# Was John D Rockefeller a Genius philanthropist, or a dispotic tyrant?



## preponomics (Nov 18, 2012)

I think anyone who has read Rockefeller's success in the Gilded age of capitalism in US history will agree that he was a capitalistic phenom, and was instrumental with standard oil to bring about a paradigm shift for how Americans lived their lives. However he is highly controversial due to his tactics, working conditions, and how he achieved his gains. He was a tough competitor doing almost anything to win, but he was also considered a frugal philanthropist.

Also if anyone has seen the show "The men who built America", its a good primer to anyone unfamiliar, but its a viewpoint more from the left, and leaves out a "lot" of history for how he received his capitalistic leverage.

The Question - When did he cross the line of the honest rules of capitalism and when was he pushing with acceptable limits?

Now I understand that the rules-of-honest-capitalism are naturally relative, as morality is relative, but here my question is based on the evidential trespass of life, liberty and property as breaking the rules. Even this too can be relative but it falls unto good debate.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

He was a greedy despotic tyrant who did a lot of rotten things and destroyed a lot of people to get where he got. I don't really care if he was a business genius or not. To ask whether he went too far is like posing the question, "Hitler - Right or Wrong".

There's a giant two volume exposé about Rockefeller and his business practices. It can be found here:

http://www.pagetutor.com/standard/index.html


----------



## preponomics (Nov 18, 2012)

BillS said:


> He was a greedy despotic tyrant who did a lot of rotten things and destroyed a lot of people to get where he got. I don't really care if he was a business genius or not. To ask whether he went too far is like posing the question, "Hitler - Right or Wrong".
> 
> There's a giant two volume exposé about Rockefeller and his business practices. It can be found here:
> 
> http://www.pagetutor.com/standard/index.html


surely there is not a comparison here.
Acts of genocide, forced socialism, Keynesian intervention, lawful oppression, tyranny, crimes against humanity and fascism? Hitler in my opinion is guilty of all of these things, but not Rockefeller.

destroyed? I think bringing forced destruction to someone is despotic and if he is guilty of that then I am with you.


----------



## IlliniWarrior (Nov 30, 2010)

Rockefeller, Chase and the other moneybags of the time, buying the White House and using their power to squash the common voter is the very worse side of capitolism .... it of course, still pulses thru US politics but to that degree is almost unbelievable ....


----------



## preponomics (Nov 18, 2012)

IlliniWarrior said:


> Rockefeller, Chase and the other moneybags of the time, buying the White House and using their power to squash the common voter is the very worse side of capitolism .... it of course, still pulses thru US politics but to that degree is almost unbelievable ....


I don't regard Rockefeller as an Angel or that he was even a good guy, though some will say he was. In many circles though there is arduous debate whether or not he actually broke the rules of honest capitalism. Meaning that he "trespassed" against life liberty and property.

I think he did in a couple of areas for sure, but to describe him a monster is also inaccurate to me


----------

