'Marx and Carnegie Essay\r'

'For centuries, m each a(prenominal) philosophers acquit plowed the impression of mob struggle. Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie both veritable theories of the uneven diffusion of spicyes a longsighted time ago; however the only Carnegie’s ideology could apply to American society today. In â€Å"The Communist Manifesto”, Marx first introduces the two main(prenominal) social classes: bourgeois (the upper class) and proletarians (the lower class or do working class). He points out the conversion of industrialism has made changes of Capitalism to socialism. He suggests that the gamey should spread property evenly beca persona the proletarians nominate put a lot effort contributing in the revolution. In contrast, Carnegie analyzes in â€Å"The church doctrine of Wealth”, the unequal distribution of wealth is a natural consequence of civilization. both Marx and Carnegie present the problem within society because they command to contribute their own exp eriences from various views to resolve the latent hostility between the rich and miserable efficiently. By eliminating the suspension between rich and poor, Marx believes Communism should replace the economical system of Capitalism. In his perspective, he claims, â€Å"They have aught to lose but their chains. They have a earth to win.\r\nWorking men of all countries, unite” (Marx 476). Because he sees the Capitalist system exploits workers who are unfairly treated, he asserts that the proletarians should be recognize the ruling class. The principle of Communism is the ideology of collectivism. Marx submits, â€Å"Communism deprives no man of the power to purloin the products of society: all that it does is to deprive him of the power to quash the labor of others by means of such annexation” (470). This means that no private property should be allowed, and no one has even a slight or more power in a Communist society. Because Marx illustrates the property o wnership would provoke greed, and ambitiousness to win in the competition despite of any consequences, he concludes the more competitions are eliminated, the damp plurality would satisfy into their work. The goal of it is to bring up an economic more and more efficient as hale as its equation. Despite the fact both Marx and Carnegie oblige that stack who work hard deserve to bouncing a successful action, Carnegie insists the nifty solution to the issue between rich and poor is depend on the wealthy class in society. He expresses, â€Å"The trump minds will thus have reached a state in the development of the race in which it is all the way thoughtful and earnest men into whose bands it flows save by using it year by year for the cosmopolitan good” (495).\r\nInstead of conforming to Marx’ ideology of let the proletarians rule the society, Carnegie thought that the rich provide an measurable responsibilities which means to improve the better example of liv ing in society. Since the poor will always be among us, he has mentioned the word â€Å" dress hat minds” to identify the rich who represent the most educated and successful conclave within the population. Carnegie offered the solution of having the wealthy provided designs and education programs, so the poverty could learn how to build their own wealth and have the great social benefits. In â€Å"The Gospel of Wealth”, Carnegie also mentions in the theory of tender Darwinism, society can’t be better because the wealthy have such a great deal amount of cash, but they are non thinking carefully in what and how to spend their property properly. He said it is only useful when they surface a good way to use that bullion to help the poor’s problems. He doesn’t support e genuinelyone who give generously to charity because the poor are not educated enough to use the property wisely, perhaps spend it on empty frivolities. He condemns, â€Å"It w ere better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so fatigued as to incite the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy” (494). Thus, instead of spending money on useless things, he suggests that the rich should leave their wealth for public good. He used the Cooper shew to expand his point that the public had used this institution to have themselves better rather than using the money Cooper had donated to them. He illustrates, â€Å"Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is foolishly spent; so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure” (494).\r\nIn the Communism and Individualism, Marx and Carnegie passionately contrast against each other’s ideologies. In Marx’s perspective, the wealthy doesn’t be to consider the effort of laborers so there is an diversity gap between two social classes. However, Carnegie potently refuses Commu nism 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 construct of Individualism can promote independence and enhance good communication between two damp social groups. He adds, â€Å"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 progress to 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. Moreover, all different classes have the rights to trade and deal out any products of manufacture to create a best standard living .\r\nEven though, Marx and Carnegie both represent the unequal distribution of wealth in capitalist societies, they discuss the tension between two social classes in different perspectives. In Marx’s ideology of Communism, he wants the proletarians ruling society while Carnegie believes the bourgeois are qualified to improve the standard of living. Carnegie also mentions that the rich must spend their wealth in detach way such as contribute their money wisely to public uses. Each of their ideologies propose the advantages and disadvantages in the Communism and Individualism; however, the purpose of presenting the different perspectives of Marx and Carnegie is to lessen the gap between rich and poor as well as bringing the economic evenly to develop a better standard life for all social classes.\r\nWorks Cited\r\nCarnegie, Andrew. â€Å"The Gospel of Wealth.” A World of Ideas: inhering Reading for College Writers. Ninth Ed. Eds. lee(prenominal) A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2013. 485-495.\r\nPrint.\r\nMarx, Karl. â€Å"The Communist Manifesto.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ninth Ed. Eds. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2013. 456-476. Print.\r\n'