America Should Be A Capitalist Nation

In the Communism and Individualism, Marx and Carnegie passionately contrast against each other’s ideologies. In Marx’s perspective, the wealthy doesn’t seem to consider the effort of laborers so there is an inequality gap between two social classes. However, Carnegie strongly refuses Communism because he believes Communism only work on theory but not in reality. He asserts that through Communism, people expect to be treated the same, so it maybe lead them to do nothing better for their lives and society. On the other hand, Carnegie explains the concept of Individualism can promote independence and enhance good communication between two separate social groups. He adds, “Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it” (488). It means people work hard individually can achieve good education and as well to have a better chance to develop their standard lives. Nevertheless, Marx is also against Carnegie’s perspective. Marx proved that Communism promoted equality among individuals, creating a mutual agreement in regards to moral standards.

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

Carnegie’s views are considered ethical based on Survival of the Fittest and philanthropy. Carnegie says the gap between the rich and poor is a great thing and it is true not everyone can be a wealthy man realistically. There must be a balance even after reading the selection of the life of the average coal miner.

The writings of Karl Marx, Adam Smith, and Andrew Carnegie all made significant impacts in society not only in their time, but continuing to this day. Marx shared is opinions on capitalism and his views of the progression of human society in his writing, The Communist Manifesto which he wrote with Friedrich Engles and published in 1848. Marx believed in the idea of a society with no capitalism and the abolition of the bourgeoisie. Adam Smith wrote a book called The Wealth of Nations which was published in 1776. In his book he tells the reader what helps to build the economy of a nation and essentially advocates for capitalism. Andrew Carnegie was a self-made multimillionaire who gained his wealth by investing in the railroads. In 1889 he wrote an article titled The Gospel of Wealth in which he discusses the duty of the upper class to distribute their surplus wealth to those in need. All three of these men were influential in their works and ways of life, but all three had extremely different opinions on capitalism.

The writings of Karl Marx, Adam Smith, and Andrew Carnegie all made significant impacts in society not only in their time, but continuing to this day. Marx shared is opinions on capitalism and his views of the progression of human society in his writing, The Communist Manifesto which he wrote with Friedrich Engles and published in 1848. Marx believed in the idea of a society with no capitalism and the abolition of the bourgeoisie. Adam Smith wrote a book called The Wealth of Nations which was published in 1776. In his book he tells the reader what helps to build the economy of a nation and essentially advocates for capitalism. Andrew Carnegie was a self-made multimillionaire who gained his wealth by investing in the railroads. In 1889 he wrote an article titled The Gospel of Wealth in which he discusses the duty of the upper class to distribute their surplus wealth to those in need. All three of these men were influential in their works and ways of life, but all three had extremely different opinions on capitalism.

To close, in addition to granting the fundamental rights to citizens and facilitating change and progress, a constitutional democratic republic also allows for more economic innovation and motivation. As previously mentioned capitalism influences nations in a constructive manner that encourages hard work and individuality. Capitalism is the economic center of a constitutional democratic republic. Its progressive power and economic potential can be seen through China’s economic boost in the late ‘90s to the present day as they began to adopt a capitalist mindset (Coase). Capitalism also embodies the concern for an apathetic citizen population, specifically in the workforce. This issue is the driving concern for socialism in the United States

Capitalism is a very messy process, the United States attempted to sort itself out through a variety of movements according to the text, “in the 1920s, the progressive movement attempted to provide citizens with a “living wage,” defined as income sufficient for education, recreation, health, and retirement. Businesses were asked to check unwarranted price increases and any other practices that would hurt a family's living wage. In the 1930s came the New Deal that specifically blamed business for the country's economic woes. Business was asked to work more closely with the government to raise family income. By the 1950s, the New Deal evolved into President Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, a program that defined such matters as civil rights and environmental

Hofstader continues to quote that “Successful business entrepreneurs seemed to have accepted almost by instinct the Darwinian terminology which had emerged from the conditions of their existence.” The American Gilded Age and the economic policies surrounding it, were considered all a result of darwinistic perspective and exploitation of theories to defend laissez faire. To put it simply, Thomas C. Cochran and William Miller argued that men of affairs in post-Civil War America found a much-needed philosophy for industrial progress in the Spencerian system: "To a generation singularly engrossed in the competitive pursuit of industrial wealth, it gave cosmic sanction to free competition. In an age of science, it scientifically justified ceaseless exploitation. Precisely attuned to the aspirations of American businessmen, it afforded them a guide to faith and thought perfectly in keeping with the pattern of their workaday lives.” As a result, there are a number of influences from Spencer's work that have trickled down into economics, even into 20th century thinking about markets and

In the modern society which we live in today, there continues to be a growing gap of inequality between the working class and the elite. Within recent years prominent social movements have began to emerge, both in the Global South and the Global North. These movements represent the large majority of the worlds working class and poor. They formed as a direct response to the the deep disparities in society and the dominant capitalist system that has had the worlds working class at the mercy of the economy, decade after decade. One of the most notable movements that emerged was the Occupy movement which originated in New York City as Occupy Wall Street, and quickly spread across many more cities across the globe.

