Evaluating Wealth and Poverty: Marx's 'Communist Manifesto' and Carnegie's 'The Gospel of Wealth'

The Gilded Age had many relevant people arguing about economy at that time. Three of the people that argued about economic issues in society are Sumner, Lloyd, and Carnegie. Sumner had a biased approached towards economy in favor of the powerful wealthy class. While Lloyd had a completely contradictory view from Sumner’s opposing most of Sumner’s ideas. On the other hand, Carnegie had a favorable argument for economic equality by offering help to the poor class in his way. Although these authors have opposing views on the economic inequality, they support their views with valid solutions and proposals.

According to Marx and the Communist Manifesto, history is the rich battling with the poor, also history has always been a history of class struggle. The Communist Manifesto calls for equality among all classes, therefore there would be no classes. Workers are paid different salaries according to the quality and the training of their work. "Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat."[iii] As Marx’s states here, he feels that society is splitting more and more in to classes, which is feels is wrong. He thinks that society should be one and everyone should belong to one class. Marx did not deny the close connection between personal freedom and property rights. "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."[iv] Marx thought that the role of every individual was for everyone to be a worker and to make an equal amount of money as everyone else. Marx even stated that having a capitalist society would therefore make that society fall, all because of the ongoing struggle between the rich and the poor. The Communist Manifesto states that communism would change a person’s role in life from being decided on the basis

The continuous disparity of wealth and income can cause constant economic problems within a society. Although it is not apparent all the time, there are few benefits of discrepancy itself such as individual wealth, capital, and labor. Both Smith and Carnegie have distinct beliefs about wealth that differentiate from one another, yet are similar in certain ways. Adam Smith confined all his ideas about the common man in his “Wealth of Nations”. Whereas, in the “Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie had distinct beliefs about the effects of capitalism . All in all, economic conditions of the 21st century still date back to previous years and signify the importance of economic competition.

In the gilded ages dating back to the nineteenth century both Andrew Carnegie and Henry George were known as very influential men of their time both striving towards the common goal of deflating poverty in hopes to diminish it as a whole. Though both Andrew and Henry shared a similar feat they had very different approaches and ideas of methodizing the overall goal. Carnegie was a shrewes businessman who viewed it to be acceptable for very rich and very poor people to co-exist as long as the rich provided that their surpluses aspired the community with parks or libraries for example to better themselves known as the "lasting good," and

Karl Marx and Adam Smith wrote in the same time period – during the industrial revolution, where the bourgeois had risen to power by oppressing and exploiting the proletariat. The term bourgeois refers to the people in the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor. The proletarians are the people in the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. While Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, wrote in favor of capitalism, Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, was a harsh critic of the system and declared its inevitable destruction and consequent rise of the working class.

The Gospel of Wealth is primarily about the dispersion of wealth and the responsibilities of those who have it. Carnegie thinks that inheritance is detrimental to society because it does not do any good for the

“All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.” (Page 222). Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto. This is a really important essay. It has three sections in the book that I read it from. Robert B. Reich wrote Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer. This was widely discussed and still is. That is how important this essay it to people. These two essays are about economics. They may not agree on things, but they are both respected and discussed in many colleges. According to Aijaz Ahmad, “Earlier texts include passages and entire sections of great originality. However, virtually all of them are written in opposition to some particular writers or tendencies, i.e., Hegel and the others we have mentioned above. This kind of focused criticism is continued in the latter section of the Manifesto as well, but the memorable first part can be viewed as perhaps the first of Marx 's texts that is written entirely in the declarative, in opposition to not this or that thinker, this or that tendency in thought, but in opposition to bourgeois society as a whole.

2. What, according to Carnegie, is the responsibility of those who receive charity from the wealthy? How does Carnegie differentiate between almsgiving and philanthropy?

The skies are an eternal grey, the sun is hardly seen, and people hurriedly rush to a meaningless job only to stumble back to a home in squalor. The grey of the skies is a perfect match for the people’s spirits. Hope, like the sun, becomes shrouded in a smoky cloud as the jobs provided to these people offer little in wages and even less in purpose. This is the life facing the proletariat, wage-labor social class or working poor. In contrast, the employers of the poor caste live rather lavish lives of wealth and stature. The bourgeois, upper middle-class consisting of business owners, shop owners, landlords, otherwise known as the wealthy employers. It is this contrast of social struggle that produced Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Abraham Kuyper’s The Problem of Poverty. Both Marx and Kuyper’s writings focus on the social struggle between the privileged, wealthy, and unprivileged, poor; however, Marx presents the struggle and his solution from an economic viewpoint while Kuyper presents the struggle and his solution from a religious viewpoint. Marx begins his presentation with a defining of both socio-economic groups then presents the political movement of Communism as a solution to the contrast. Kuyper, on the other hand, focuses his presentation on the idolization of monetary wealth over the sovereignty of God beginning at the conclusion of the French Revolution. Kuyper’s writing not only presents a religious solution to class struggle, but is also a response of

During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”

The nineteenth century was a time of wide-spread changes across Europe and America. Two great seminal thinkers, Karl Marx and Abraham Kuyper, examined the issue of poverty during this time through their books The Communist Manifesto and The Problem of Poverty respectively. Both philosophers exposed economic, political, and social problems of this period. The ideas and reforms of Marx and Kuyper proved to be so tectonic that they resulted in the greatest political upheaval of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. While Marx wrote his book to rally society against capitalism for a socioeconomic change, Kuyper viewed poverty through a Christian lens and weighed the effect of society in regards to this issue.

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.

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

In his article “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues for the wealth to give back their wealth to the community by providing “public institutions of various kinds … [to] improve the general condition of the people” (Foner 30). Carnegie uses this article to promote his Gospel of Wealth idea and provide his interpretation of the changing America. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that “those who accumulated money had an obligation to use it to promote the advancement of society” (Foner 28). Carnegie’s articles focuses on the themes of Capitalism and Inequality, which continue to shape society.

The Communist Manifesto left a tremendous impact on a society that was rapidly becoming industrialized, and its effects can even be seen on the dominating economic system of the twenty-first century. In the later nineteenth century, however, industrial capitalism was on the brink of ruin. “On many occasions during the past century, Marxists have thought that capitalism was down for the count . . . Yet it has always come back with renewed strength.” Industrial capitalism succeeded in the face of communism, despite numerous economic disasters. As the capitalist economists hopefully noted at the time, these economic earthquakes, temporary in character, soon cured themselves and left capitalism unscathed. Karl Marx sought to create