Extra Credit - Juniors - Steinbeck
After reading the following quote, I'd like you to interpret it in your own words and tell me if you agree or
disagree with Steinbeck's sentiments:
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
-John Steinbeck
I'd like you to find some evidence that supports your point. Be sure to provide a link to your source and clarify what your source says/why this evidence is interesting. Read one another's comments and respond to each other. Let's see where this debate takes us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI’m not very convinced about this statement. I don’t know much about Socialism but I’m pretty sure the United States has seen resurgences of Socialism ever since Socialism was conceived. First and foremost, there is absolutely no proletariat in American society. Peter Drucker, in his book The New Society wrote about how “The absence of the proletarian is perhaps the most striking difference between America and Europe,” which shows how John Steinbeck’s definition of an American society is falsified. If we are to accept that America is an industrialist nation, then we must deny the existence of the Proletariat according to Drucker. A member of the Proletariat cannot enjoy the civil liberties of a citizen. We’ve seen this in the many French Rebellions which even Karl Marx knew about. Any member of the working class in America has the chance to rise up from his or her lowly beginnings to a higher societal position. In Europe, the Proletariat would never be allowed to do the same. I’m going to use the example of the French Revolution again. Approximately 16,594 people were killed by the guillotine for revolting against France’s societal make-up at the time. In America, the labor workers who protested for their rights in a similar fashion weren’t killed by the guillotine. In fact, many of the demands by the industrial workers a century later were recognized and there was no “Reign of Terror.” This disproves John Steinbeck’s belief that the working class of Americans is actually an exploited Proletariat.
ReplyDeleteAmericans aren’t unnecessarily prideful in the way John Steinbeck says. Americans don’t believe they are all “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” This is proven because according to the PEW Research Center, an article titled “Despite recovery, fewer Americans identify as middle class,” found just that. Fewer Americans identify themselves as middle class. However, more Americans are now considering themselves lower class. This obviously disproves John Steinbeck’s interpretation. If Americans are so excessively optimistic in believing they are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires, why are so many Americans owning up to the fact that they have lost even more wealth than they gained? John Steinbeck’s point really doesn’t make sense in my opinion. The PEW Research Center is hard to argue against and the numbers say it all.
Lastly, socialism is a major part of American society. It is in our very own history, on our very own land. It is surprising that John Steinbeck was alive when the Socialist party reached it’s zenith and still didn’t acknowledge it in his quote. Steinbeck was born in the year 1902 and the Socialist party was born in the year 1901. So significant was this Socialist party that Eugene V. Debs, the presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America ran 5 times over the course of 2 whole decades. Again, it’s hard to disagree with the numbers.
I find it easy to disagree with John Steinbeck’s quote. I believe that there is an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence that disproves his belief and too little evidence to prove it.
I agree with most of this, but there are some holes to the argument.
DeleteIf we visit this website: http://www.dsausa.org/
This is the main site of what is supposedly the biggest socialist political organization in the United States, though it makes sure to distinguish itself from being a party, believing that the concept of a political party is itself a tool of capitalism.
The leaders of this organization, like the followers of Debs's, realize that capitalism is an essential part of America and cannot be entirely removed. They only advocate to reduce its influence and weaken the power of corporations through more government involvement, similar to the approach the Socialist Party had wanted for workers' rights a century before.
Therefore, it must be said that no matter how many times the idea of socialism had arisen in American society, the idea had never gone beyond the limited form of just wanting more government aid (discounting the small private socialist communities that developed during the early nineteenth century). As Khan had pointed out, the government had largely responded to these appeals for aid, as opposed to how the French responded with executions. Furthermore, the history of the European countries is enough to convince most Americans that a full-on rebellion of an established society, especially one that they can live with, is more trouble than it is worth, often costing many human lives. As such, it is not the American people's pride that stopped the development of socialism in the United States; the nation's social and political environment was just never suitable for total socialism's survival.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlthough you do make a few very good points you have to put one thing in mind. "The New Society" was written more than 20 years ago, and since then a lot of things have changed. As you state, fewer and fewer Americans are identifying themselves as the Middle Class, this means that they see themselves as the Lower Class. The Top 1% of America own more than 35% of the wealth, the top 10%, almost 70% of the nation's wealth. This shows that there IS a Bourgeoisie group.
ReplyDeleteThe gap between the Lower and Upper Class is obviously increasing, but that's not what most American's think about. As a child of immigrants I believe that the American Dream is still very much alive. Even if statistics show that social mobility is at it's lowest since... ever, it doesn't stop Americans from struggling and working hard. They "know" that they will become that one exception, it's part of the beauty of this country. That is why I believe that John Steinbeck is onto something.
Like Wei said, there are multiple forms of Socialism in this country today. Health care, OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLING SYSTEM, welfare, scholarships, and many more. But they have only been a way for the government to aid the Proletariats. I completely agree with him on that subject.
Sources:
Deletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/phildemuth/2013/11/25/are-you-rich-enough-the-terrible-tragedy-of-income-inequality-among-the-1/
http://lifeexaminations.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/is-there-a-bourgeoisie-and-proletariat-in-america/
I agree with Steinbeck's notion that Americans are just embarrassed millionaires, but I believe that it doesn't connect with the idea of socialism. For example, in today's society, socialism only occurs in two countries, Cuba and North Korea. However these countries produce poverty and misery, proving that socialism is not an ideal form of government.
ReplyDeleteAccording to an article in the American Thinker, Obama is turning America into a socialist country by having the upper class pay higher taxes. The writer also believes that socialism will be the demise of America. In Steinbeck's sentiments, he believes that socialism should be achieved but cannot while the writer of Socialism, Obama, and America's Future
believes that we are heading towards a socialist government.
Americans are a bunch of embarrassed millionaires who believe they will one day be rich. But the government is smart enough to realize that we are not all made to be millionaires so their is some form of change that Obama is taking into account. Though Americans feel like they will be rich one day without the help of the wealthy, they do not realize they are already being helped. The upper class is paying higher taxes to pay for the local schools, transportation, and improve the lower classes' environment to help America achieve socialism. Because the government is taking care of this socialist problem and not the people, I believe even with embarrassed millionaires, America can still one day become a socialist country.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/socialism_obama_and_americas_future.html
Your first paragraph states that Cuba & North Korea prove that socialism isn't an ideal form of government because it produces poverty/ misery (double check this but I believe that Canada, China, and a lot of other countries can be considered socialist as well). Then in your concluding sentence you talk about how America can one day become a socialist country. Can you clarify a few things? If socialism isn't the ideal form of government then why would America one day become one?
DeleteTo clarify, I'm not saying America is going the right way in their way of running things. I am only arguing that America is heading towards becoming a socialist country.
Delete