism, Populism, and Progressivism
The sweeping changes the United States experienced during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century occurred throughout four “revolutions,” concerning both social and economic sectors. The first of these transformed a subsistence agricultural system into a cash-crop, profit based system that exposed “farmers to markets, the business cycle, monopolies, and politics” (688). The second revolution saw the formation of a working class, which consisted of subsistence farmers and newly-arrived European immigrants. In order to “cope with market forces, these workers began to develop unions (688). The mechanization of industry characterized the third revolution; the development of railroads …show more content…
He combined the ideals of economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo with the “evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin” to argue that “economic competition must be left ungoverned…because free competition among autonomous individuals was a necessary condition for progress” (691). Essentially, Spencer advocated against any governmental intervention in the regulation of the economy (laissez-faire), as well as against any government financial aid for the poor. In order for society, and the human race as a whole, to progress, the poor must be eliminated because they are unfit to survive and must make room for “the better” (Lecture Notes). As William Graham Sumner, a disciple of Spencer, “we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not—liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors its best members; the latter carries society downward and favors all its worst members” (725-26). Sumner argued that for the government to provide financial aid to the poor infringed upon basic civil liberties, and should thus be avoided. The entire philosophy of the Social Darwinists can basically be summed up by his statement that “What civil liberty does is to turn the competition of man with man from violence and brute force into an industrial competition under which …show more content…
Another reformer of the time was Henry Demarest Lloyd who used his book, Wealth Against Commonwealth, to describe the “socially destructive effects of industrial monopolies,” specifically the Standard Oil Company owned by robber baron John Rockefeller. Lloyd rejected the “laissez-faire ideology of individual self-interest in favor of a political approach that acknowledges the interdependence of individuals,” stating that “liberty produces wealth, and wealth destroys liberty” (764-65). He was convinced that they business system of the 1890’s, that of overwhelming monopolies could not be sustained, referring to the “visibly impending failure” (769).
The questions raised by the Social Darwinists and the Populists are something that this country continues to struggle with today. Boiled down extremely simply, one could loosely compare Social Darwinists (to a very minimal extent) to Republicans, who continue to advocate competition and support big business, while Populists could be considered Democrats in that they spoke for the “little people,” encouraging government involvement to ensure equality for all. However, these two movements do not have as much relevance to today’s society as the
The sweeping changes the United States experienced during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century occurred throughout four “revolutions,” concerning both social and economic sectors. The first of these transformed a subsistence agricultural system into a cash-crop, profit based system that exposed “farmers to markets, the business cycle, monopolies, and politics” (688). The second revolution saw the formation of a working class, which consisted of subsistence farmers and newly-arrived European immigrants. In order to “cope with market forces, these workers began to develop unions (688). The mechanization of industry characterized the third revolution; the development of railroads …show more content…
He combined the ideals of economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo with the “evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin” to argue that “economic competition must be left ungoverned…because free competition among autonomous individuals was a necessary condition for progress” (691). Essentially, Spencer advocated against any governmental intervention in the regulation of the economy (laissez-faire), as well as against any government financial aid for the poor. In order for society, and the human race as a whole, to progress, the poor must be eliminated because they are unfit to survive and must make room for “the better” (Lecture Notes). As William Graham Sumner, a disciple of Spencer, “we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not—liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors its best members; the latter carries society downward and favors all its worst members” (725-26). Sumner argued that for the government to provide financial aid to the poor infringed upon basic civil liberties, and should thus be avoided. The entire philosophy of the Social Darwinists can basically be summed up by his statement that “What civil liberty does is to turn the competition of man with man from violence and brute force into an industrial competition under which …show more content…
Another reformer of the time was Henry Demarest Lloyd who used his book, Wealth Against Commonwealth, to describe the “socially destructive effects of industrial monopolies,” specifically the Standard Oil Company owned by robber baron John Rockefeller. Lloyd rejected the “laissez-faire ideology of individual self-interest in favor of a political approach that acknowledges the interdependence of individuals,” stating that “liberty produces wealth, and wealth destroys liberty” (764-65). He was convinced that they business system of the 1890’s, that of overwhelming monopolies could not be sustained, referring to the “visibly impending failure” (769).
The questions raised by the Social Darwinists and the Populists are something that this country continues to struggle with today. Boiled down extremely simply, one could loosely compare Social Darwinists (to a very minimal extent) to Republicans, who continue to advocate competition and support big business, while Populists could be considered Democrats in that they spoke for the “little people,” encouraging government involvement to ensure equality for all. However, these two movements do not have as much relevance to today’s society as the