Analysis Of The Gospel Of Wealth By Andrew Carnegie

He seems to say that if everyone had equal amounts of income that there would be no incentive to produce quality work or have a good work ethic. Carnegie shows this by saying that the contrast between the wealthy and the laborer is “essential for the progress of the race”(Carnegie 451). The law of competition means that better quality products come from competition because you have constantly improve to be the best. Competition between companies and laborers forces everyone continually work hard. Carnegie thinks that it is in the best interest of the race to give the wealth to a few because it is better to help many for years to come than equally divided among people to be wasted.

One of the readings that stood out to me the most was on Andrew Carnegie. An idea he believed in was that the rich should give back. I think this is something we deal with today with the 1% vs the 99%. I think it’s very admirable to give away a lot of your fortune to those who could use the help. His idea of giving to those who would use the help to better themselves and reach their full potential through building libraries is a great idea. We’ve all heard the saying “give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime.” Give people the tools to become successful and self satisfied is better than offering them temporary help which will end up putting them back in the same misfortune.

Andrew Carnegie defends the pursuit of wealth in The Gospel of Wealth. Carnegie writes that money is not the problem but the administration of money. Carnegie also writes that the pursuit of wealth is highly beneficial. House for some can be houses for all and without wealth there can be no Maecenas. The relapse of old times would disastrous for everyone and would sweep away civilization with it.

The former thought that money should be in the hands of the wealthy, who were in his mind better equipped to handle it. Carnegie also argued against the wasteful use of capital in the form of extravagance or self-indulgence, instead, promoting philanthropy. As a result, the wealthy would administer their riches beneficially and not in a way that encourages "the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy" (Carnegie). Meanwhile, Powderly argued that the masses should have the possibility of bettering their own lives. Through the common man’s access to money, Powderly believed that they could achieve not only better living conditions, but a happier society in general, all while decreasing the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor (Powderly). While Carnegie’s idea of the wealthy providing a better society for the underdog is appealing, Powderly’s idea of a level playing field is more realistic and should be used in order to deal with the phenomenon of wealth

Social classes have been part of an ever changing dynamic since the beginning of society and as the decades pass the relationship between rich and poor, employee and employer has become more apparent with the advent of industrialization. With the gap of wealth and power widening, tension is created and thus competition is a byproduct. Andrew Carnegie saw the world in this perspective and as a wealthy business realized the enormous responsibility he and others like him had to the classes below him while Karl Marx saw two very distinct classes formed as a result from industrialization. Carnegie believed the competition that arose from social classes was a benefit to society and humanity as a whole while Marx believed social struggle was actually a hindrance to humanity because it allowed for the employee to be exploited by the employer. These opposing viewpoints held similar points in

Criticism of the economy can differ dramatically. Many might have very polar opposite ideas as to what needs to be done in order to better provide for a society's economic well-being. This is definitely the case between Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie. Despite some basic similarities regarding the need for economic change, Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth" prove incredibly different in how they claim to provide real solutions for economic problems. Marx demands that the people take back control of the means of production and redistribute wealth to all; while Carnegie insists that only an elite few in a society are responsible enough for handling the wealth and should remain in absolute control of it, even when determining how it is being redistributed into the society.

This solution would help eliminate poverty and create equality among everyone in society. Marx lists ten different things that must be done in order to accomplish the elimination of class distinctions. One of the demands states, “Abolition of all right of inheritance” (Marx 474). This demand in particular completely disagrees with Andrew Carnegie’s belief that wealth can be left to the family after death. Another way to eliminate the wealthy class, according to Marx, is to force the wealthy to give their land to the state. Communism also demands that all children in public schools receive free education (Marx 474). By allowing all children to receive the same education, the children raised in poverty have been given a chance at working their way out. By giving these children that opportunity, a step has been taken forward in eliminating the class of poverty because it finally gives them a chance in getting out of poverty and having the same lives as others with more wealth than them. These are just three of the ten ways that Marx believes are the keys to eliminating class distinctions and providing everyone with the same amount of wealth.

