Comparing Carnegie And Marx's Unequal Distribution Of Wealth

908 Words2 Pages

The distribution of wealth has always been a focus of modern society. In the 19th century, both Andrew Carnegie and Karl Marx addressed the unequal distribution of wealth in capitalist societies. In “the Gospel of Wealth,” Carnegie conveys that wealth among the few is the most efficient and natural result of capitalism. He claims that if the rich make all the monetary decisions and invest into society, the poor will eventually prosper. This contrasts considerably with Marx’s proposal, which calls for the equal distribution of wealth. In the “Communist Manifesto,” Marx argues that society functions the best if a classless society is established. While both Carnegie and Marx present their view on the unequal distribution of wealth, Marx makes …show more content…

He praises Social Darwinism by claiming that wealth proves an individual’s ability and fitness in society. Carnegie argues, “The best minds will thus have reached a state in the development of the race in which it is clearly thoughtful and earnest men into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good” (495). Carnegie refers to the rich as the “best minds” as they are the most successful and educated individuals. The affluence makes the rich superior to the poor, allowing the rich to be better qualified to improve society. Hence, Carnegie suggests that the rich must be paternalistic by controlling all the wealth and distributing them to the public properly: “The rich man […] who know[s] that the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise-parks, and means of recreation […] certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste; and public institution of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people […]” (Carnegie 495). Instead of alms-giving, Carnegie calls for the rich to build public institutions for everyone to share. This way, the poor can eventually rise and harmony between the socioeconomic classes will be established. However, in the communists’ perspectives, these capitalist principles are ultimately flawed as it does not recognize the values of disfavored members in

Show More
Related

  • Robber Barons Pros And Cons

    792 Words  | 2 Pages

    This idea of Social Darwinism gave the robber barons of society the justification for their hostile behavior towards their workers. Andrew Carnegie tried to make the gospel of wealth that argued that the duty of someone with power and a lot of money was to put advancement into the society such as libraries. John D. Rockefeller also used this idea and gave away some of his wealth to education as well. However, many socialists, promoting fair distribution of wealth, tried to write books, which were very popular and best sellers at the time to address the social development issue of the economy. The factory workers had no opportunity to gain the independence and advancement to their social class. As argued in the cooperative commonwealth, they addressed the issue was that having liberty as well as monopoly cannot be happening at the same time in order for society to function in a civilized manner. The Social Gospel became known as relief programs that would take place to establish the mission and the relief to the harsh problems that were brought on by the robber barons of society. The arguments of the wage workers we clearly stating that the church can support the political

    Read More

  • Robber Barons Dbq

    857 Words  | 2 Pages

    At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most

    Read More

  • Comparative View of Wealth Accumulation in America

    1058 Words  | 3 Pages

    The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.

    Read More

  • Inequality In The Communist Manifesto By Karl Marx

    430 Words  | 1 Pages

    The fundamental contradiction of Liberalism is that it produces inequality. In order to guarantee individual rights, in fact, a liberal government cannot force its citizens to promote equality. Furthermore, in a capitalist economy there is an incentive to produce on a mass scale, and the best way to increase productivity is to reduce the cost of labor; by reducing the cost of labor, the owners of the factories become richer, while the actual workers earn less money than they ought to. According to Karl Marx, this is the main problem of Liberalism: it somehow legalized inequality among people. So, in The Communist Manifesto, Marx explains why a total revolution of the society is inevitably going to happen.

    Read More

  • Marx versus Reich

    1259 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...o conclude with, the worst fate is waiting for rich people in Marx’s “Communist manifesto”, and is explained by 2 factors: mismanagement of given resources and negative result in the class struggle between the poor and the rich. Reich, on the contrary, argues that the wealthiest people, these are the symbolic analysts, will thrive due to the higher demand for their services and better technologies. Both authors see the capital factor in different lights and predict the rich to either succeed with the help of it, or lose because of its mismanagement. Meanwhile Reich does not mention any tension among different classes Marx sees the doom of the rich in its defeat to proletariat. Nevertheless, considering that Reich describes modern times and having witnessed the fall of USSR, a model of Marxist regime, should we incline more to Reich’s predictions on the rich’s fate?

