I read that book. What struck me about it was with all the complaining about Rockefeller being rapacious and evil, there was very, very little backing that up. Mostly it boiled down to being very rich, and a tough competitor.
During the anti-trust trial, Chernow wrote that Rockefeller was steadily losing market share due to competitors getting better. I.e. the anti-trust ruling was unnecessary, Rockefeller was unable to manage such a large enterprise efficiently. (Though Chernow did not write that specifically, that's what the facts he presented suggested.)
It's still a great read, I just found that Chernow's conclusions were not supported by the facts he presented.
IIRC, Chernow's main criticism against Rockefeller is that he was extremely suspicious of his critics motives, but at the same time couldn't fathom that other people might honestly question his motives in using the immense power that he'd accumulated via his collusion with the railroads.
I don't think this was evil exactly (does Chernow actually call it that?). Rockefeller honestly believed in a sort of divine Corporatism, where economic success was a defacto indicator of divine grace. I doubt most people would agree with his premise, given that we have plenty of examples of evil, successful people.
But I think Rockefeller is a good example of how that kind of thinking can be twisted even if the person in question is generous (as Rockefeller certainly was). In his mind, his wealth meant he was a good person, and since he was a good person, there was no problem in his colluding to block other, less wealthy (and thus, less moral) people from taking part of the pie. And people who questioned his motives were obviously being duplicitous. This led to a kind of circular logic, where his wealth justified his actions in accumulating ever more wealth.
Do you mean the book made Rockefeller look evil or generally viewed as such? I personally didn't feel the book made him look evil, but that might be just me.
I don't think it's surprising him being hated as the most powerful man at the time. His thrive did make lot of progress for humanity.
I meant that Chernow would regularly list facts and anecdotes about Rockefeller, then sum up with some negative opinions about him that seemed to come out of nowhere (being unjustified by the facts presented). I suspected that he'd come into the project with the popular evil caricature of Rockefeller, and couldn't shake it.
Contrast that with Ambose's "Nothing Like It In The World" about the first intercontinental railroad. In it he says he started with the usual extremely negative view of the railroad and the people involved with it, but after doing the research was forced to do a 180 and regarded it as a marvelous accomplishment and the people involved were amazing.
Comments
I read that book. What struck me about it was with all the complaining about Rockefeller being rapacious and evil, there was very, very little backing that up. Mostly it boiled down to being very rich, and a tough competitor.
During the anti-trust trial, Chernow wrote that Rockefeller was steadily losing market share due to competitors getting better. I.e. the anti-trust ruling was unnecessary, Rockefeller was unable to manage such a large enterprise efficiently. (Though Chernow did not write that specifically, that's what the facts he presented suggested.)
It's still a great read, I just found that Chernow's conclusions were not supported by the facts he presented.
IIRC, Chernow's main criticism against Rockefeller is that he was extremely suspicious of his critics motives, but at the same time couldn't fathom that other people might honestly question his motives in using the immense power that he'd accumulated via his collusion with the railroads.
I don't think this was evil exactly (does Chernow actually call it that?). Rockefeller honestly believed in a sort of divine Corporatism, where economic success was a defacto indicator of divine grace. I doubt most people would agree with his premise, given that we have plenty of examples of evil, successful people.
But I think Rockefeller is a good example of how that kind of thinking can be twisted even if the person in question is generous (as Rockefeller certainly was). In his mind, his wealth meant he was a good person, and since he was a good person, there was no problem in his colluding to block other, less wealthy (and thus, less moral) people from taking part of the pie. And people who questioned his motives were obviously being duplicitous. This led to a kind of circular logic, where his wealth justified his actions in accumulating ever more wealth.
Yes, exactly. Rockefeller constructed a mental framework for himself, by which he could rationalize away just about any action.
Pretty much everybody does that.
Chernow sure liked the word 'rapacious', he used it repeatedly in the book :-)
Do you mean the book made Rockefeller look evil or generally viewed as such? I personally didn't feel the book made him look evil, but that might be just me.
I don't think it's surprising him being hated as the most powerful man at the time. His thrive did make lot of progress for humanity.
I meant that Chernow would regularly list facts and anecdotes about Rockefeller, then sum up with some negative opinions about him that seemed to come out of nowhere (being unjustified by the facts presented). I suspected that he'd come into the project with the popular evil caricature of Rockefeller, and couldn't shake it.
Contrast that with Ambose's "Nothing Like It In The World" about the first intercontinental railroad. In it he says he started with the usual extremely negative view of the railroad and the people involved with it, but after doing the research was forced to do a 180 and regarded it as a marvelous accomplishment and the people involved were amazing.