Greg F.: You seem to be making my points for me, though you only mention a very small part of the story, and if you're quoting Trotsky, be advised that the crimes of the Communists against the working poor, the agricultural poor, and freedom of thought and expression BEGGAR a thousand Rockefellers.

Rockefeller was a free-market rough and tumble capitalist among other free-market rough and tumble capitalists. The only difference was he was methodical, more intelligent than most, and, as you say, lucky. The era changed around him and what was regular business in his youth became re-defined in later years, I think appropriately. The problem with your attitude is you are using the standards of today to judge the deeds of yesterday, and you are woefully inadequate in your choice of events: Mark Twain lamented the change of attitude regarding the Gold Rush in one sentence you quote, but you leave out the fact that in 1849 when the Gold Rush was occurring, Slavery was well entrenched and likely to remain so.

John D.'s long life shows a man who was capable of learning and capable of seeing beyond his personal wealth. Chernow portrays this very well without leaving out the shadiness of his rise to wealth nor his many critics. Your interpretation of the man is very biased by principles put into practise well after his time.

By stabilizing the oil market he enabled an economy that otherwise could not exist. Oil exploration, production, refining, and marketing was a hit-or-miss affair which resulted in mini booms and busts as field after field was raped by too many small companies which each were capable of undercutting each others' prices, going bust, and leaving an environmental disaster in its wake. John D. and his 'Standard' created a single large 'target' which allowed government a target it would not otherwise have. He did for oil what Bill Gates would later do for operating systems.

As for unions, I'm on the side of the unions of that era. BUT, I'm not foolish enough to expect that John D. would be on their side at the time. After Ludlow, his son John showed some responsibility which again is way more than Henry Ford ever did over some of his activities.

As for Trotsky, he was chased out of Russia and got a hatchet in the head from his fellow Communists. And the Communists never had to bust any unions because they killed anyone who didn't agree with them and made up the reasons later.