Comparative Analysis of The Communist Manifesto by Marand The Gospel by Andrew Carnegie - Essay Example

The Communist Manifesto and the Gospel of Wealth Introduction The emergence of industrialization in Europe created a newfront for the creation of wealth as the bourgeoisie used the services of the proletariats to enrich themselves. Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie formed different hypothesis on the impact of industrialization on the society on their books. According to Marx in ‘the communist manifesto and wealth’, economics and wealth formed the core of history and this influenced the choice of leaders and industrialists during the industrialization era. According to Marx, the class struggles in Europe were not a new phenomenon but industrialization led to the emergence of the two classes which included the laborers or the proletariats and the owners of the means of production or the bourgeoisie (Marx and Friedrich). Carnegie on ‘the gospel of wealth’, wealthy individuals who have amassed their wealth through businesses must adopt a just distribution approach that guarantees good use of the money. Money from entrepreneurship venture must be protected and not spent on frivolous purposes which have no significant implication on the society and the people. The presence of poverty within the capitalistic world can be completely removed if entrepreneurs become philanthropists who share their business spoils with the disadvantaged in the society (Carnegie). In this paper, the thesis of Carnegie and Marx will be compared to provide a critical evaluation of how they impact on the society. The paper will adopt the position taken by Carnegie in the ‘gospel of wealth’ and advocate for the redistribution of profits and proceeds from business in capitalistic economies. Marx "The Communist Manifesto” In the communist manifesto, Marx highlighted his views of the society and how industrialisation had created significant segregation of people into different classes. As captured in the opening phrase of the manifesto, the history of human beings has an age old practise of dividing the human population into various classes based on their economic abilities and the influence they hold in the society. The class struggles have not necessarily been influenced by everything, but more specifically the principle forms of production within the society. When the industrial revolution arose, the European society was defined by the position that the individuals held within the industries and the production factors that they controlled (Carnegie). Those individuals who had the power to own the means of production such as raw materials, the cottage industries among other form of production belonged to the upper class and were known as the bourgeoisie. However, individuals who could not control the forms of production were forced to work within the industries and live at the mercy of the bourgeoisie at all times, forcing them into the labourers or the proletariat class. Though conflict has always existed among the bourgeois, the emergence of industrialisation led to the emergence of new struggles, pitying the land owners and the labourers. Carl Marx attributed this conflict to the contradiction that was created by the members of the bourgeois society who had the power to influence decisions in the society. In Marx words, the bourgeois and proletariat society was the creation of capitalism, a society that was propelled by the desire to create market, drive up the prices of the goods and maximise the profits. The overreliance on capitalism as witnessed in Europe during the industrial age created a number of crises which are currently witnessed in modern capitalists. This includes overproduction which arose from producing too much goods beyond the demand and size of the market and the high prices which reduced the purchasing power of the members of the society (Marx and Friedrich). The popularity and survival of Marx hypothesis of the manifesto has been attributed to the challenges that the proletariats faced during the industrial revolution in Europe and the United States. Due to the tough economic times that faced the proletariats, industrial conflicts emerged and this formed the basis of the class struggles in Europe during the 19th century. The manifesto was accepted across the globe due to the claim that Marx made which blamed the wealthy working class on the emerging need to overthrow capitalism. To this end, the proletariats were viewed as the only people who lacked anything to fight for except the world itself and the desire to lose the chains that bound them to the bourgeoisie in the society. Andrew Carnegie, "The Gospel of Wealth” While Marx blamed the challenges facing the society on the wealthy working class and the class struggles that emerged consequentially, Carnegie believe that a solution to this challenge rests in adoption philanthropy among the working class in the society. As a wealthy businessman, Carnegie amassed wealth based on the same system that Marx demonised in his hypothesis of the manifesto. During the industrial era, Carnegie supplied iron and steel to the railway workers in Europe and this led to his economic empowerment at the end. Carnegie later moved to the United States from where he advocated for the development of the philanthropic spirit especially among the wealthy upper class members (Marx and Friedrich). Carnegie believes that the challenge that faces the society is appropriate administration of wealth in a way that creates cohesion among the rich and the poor. Civilisation has significantly widened the place of the rich that dwell in the palaces and the poor who toil day and night in the cottages. Carnegie, however, believes that the emergence of this change is beneficial to the society and can help in the progressive development of the races. To remain in a cohesive society, we must accept and welcome the existence of inequality and the concentration of wealth among a few people within the industrial and commercial sector. Though individualism will continue, the millionaires must continue to trust the poor and believe in their ability to accumulate their wealth in a highly competitive market environment. Carnegie has thus focused on the distribution of accumulated wealth to enhance the welfare of the poor within the society. Carnegie believes that bridging the gap between the poor and the rich in a highly capitalistic environment can only be achieved through consistent philanthropy and progressive taxation regimes.in Britain, Carnegie argues, heavy taxes are placed on the estate of dead millionaires who contributed little to the welfare of the society. This leads to proper distribution of wealth in the society and elimination of the benefits that were enjoyed by the bourgeoisie in the society (Marx and Friedrich). The rich are thus placed in a better position to distribute their wealth and enhance the circulation into the society. In a modern societal setting, recirculation is essential in funding various infrastructural development projects such as construction of roads and airports which are used by all members of the society irrespective of their class (Carnegie). Carnegie and Marx develop two hypotheses that attempts to discuss the emergence of capitalism and its vices in the society during the 19th century. However, the positions adopted by the two differ as Marx attempts to highlight the problem and those affected by the same without providing solutions (Carnegie). Capitalism contributed significantly to the widening of the social classes in Europe during the industrial revolution, a position that is projected by the two scholars. However, the position taken by Marx blames the bourgeois for the challenges that are faced by the proletariats due to the consistent class struggles. Though the wealthy have individual disagreements, the level of class difference between the poor and the rich is common and continue to push the poor to the dilapidated conditions within the cottages (Marx and Friedrich). Conclusion Carnegie embraces a problem-solution kind of approach in his gospel of wealth by discussing the issues associated with the class struggles and the best way forward without upsetting the position of the wealthy in the society. Though the rich exploit the poor to advance their wealth and increase their control in the society, the position cannot dismiss as they supplement the society (Carnegie). To correct this problem, Carnegie argues that redistribution and recirculation of the money owned by the rich should be done. This will provide a more just and equal society through progressive taxation and philanthropy to improve the cottage status in the country while maintaining the palaces. To this end, I accept the position taken by Carnegie though Marx made a contribution that cannot be wished away or disputed without proper ground. In this comparison, Carnegie comes out in favour of encouraging coherence among the poor and the rich through taxation and philanthropy. Works Cited Carnegie, Andrew, 1835-1919. The Gospel of Wealth. n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014. Read More