A portrait of capitalism (and some other things) in late nineteenth-century America
This film is a portrait of capitalism (and some other things) in late nineteenth-century America. This is the era now known as “The Gilded Age.” It’s possible to have too much regulation in an economy, but it’s also possible to have too little, and this era (in general) had too little. Corporations purchased monopolies and other special privileges from the government. This would lead to antitrust laws, designed to fight the power of “trusts” (another word for monopolies). But it would also lead to broader debates about the nature of capitalism itself. Should the government try to redistribute wealth? How should we take care of the poor? How do you prevent capitalism from turning into “robber-baron capitalism,” a phrase often associated with the economic system of this time?
Toluca Street Oil Field in Los Angeles oil district, circa 1895–1901
Controversies over the economy of the Gilded Age
To be sure, this film has its own opinions on this subject. Their debate is more over “how wealth is best distributed, and by what process” (to quote the program’s website). They believe that we were “push[ing] into” markets in Europe and the Far East (to again quote the program’s website). They believe that there are “inevitable casualties of a churning industrial system,” and that we have to choose between “economic growth and economic justice” (to again quote this same source). To some degree, this seems like a false dichotomy, and the “casualties” mentioned are far from “inevitable” (as they call them). But although such casualties can be stopped, there were few mechanisms in place to do so at this time. This is why this economic system is sometimes known as “robber-baron capitalism,” even among self-described supporters of the free market. To me, it would seem that this was a very different kind of “capitalism” from the kind that we know today. To some degree, all economic systems are “capitalist,” since they all run on capital, and aim for the things that you can buy with it. But the word “capitalist” has come to be associated with the free market, and has often been used to besmirch it as a term of abuse. Thus, there are some problems with applying this word to modern free-market systems, which are much better than the economic system of this time. It would be slightly more appropriate to apply this phrase to the “Gilded Age,” although the “Gilded Age” was still an improvement over some prior forms of capitalism.
John D. Rockefeller
The negatives of the era’s economic system
In some cases, they actually needed greater intervention, particularly in the area of consumer protection. But then as now, there were some interventions that were actually making things worse. For example, Congress was then selling monopolies to the highest bidder. As the economist Thomas Sowell once argued, monopolies are unsustainable without government support – with some very rare exceptions. For example, all of the major monopolies of the era were purchased from the government, including Rockefeller’s “Standard Oil” trust. Thus, these monopolies were not caused by a lack of government intervention (as is commonly believed), but by an excess of government intervention. For evidence of this, see this blog post with some quotations from Dr. Sowell. In this post, suffice it to say that Adam Smith would have referred to it as “mercantilism,” not a truly free market. That is to say, it was hampered by special privileges for special interests. Thus, it is inaccurate to say that the deficiencies of this time were due to “free markets,” the view usually put forward by the left. Rather, they were due to restrictions on market freedom, which resulted in some degree of un-free markets.
New York police violently attacking unemployed workers in Tompkins Square Park, 1874
The positives of the era’s economic system
Nonetheless, I should acknowledge that there was more market freedom at this time than in some prior periods. In particular, there was more market freedom than in the 1840’s, which is often considered to be the “low point” in the history of capitalism. This was the kind of capitalism that had inspired Karl Marx’s rhetoric in “The Communist Manifesto,” written later in that decade in 1848. Ironically, the 1840’s were hampered by more economic restrictions than at any other time in the history of capitalism, the true cause of the era’s grinding poverty (and not “free markets,” as was claimed by Karl Marx). Specifically, this was the heyday of “mercantilism,” with special privileges for special interests. Compared to the 1840’s, the “Gilded Age” was a time of considerable prosperity. This program makes passing comments that the growth of the “Gilded Age” was mostly limited to the wealthy – that “the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer” (to paraphrase what they said). But this program fails to support these comments with any kind of evidence. You would think that a network like PBS would want to back it up with some evidence. But for whatever reason, they don’t really attempt to do so.