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Gospel Of Wealth

    733 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” he outlines what the rich man’s responsibilities to the public is regarding his wealth. Andrew Carnegie was one of his times wealthiest men and wrote this in 1889. He states that, “Our duty is with what is practicable now-with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of the good fruit under existing circumstances (Carnegie 23-24).” In his writing he talks about the best way to dispose of the wealth one has acquired. The remainder of this paper will address the

    Read More

  • Sumner And Carnegie Explains The Gospel Of Wealth

    650 Words  | 2 Pages

    On the other hand, Carnegie understands that there exists inequality, but he believes that the superior can cooperate with the inferior to gain equality. In fact, it the document he clarifies, “There remains…only one mode of using great fortunes…in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor−a reign of harmony” (Carnegie, 54). Carnegie does not particularly consider inequality a problem. He understands that in order for wealthy to facilitate the lives of the poor, there must be inequality to establish status, but he also discerns that by helping the poor they are given a chance to reach equality. In fact, Carnegie says, “Individualism will

    Read More

  • Wealth and Poverty: Karl Marx

    1702 Words  | 4 Pages

    They can adopt the Marxist system and create a new social order, maybe based on communism, but that it gives the proletarians the fair treatment that they, for so long, have hope to achieve. Works Cited Carnegie, Andrew. The. The Gospel of Wealth. Mountain View College Reader.

    Read More

  • The Distribution of Wealth

    877 Words  | 2 Pages

    Andrew Carnegie does not believe wealth is distributed properly (Carnegie 485). In fact, he has a few different ideas of how to distribute wealth. In Carnegie’s essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” he states, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of .” The first way he suggests to dispose of wealth is to pass it down in the family after the one with wealth passes away. The second way to dispose of wealth is, after death, distribute it for public uses. The third and final way one can dispose of wealth is by giving it to others while he or she is alive. This idea most reflects the idea of a communist in the case that the surplus wealth is distributed and becomes the property of many. All of the above are different ways that Andrew Carnegie felt wealth could be distributed among people. He says that the third and final way to distribute wealth is a lot like the beliefs of Karl Marx in the sense that Marx strongly believes in communism.

    Read More

  • Wealthy or Rich in Andrew Carnegie's Essay, Wealth

    959 Words  | 2 Pages

    Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.

    Read More

  • Differentiating Marx and Rousseau

    2202 Words  | 5 Pages

    In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...

    Read More

  • The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie

    960 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could be built for the enjoyment of society.

    Read More

  • Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel: The Relationship between Society and the Individual

    3473 Words  | 7 Pages

    Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).

    Read More

  • Karl Marx and Capitalism

    893 Words  | 2 Pages

    Capitalism dominates the world today. Known as a system to create wealth, capitalism’s main purpose is to increase profits through land, labor and free market. It is a replacement of feudalism and slavery. It promises to provide equality and increases living standards through equal exchanges, technological innovations and mass productions. However, taking a look at the global economy today, one can clearly see the disparity between developed and developing countries, and the persistence of poverty throughout the world despite the existence of abundant wealth. This modern issue was predicted and explained a hundred and fifty years ago in Karl Marx’s Capital.

    Read More

  • The Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

    2291 Words  | 5 Pages

    Marx believed that capitalism was unfair because the rich middle and upper class people manipulated the system and used it for their own benefit while we got the short end of the stick. We, being average Americans— like myself— who go to college full-time, juggle a job, and yet are constantly struggling just to make ends meet: the unappreciated, exploited and underpaid every day heroes.... ... middle of paper ... ... 6.

    Read More

More about Comparing Carnegie And Marx's Unequal Distribution Of Wealth

Open Document