4W - Social Darwinism vs. Progressivism
Write a dialogue involving six people on the topic of the unequal distribution of wealth and what
government should (or should not) do about it. The six individuals are Andrew Carnegie, Edward
Bellamy, Henry Demarest Lloyd, William Graham Sumner, Henry George, and YOU.
Be sure to have each person say enough to convince the reader (ME!) that you understand their position
and their beliefs as a Social Darwinist or a Progressive.
CARNEGIE:
I believe in the philosophy of ___________________________, which means that
LLOYD:
My position on this matter is
SUMNER:
I’d have to agree with ________________________ since
GEORGE:
Gentlemen, it is clear that ________________________ has got it right. I must add that
YOU:
Well, I’ve certainly enjoyed this discourse. To summarize my position, I must say that the unequal
distribution of wealth is __________________________________________________________________________
and that the government’s role is to _______________________________________________________________.
Additionally ______________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you all for coming. I’d like to talk with you at greater length, but I have a History test to study for.
Andrew Carnegie
Wealth, June 1889
Citation: Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie, North American Review Vol.148, Issue
391 pp.653-665, June 1889. (Later published as Part I of The Gospel of
Wealth)
The Socialist or Anarchist who seeks to overturn present conditions is
to be regarded as attacking the foundation upon which civilization
itself rests, for civilization took its start from the day when the
capable, industrious workman said to his incompetent and lazy fellow,
"If thou dost not sow, thou shalt not reap," and thus ended primitive
Communism by separating the drones from the bees.
Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have had
the ability and energy to produce it.
There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes. [It should be] administered for the
common good; and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much
more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to
the people themselves.
Henry Demarest Lloyd
Excerpt from: Wealth against Commonwealth, 1894
Citation: Henry Demarest Lloyd, Wealth Against Commonwealth, Harper &
brothers, 1894,
Holding back the riches of earth, sea, and sky from their fellows who
famish and freeze in the dark, they [corporations] declare to them that
there is too much light and warmth and food. They assert the right, for
their private profit, to regulate the consumption by the people of the
necessaries of life, and to control production, not by the needs of
humanity, but by the desires of a few for dividends. The coal syndicate
thinks there is too much coal. There is too much iron, too much lumber,
too much flour-for this or that syndicate.
The majority have never been able to buy enough of anything; but this
minority have too much of everything to sell. . .
Two social energies have been in conflict, and the energy of reform has so far proved the
weaker. We have chartered the self-interest of the individual as the rightful sovereign of
conduct; we have taught that the scramble for profit is the best method of administering the
riches of earth and the exchange of services. Only those can attack this system who attack its
central principle, that strength gives the strong in the market the right to destroy his neighbor.
William Graham Sumner
Excerpt from: "The Challenge of Facts”, ca. 1880
Citation: William Graham Sumner. The challenge of
facts: and other essays, Volume 3. Yale University
Press, 1914
In this struggle every individual is under the pressure
of the necessities for food, clothing, shelter, fuel, and
every individual brings with him more or less energy
for the conflict necessary to supply his needs. The
relation, therefore, between each man's needs and
each man's energy, or "individualism," is the first fact
of human life…
Let it be understood that 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 all its best members; the latter carries society downwards
and favors all its worst members. . .
What we mean by liberty is civil liberty and this means the guarantees of law that a man
shall not be interfered with while using his own powers for his own welfare. Liberty,
therefore, does not by any means do away with the struggle for existence.
Henry George
Excerpt from: Progress and Poverty, 1879
Citation: George, Henry, Excerpt from Progress and Poverty.
1912. Library of Economics and Liberty. Accessed August 30,
2011. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/
So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings
goes but to build up great fortunes, to increase luxury and make
sharper the contrast between the House of Have and the House of
Want, progress is not real and cannot be permanent.
The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their right
to breathe the air-it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their
existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right to be
in this world and others no right. . .
Our civilization has reached a critical period, and that unless a new start is made in the direction
of social equality, the nineteenth century may to the future march its climax. What change may
come, no mortal man can tell, but that some great change must come, thoughtful men begin to
feel.