Comparing Carnegie And Marx's Unequal Distribution Of Wealth

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

the better argument since he shows the effects of a poorly distributed society, while Carnegie only focuses on the benefits of the law of competition.
Carnegie values a capitalistic society in which the rich utilize their wealth and superiority to assist the poor.

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

society.
Marx believes that the best society is build upon the equality of the rich and the poor. He insists for the poor proletarians to rise and become the ruling class. Marx explains, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite” (Marx 476). In the current state, the proletarians are “chained” by the rich bourgeoisie. Rather than striving for their own wealth, proletarians are forced to increase the capital of the bourgeoisie. They can’t even own private property because their low wages must be utilized for their own subsistence. In order to resolve this issue, Marx desires to establish an ideal communist society that has no private property. In doing so, Marx declares, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society: all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation” (Marx 470). Through the collective nature of communism, no one has any less or more power. This ultimately eliminates class antagonism, which is the exploitation of the poor by the rich. Everyone will be able to own property and have the freedom to buy or sell freely in the market. Marx believes that this will secure a satisfactory standard of living, since it yields higher incentives for each individuals to work harder.
One of the main differences between Carnegie and Marx is their view on the importance
of competition. Carnegie argues that competition contributes to the growth of society: “The price which society pays for the law of competition […] is also great; but the advantages of this are also greater still, for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train” (Carnegie 487). Even though, Carnegie recognizes that competition causes the poor to suffer in society, he considers its advantage to be greater than disadvantage. Overall, he attributes all the innovations and improvements of society to “the law competition.” On the other hand, Marx disagrees by stating that competition in a capitalist society is extremely detrimental to the poor: “These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuation of the market” (Marx 462). Marx conveys that the nature of capitalism generates a wage labor system that pressures the laborers to compete with each other. As they struggle in an instable market to sell their labor to the highest buyer, they are subjected to create profit for their owners instead of themselves. Eventually,
the laborers lose their individualities become the commodities themselves. In comparison, competition is what Carnegie sees as a great privilege of Capitalism, but is what Marx believes that dehumanizes the laborers.
All in all, after examining the ideas of Carnegie and Marx, one can conclude that Capitalism and Communism have polar opposite characteristics. Although both Carnegie and Marx identify the conflict between the classes, their execution to solve it differs.