Discussing Questions from Johnson’s reading

Discussing Questions from Johnson’s reading

19-4: Walter Wyckoff listens to revolutionary workers in Chicago

Walter Wyckoff’s excerpt discussing his encounters with revolutionary workers in Chicago shows the different opinions between socialists and anarchists’ views. Wyckoff points out that they differed in the way they advocated for revolution against the established order. Socialists believed in a “natural process of evolution” whereby an organized effort would work its way towards achieving common ownership of property and wealth, leading to equal distribution of production hence the common good for all. They advocated for an improved centralized order that would grow to be perfect gradually through education. Anarchists totally opposed a centralized system as well as any other artificial laws controlling how resources are managed. Rather they advocated for more freedom and natural ways to eventually lead to rightful ends (Wyckoff). Both anarchists and socialists were against war and blood-revolt in the revolution against the established order.

The socialists perceived Christianity to widen the social divide between the rich and poor class in society. They did not believe in the Christian teachings claiming it to be deceiving the poor for the benefit of the rich clergy who live in comfort at the expense of the poor laborers. They saw Christian churches to be similar to any institution of the capitalistic order as they strain the natural process of evolution through their advocacy of accumulated superstitious teachings.

Both socialists and anarchists sided with evolution for change as the appropriate strategy to the centralized system that capitalists and private owners have already established. Evolution, however, will steer it not towards monopolizing everything to benefit the few, but for the collective ownership of all capital and land by the public. They were against Marx’s proposal for revolution since they believed the era of individualistic anarchical order were old and past (Wyckoff). A bloody revolt would only be more damaging to the progress achieved so far from the gradual steps of evolution.

19-5 George Plunkitt Explains Politics

George Washington Plunkitt saw no problem in politicians growing rich from graft as long as it was honest graft. Plunkitt refers to honest graft as politicians taking advantage of foreseen investment opportunities that come along their way from having a rich political network. Plunkitt’s example of honest graft is buying land that is set to be used for a public project prior to the onset of the project following a tip-off from a source in the party that is currently governing the state (Riordon).

The reformers did not side with Tammany and his ideologies of honest graft as it does not still favor a collective majority, rather it benefits the private owners and politicians only.  Reformers want a system that sees an equal distribution of wealth and property as well as equal participation and involvement on how the societies’ resources are used, with Tammany’s honest graft, such equality cannot be achieved as only the individuals with political connections make decisions for the public and are more likely to make decisions that look out for individualistic interests. Reformers view all grafts to be wrong and prefer a decentralized system.

Tammany won the loyalty of the voters’ thanks to Plunkitt holding court at the county’s courthouse shoeshine stand, whereby he used to explain how the government works, including clarifying the difference between honest graft and dishonest graft. Plunkitt convinced the public that the bosses had the interests for the public good at heart, similarly to the way they view individual interests. He emphasized that the Irish men were noble people known to take care of the city and community that elevate them to prosperity during their times of oppression (Riordon). Chaos would hence ensue if the bosses were replaced as the other parties are not naturally accustomed to establishing social order.

Open-ended question

The divisions in American social class, as presented in both readings, still exist in society today. Private ownership of property and wealth still drives how social classes will appear. Today the agricultural sector has taken the shape of industry and business characteristics, placing the owner of the farm at a wealthy position in comparison to the workers and laborers at the farms who are from the poor social background.