Karl Marx's Views On Communism And Capitalism

1073 Words5 Pages
In recent times, there is a growing concern of wealth inequality in America. This has really drawn criticism and challenge to capitalism as the model of socio-economic structure. Debates surrounding this issue are often traditionally addressed through two models: communism and capitalism. Karl Marx, in his work, “The Communist Manifesto,” criticizes capitalism for it’s preaching of individualism and competition, which leads to the exploitation of the working class thus resulting in further antagonization between socio-economic classes. Marx ends his criticism by offering up the complete abandonment of capitalist system in favor of a communistic system in which socio-economic autonomy is in the hands of the state. On the other hand, Andrew Carnegie,…show more content…
He frames this separation of the classes as a struggle and a constantly losing battle for one group or the other (mostly for the poor). He explicitly states, “society as a whole is more and more splitting in to two great hostile camps, [….] Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx 338). Right away, Marx hopes to use this to build an argument that the current relations between the two classes is an illusion and that the proletariat are playing the zero-sum game, with the Bourgeoisie, that is capitalism. In direct contrasts to this, Carnegie believes that, in the capitalist system, the relations between the two classes is more symbiotic in nature. As one group benefits from the labors of another, the other eventually shares in the same benefits through the philanthropy of the first group. This relationship would have, for both groups, continuous improvements and as Carnegie puts it, “What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of life” (Carnegie 365). In this way, He argues that even though there is a distinction between the rich and the poor, the lives of the poor are in no way facing the same difficulties or disadvantages of…show more content…
What he means by this is that it’s not only the right thing to do but it is the duty of the wealthy elites to ensure the advancement of society as a whole. Moreover, he even takes it a step further and asserts that, “They [rich men] have it in their power during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives” (Carnegie 370). Thus, the philanthropy of the rich is not only beneficial to the community but also the individual. His favor of a Carnegie later goes on to even go as far as condemning those who worships wealth as a false idol. He is very critical of those who hoarded their surplus riches while living and only wait until their death to allow their amassed fortune to be used for public goods. Ultimately, it is his belief that the wealthy have a responsibility of utmost importance to society in making sure that the community also get the benefits of a continuously improving society. It is their responsibility, for they are the best equipped and have the means to do so. This stems from Carnegie’s acknowledgment of a justified inequality because of social Darwinism. That’s
Open Document