Capitalism is a beautiful thing, we live in a country where anything is possible. A person can come from humble beginnings and build a million dollar business. It would not come easy, but it definitely is possible in the United States of America. America is truly the land of opportunity where everyone has a chance to become great. Capitalism comes at a cost. Not everyone has the same opportunity due to social capital and low economic status. When companies get so large they knock out the competition that cannot compete. Large organizations like Walmart find every way to innovate to stay in front of their competition. As a result of the interconnected economy that we are a part of today corporations outsource a lot of their operations in an attempt to cut costs and out perform the competition. I think we forced this upon ourselves. Human beings are innovative by nature and always find solutions to problems.

In the capitalist-driven society of the United States, there is a constant impetus towards expansion, investment, and maximization of profits. While this system has helped the US become one of the wealthiest countries in the world it has also contributed to a widening gap between the wealthiest and poorest members of society. This essay will examine two of the poorest populations in the United States, the Central Appalachian region of Kentucky and the population in Camden, New Jersey through the lens of two 20/20 segments reported by Diane Sawyer: “Waiting on the World to Change” and “A Hidden America: Children of the Mountains”. This essay will examine the interplay between economic life and family structure in these regions, and how this interplay shapes individual behavior.

We live in a small city with a population of 70,000 citizens. Although we are in the center of the most productive area in the world, we suffer from high poverty rates and unemployment rate per capita in our nation. How is it that amongst all the wealth coming in to our city, there are people that are struggling on a day to day basis to obtain some of that affluence? Is it possible to create a new and improved economic system that can benefit everyone? If so, will it even help our economy or just make it worst? I strongly believe that a combination of both socialism and capitalism is best for our economy because it will lower the poverty rate, lower the unemployment rate and improve the education system. If we integrate certain concepts from both socialism and capitalism we can create a whole new economic system that will benefit everyone in our city extending to our nation as a whole. In order to do this we have to pick and choose what ideas are best in the long run.

It is often said that history is written by the victor. Growing up, we have been indoctrinated that the United States and capitalism are the moral choices in the perceptions of government. These views of our history are rooted in our countries past, and since we learn from our pasts, we carry forward a view of the United States moral dominance in world affairs. Yet during the cold war, the United States was not the only country portrayed as the moral center of the world. After the end of World War Two, the Soviet Union and the United States fought a war of words, the Cold War, for supremacy and world influence. The tones of these arguments were that both sides and their opposing forms of government were the pinnacle of moral standing. This war of words extended to the battlefield as third world nations, seeking freedom from their colonial oppressors who were torn apart by allegiance to either the Communist system of the Soviet Union or the Capitalist system of the United States. It was the Soviet Union and the United States that waged the war of idealism, chastising each other’s moral vacancy, while members of smaller countries, such as Vietnam, turned to both the powers as a means of improving their own lives while caring little for the verbiage of the battling superpowers.

Americans love freedom; we love money; we love capitalism. Capitalism is most definitely an element of dominant culture amongst the citizens of the United States. In American culture it is easy to see that many of our institutions, including public schools, indoctrinate the children whom they serve with a common American idealism: capitalism is good, communism is bad. Being a citizen of the United States and not being a capitalist is verging upon the fringe of an unwritten taboo. If there is one thing that is true: capitalism does work, and the dominant thought of the United States is that it works the best. But is this true? Does capitalism really work the best? In this essay, I will begin by explicitly defining and analyzing

The anti-trust movement in America during the late 1800s and early 1900s is a prime example of the conflict in society between autonomy and responsibility. Trust-related issues tested the extent to which the government could allow businesses to maintain their autonomy and at the same time fulfill its responsibility to protect the right of the common worker. America was founded on the principles of free enterprise. Throughout its history, the United States government maintained a "laissez-faire" or "hands off" policy in regard to regulation of business. However, in the late 1800s public demand for the government to regulate big business in order to protect the rights of farmers and smaller business owners became