Was Henry A Socialist?

[4d4evr-1]

I do not want the things that money can buy. I want to live a life...that makes the world a little better for having lived it." Henry Ford.

 

Was Henry a socialist?

 

What do you think?

Edited November 11, 2010 by 4d4evr

[RangerM]

I think he said it after he'd already made his fortune.

 

It's also possible that he (Henry) cribbed off of Abraham Lincoln:

 

I have an irrepressible desire to live till I can be assured that the world is a little better for my having lived in it. -- Abraham Lincoln

Edited November 11, 2010 by RangerM

[4d4evr-1]

I think he said it after he'd already made his fortune.

 

It's also possible that he (Henry) cribbed off of Abraham Lincoln:

 

I have an irrepressible desire to live till I can be assured that the world is a little better for my having lived in it. -- Abraham Lincoln

 

 

I notice you did not answer the question.

 

I am not saying he was and I probably don't think he was, but I reread the quote a couple of times and just had a question and wanted others thoughts.

 

Now, with your reply which I appreciate causes me to wounder if Abe was? What about him?

Edited November 11, 2010 by 4d4evr

[RangerM]

I notice you did not answer the question.

You asked two questions. The first one was "Was Henry a socialist?" The second question you asked was "What do you think?". I answered the second question.

 

I am not saying he was and I probably don't think he was, but I reread the quote a couple of times and just had a question and wanted others thoughts.

 

Now, with your reply which I appreciate causes me to wounder if Abe was? What about him?

Henry Ford was what you might call complex.

 

He did pay his workers higher than any other car manufacturer at the time. (The $5 day)

He had a "Social Department" who used to call on his employees at their homes to insure proper behavior (using his personal standards of conduct).

He published Anti-Semitic material under his own name. ("The International Jew: The World's Problem" was a series in the Dearborn Independent)

He accepted the German Cross in August, 1938 (for his financial support of Hitler who prominently displayed a picture of HF in his office).

He didn't want to negotiate with the UAW (and generally disfavored labor unions), and employed thugs who used violence and intimidation to put them down (until his wife threatened to leave him).

 

Of course, Henry Ford was asked this question directly.(taken from a New York Times article provided at this link.)

 

"Are you a Socialist", Mr. Ford was asked.

 

"I am not sure that I really know anything about socialism. I understand it as a doctrine which is popular among those who want to share other people's money without doing any work. I don't believe socialism appeals to me; nor, I may say, do I regard our profit-distribution scheme as socialistic."

 

"We do not expect to pay anybody anything who does not work. And we can tell here when a man shirks. I could myself go out into the shops today and make any piece of a car, and I know when a man is not doing his proper share."

Edited November 11, 2010 by RangerM

[EdselBryantFord]

What I think is that a certain news channel started trend, and the other followed, of distorting the definition of socialism, because of how scary it sounds to people who remember the U.S.S.R, to be an umbrella definition that includes fascism, racism, cronyism, and probably a bunch of other isms that I'm not mentioning here.

[Sevensecondsuv]

What I think is that a certain news channel started trend, and the other followed, of distorting the definition of socialism, because of how scary it sounds to people who remember the U.S.S.R, to be an umbrella definition that includes fascism, racism, cronyism, and probably a bunch of other isms that I'm not mentioning here.

 

The problem is that socialism has proven inseparable from the other isms you mentioned in every application the world has tried. So you can understand why people naturally associate one with the others.

 

It's much like capitalism - works perfectly in theory, but falls short sometimes in our imperfect world. I still prefer capitalism though, simply based on how it performs compared to socialism in real-world applications.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[Savetheplanet]

What I think is that a certain news channel started trend, and the other followed, of distorting the definition of socialism, because of how scary it sounds to people who remember the U.S.S.R, to be an umbrella definition that includes fascism, racism, cronyism, and probably a bunch of other isms that I'm not mentioning here.

 

 

I agree, nice post.

[EdselBryantFord]

The problem is that socialism has proven inseparable from the other isms you mentioned in every application the world has tried. So you can understand why people naturally associate one with the others.