In America, the expanding chasm between social classes is a reality, and we are all affected by it, rich or poor. And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rift increases and as it affects Adults finances it also affects their perspectives of their social standing. Thier prejudiced perspectives trickle not down to the poor but to their children as they to take on their parents view of the world. A perspective that was the cause to some of the most difficult years of my childhood.

I was able to reflect that finances play a major role in determining a person’s social class. If a person is wealthy, he/she is successful, and thus, they are at a high social class. If a person is poor, he/she is not successful, and thus, they are at a low social class. While this is not always true, in most cases, it is. An example of this is present in the novel To Kill A Mockingbird. On one side we have Mr. Finch, a well-educated man, with a good-paying job, who has a fairly high social class. On the other side, we have Mr. Bob Ewell, a drunkard, who is illiterate, and unemployed, thus he has the lowest social class. Another example of this is found in Growing Up Ivy. Ivy’s father, a shoe peddler, who is illiterate, but in the eyes of Ivy is a good man, however from the perspective of other characters such as Charlie, he is seen lowly. Ivy is also very close with her grandmother, who is a smart woman, with a good paying office job, and is treated very highly. Ivy’s grandmother is also respected by all the members of her community, and treated very well. So in result, we can see that in order for a person to have a high social class, they must be successful financially. Another reflection I have been able to make was how a person’s financial status is in direct correlation to their moral goodness. Although this is not true all the time, most times it is. This is present in the novel I am reading, for people like Ivy’s grandmother, who are wealthy, and financially well, have far better morals than that of people such as Ivy’s mother, who are underprivileged, and in need of financial support. Ivy’s mother had sometimes gone to extent of stealing to have food for her and Ivy, and when she had abandoned her and sent Ivy to stay with her grandmother, she felt as though Ivy was too much of a burden for her, even though she was her only child.

The story of the rich man in the Gospel of Mark (10:17-22) is a rather sad story from Mark’s gospel. It is the only time in the gospels that someone rejects Jesus’ direct invite to become one of his disciples. It is also a great non-example for Christians to recognize, if they desire to become true disciples of God.

Throughout the novel,The Good Earth, both O-lan and the earth provide for the Wang family. O-lan works around the house and cares for the family, while the earth not only produces food, which brings money, but it is what their house is built from. What they give satisfies the family's necessities, and leads to more prosperity as time goes on. However, once Wang Lung’s wealth grows, his greed gets the better of him, and he takes the earth and O-lan for granted. He focuses his time on other things, forgetting all the earth and O-lan had done for him, but he is never truly satisfied. Mahatma Gandhi once stated, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.” Not only does this ring true about the earth in the novel,

In this poem, the words that the poet used to describe about the poem is clear, and easily to understand, but some of the words have a deeper meaning. She expresses her emotion and feeling in the poem by the words that she use. She make the readers to understand about a situation in her life. She comparing the different levels of people: rich people and the poor people. Also, she asked the readers who should be responsible for the difference of people and understand the different of people. She use the color to compared with the facial expression of people and type of people. Also, from the word she use to compared it means that every people come from different family backgrounds and have different event to experience in their life. Even though

Levels in 'The Way to Wealth'." Early American Literature, vol. 21, no. 3, Dec. 1986

People wanted to be rich so that they were able to move up in social class ranking because the rich and powerful get what they want (Johnson 108). Social class was based on education; it was a “proxy” for determining what level one fell into (Johnson 136). One’s behavior and one’s manners were also an obvious indicator of social class. “…and so uncouth in behavior as most of the family were, even on occasion Mr. Bennett himself.” It was easy to distinguish between people in different

One has seen throughout history that the wealthy has always taken advantage and has always benefited from the poor. Whether it be socially, economically, or politically the wealthy has had overall advantage over the poor. For instance, the wealthy unfairly use the poor’s manual labor without recompensing them for their time and physical labor. In addition, it is evident in Snowpiercer that the wealthy take advantage of the poor and do not recompense them for the physical labor they are forced to do. Instead the poor is kept secluded from the rest of society in a dark, crowded, and unsanitary room.