The Home Insurance Building in Chicago, the world’s first skyscraper (built 1885)
As you might expect, this film covers both business and politics during this period
But they do talk about some of the same businessmen covered in “The Men Who Built America,” a program by the History Channel. For example, they talk about the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller. Most of all, they talk about the financier J. P. Morgan, one of the most successful bankers of the era. It was to him that the government once turned, when they wanted help during this time. Of course, J. P. Morgan had self-interested reasons for helping the government, but even PBS acknowledges that it helped the country as well, at least to some degree. PBS covers politics to an extent that this History Channel program did not, talking about some of the American presidents of the era. But they also discuss a presidential contender who did not make it into the White House. His name was William Jennings Bryan, and he was the nominee for the Democratic Party some three times. There is brief mention of people like Theodore Roosevelt, but this is truly a documentary about the “Gilded Age,” not the “Progressive Era” with which Theodore Roosevelt was later associated. That is to say, this program discusses the last few decades or so of the nineteenth century – the part that people most often refer to as “The Gilded Age.”
William Jennings Bryan, Democratic presidential candidate
For the most part, they stick to telling the story …
To be sure, I don’t always agree with PBS’s answers to the questions it poses – answers implied by the way that it phrases the questions themselves. But I still tended to enjoy this program anyway. Part of this comes from their telling of the story. There are occasional comments that reveal their bias, such as the ones discussed earlier. But for the most part, they stick to telling the story, rather than getting on their soapbox about the issues involved. Their answers are mostly limited to the ones implied in the way that they phrase their questions – and to a few passing comments, as noted earlier. They make a case that the economic debates of this time have many commonalities with today – and, to a large extent, I agree with this part of their analysis. We’re still debating some of the same issues that were first raised in this time – or, in some cases, just became more prominent at this time. In so many ways, the issues of “The Gilded Age” are still with us, and so a viewer may notice surprisingly modern themes in certain parts of this program.
Grand Central Depot in New York City, opened in 1871
… making excellent use of period photographs
For another thing, this film is excellent at using photographs (and other pictures) from the time. Ken Burns showed us that still photographs can be used to great effect to tell a story. For example, he had to rely extensively on them – at times, almost exclusively on them – in his famous series “The Civil War.” But “The Civil War” did not lack for visual drama on this account. Indeed, these pictures are part of the reason that people liked the series so much. For me, this was also part of the appeal of “The Gilded Age” – that it used real photographs from the time. I do not now remember this film using any footage from the time, even silent footage. But pictures don’t have to “move” to be interesting, in my not-so-humble opinion. Black-and-white still photographs have surprising power to tell a story, and this film makes extensive use of them. For me, this was actually one of the highlights of this film. It’s possible that the use of this archival material is what allowed PBS to make this film in the first place. Re-enactments can be expensive, whereas archival material can be used on the cheap. With lower budgets available, many documentary films are forced to rely heavily on such material, although some do so for more artistic reasons as well. I suspect that both of these reasons were present in this film, but that the cost-cutting reasons were paramount in giving the green light to this program’s filmmakers, and allowing the project to commence.
I don’t always agree with this program, but I still have much praise for it
So even though I don’t always agree with it, I actually have much praise to give for this program. It was visually interesting, strong on the storytelling, and tended not to spend very long on the soapbox (although others might disagree with me on this particular point). This is why I recommend this film to history buffs, who want to learn more about this oft-neglected period in the history of the United States. For more on the era that preceded it, see PBS’s “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” (also by American Experience). Unfortunately, there isn’t much in the documentary world about the era that followed the Gilded Age, sometimes known as the “Progressive Era.” But if you’re interested in the Progressive Era, you might examine PBS’s program about Theodore Roosevelt. If it’s the Gilded Age you’re interested in, this program seems to me to live up to its name. It may even be the definitive film on “The Gilded Age,” at the time that I write this.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Part of a series about
American history
The Gilded Age
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment