marx and carnegie

According to Henslin (2015), “Weber illustrates, a large group of people who rank close to one another in property, power, and prestige; according to Marx, one of two groups: capitalists who own the means of production or workers who sell their labor” This is a dynamic that should be working currently in American society. However, in the past three decades there has been a gap between the poor and the not very rich. This gap has not happened by itself. According to Reich (2015), in the movie Inequality For All, “…the all

Marx believed that the government should maintain equality amongst the people. However, Carnegie’s ideas of wealth are more reasonable than Marx’s through his ideas of inequality,

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.”

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

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.

Marx is often connected with critiques on capitalistic societies. In a capitalistic society such as America, individuals are primarily driven by the accumulation of profit. Marx believed that social inequalities in capitalist societies were molded by competition over resources and various goals. He theorized that wealth, power, and various advantages would eventually become disproportionately distributed among segments of the population due to this competition. Descendants of Marxism commonly focus on the ways in which this privileged segment of the United States strives to perpetuate their status and wealth.

This first lecture gave us a close look into the unequal share of wealth and the factors that determine the wealth of individuals in the American society. One of the first factors that affect immensely the inequality in America is the obsessiveness of wanting to classify people and make them mark a box for their gender, race and class. Where men and whites have more privileges than any other person and are not only paid higher, but would most likely spend less time in prison for committing the same crime as an African American. The United states is so unequal that the top 1% of the population has 38.1% of the wealth and the bottom 40% which is a little less than half of the people living in America only have 0.2% of the wealth. And as if that statistic alone was not scary enough, we learn in this

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

Everyone wants to be successful. But for the average American these days, it’s hard for people to achieve that due to low wages, wars that taxpayers pay for, or corporate corruption. And it doesn’t help that the richer and more powerful people can determine the economic, political, educational, and legal policies to make it better for themselves and harder for the average American. And that’s basically what Karl Marx was talking about. The capitalists would be the richer, more powerful people. Then the middle class would be the petit bourgeois. Then the lower middle class would be the proletariat. Nijole V. Benokraitis. (2012). SOC.( pages 58&59) Belmont,CA. Linda Schreiber-Ganster

In Communist Manifesto, Marx introduces his philosophy by stating, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Marx presents various illustrations of class struggles between the oppressors and oppressed. Some examples include the “lord and serf”, “freeman and slave”, and “patrician and plebeian” to name a few. Marx suggests that the current struggle in society is between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisies are the class of owners or the ruling class. What separates the bourgeoisies from the rest is that they have private property. According to Thoreau, private property is that which produces capital. It is buildings, engines, and machinery. In

Marx perceives society made up as two classes, the powerful and exploitive higher class known as the bourgeoisie and the industrial wage earners that must earn their living by selling their labor known as the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is known as the private property owners and the proletariat works for the bourgeoisie. There is an inequality between these two

Marx’s model of private property views it as means of production creating a division of labor. In his theory, Marx takes a look and how private property, along with wealth, are funneled into the hands of the few leaving the ordinary worker unable to gain wealth from private property. The outcome of Marx’s principle can be seen especially in the last 30 years in the US with the increase of inequality and access to wealth to unprecedented numbers (USA 11).

To start of my essay I will compare and contrast between the two theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on the topic of social class that will be discussed widely. The inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system, which is “a political system”. It is said that “those who have the skills and abilities to perform and produce will succeed in life.” But this belief is the assumption that all people are given equal opportunities and advantages. During the 19th century Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists who developed their own theories about why inequality is maintained with social class in society. Many might argue that there are many similarities and differences between these sociologists theories, however although Marx’s and Weber’s both examined similar ideas. This essay will compare the differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of class within society, which are based on economic inequality and capitalism. And lastly this essay will demonstrate that Max Weber comes across as the greater theorist as he can relate his concept more towards today’s society. Anthony Giddens (2nd edition) quoted that “You need greater equality to achieve more social mobility.” Therefore social class is referred to a group of people with similar levels of wealth, influences, behaviours and status. Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) American Politician states that the “ignorant classes are the dangerous classes.”

Karl Marx describes “Society as a whole [as being] more and more [split] up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx 124).  As Marx made his distinction between upper class, bourgeoisie, and lower class, proletariats, it is important to keep in mind the societal structure at the time.  To understand how classes were created and the disparity between the rich and poor, or, bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is necessary to examine how people came to be rich and poor.  Exploring a time before money existed will help us to process and understand reasons why the binary between rich and poor exists and how it is reflective of low and high art distinctions.

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber assert that capitalism is the dominion of abstractions and the irrational accumulation of abstract wealth for the sake of wealth. For Marx, the state of capitalism is entrenched in the social classes to which people have bben assigned. Capitalism, according to Marx, is a result of the bourgeoisie 's ascent to economic and political power. This fuels the manifestation of a system that exploits the labour power of the lower socioeconomic classes for the gain of the higher socioeconomic classes. Weber understands the state of capitalism to be the end product of the work ethic of the Protestant branches of Christianity and the secularization of Protestant puritanism, which helped fuel rationalism. Capitalism, according to Weber, is to be understood as the relations and methods of production and commodities, now rationalized. Ultimately, Marx ascribes the ascent of capitalism to the exploitation of people and power, while stressing that such a system can be overcome by a communist revolution, whereas Weber states that such a system is the result of cultural choices and is not as convinced that capitalism can be overcome.