 

It's much like capitalism - works perfectly in theory, but falls short sometimes in our imperfect world. I still prefer capitalism though, simply based on how it performs compared to socialism in real-world applications.

I am not so certain that capitalism and socialism are opposite to each other, or a ying to the others yang. One is limited more to economics, while the other has broader reaches.

[jpd80]

Egalitarian Capitalism.

Industry is smart enough to work out that giving back to the community benefits all.

[4d4evr-1]

Egalitarian Capitalism.

Industry is smart enough to work out that giving back to the community benefits all.

 

BP- gulf oil spill

Ford - Pinto

Toyota - floor mats

Ford - cruise control

Enron - Fastow

Madoff - Ponzi

 

That is what I used to think until the above

[Mark B. Morrow]

I think Benevolent Despot is a better description than Socialist. Henry had good business reasons for paying $5 per day and going to the 8 hour day when that was considered very generous. Less turnover, injuries and absenteeism made workers more efficient and higher wages created a larger market for Ford cars. The creation of the Henry Ford Hospital and sponsorship of social activities was good for PR and morale. Henry's Sociological Department was his way of enforcing his paternalistic theories about what was best for people.

[grbeck]

In the late 19th and early 20th century, ownership of major companies was much more limited than it is today. Major shareholders were very likely to not only be of the same race and age, but also of the same social class. They lived in the same areas of major cities, and even vacationed together (which is why so many super-wealthy Americans were on the Titanic when it sank). During this time, company owners believed that it was their company, and that they could do whatever they wanted regarding pay, working conditions, etc.

 

Henry Ford I was one of the company owners - along with Milton Hershey - who believed in elevating the condition of his work force. Hence, the effort by Ford to raise pay, but, at the same time, link it to whether a worker was married or supporting an infirm relative and staying away from saloons and brothels. Ford was also very progressive in his treatment of African Americans.

 

(Milton Hershey basically built the town of Hershey for his workforce, and the houses, libraries and other amenities are of a high quality even today.)

 

For their time, both Ford and Hershey were considered very enlightened in this regard. But make no mistake - both believed that their respective companies were THEIR companies, and they were not socialists in any way, shape or form. They also expected a certain amount of deference from their workforce, although, having built their respective companies from scratch, one could say that they had earned it. Unlike many of today's CEOs, however, they were quite comfortable on the plant floor.

 

At Ford, this tradition continued through Henry Ford II, who worked very hard to cultivate a good relationship with the UAW, and make sure that Ford was not seen as a bad place to work. But he also ran the company as HIS company in many ways, even after it went public in 1956.

Edited November 15, 2010 by grbeck

[Ralph Greene]

In the late 19th and early 20th century, ownership of major companies was much more limited than it is today. Major shareholders were very likely to not only be of the same race and age, but also of the same social class. They lived in the same areas of major cities, and even vacationed together (which is why so many super-wealthy Americans were on the Titanic when it sank). During this time, company owners believed that it was their company, and that they could do whatever they wanted regarding pay, working conditions, etc.

 

Henry Ford I was one of the company owners - along with Milton Hershey - who believed in elevating the condition of his work force. Hence, the effort by Ford to raise pay, but, at the same time, link it to whether a worker was married or supporting an infirm relative and staying away from saloons and brothels. Ford was also very progressive in his treatment of African Americans.

 

(Milton Hershey basically built the town of Hershey for his workforce, and the houses, libraries and other amenities are of a high quality even today.)

 

For their time, both Ford and Hershey were considered very enlightened in this regard. But make no mistake - both believed that their respective companies were THEIR companies, and they were not socialists in any way, shape or form. They also expected a certain amount of deference from their workforce, although, having built their respective companies from scratch, one could say that they had earned it. Unlike many of today's CEOs, however, they were quite comfortable on the plant floor.

 

At Ford, this tradition continued through Henry Ford II, who worked very hard to cultivate a good relationship with the UAW, and make sure that Ford was not seen as a bad place to work. But he also ran the company as HIS company in many ways, even after it went public in 1956.

 

They were "elitist". Even if enlightned. They sure wouldn't socialize with you. Or consider any working person their equal. But that wasn't unusual for their times. Or now either...really. But more so then.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Ralph Greene