Karl Marx, Adam Smith, And Andrew Carnegie

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.”

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.

Karl Marx believes that a capitalistic society separates the rich from the poor. corporations that holds the money hold the power to dictate whether certain fucntions of society.

In the following section, I will define terms that Karl Marx used in his works. The term bourgeois is defined as the owners of the means of production. In oppose to bourgeoisie, the proletarian or the wage-earner is defined as “a class of labourers who live only as long as they find work, and who find work only as long as their labour increases capital” (I. Craib, Classical Social Theory, 99). Economic is defined as relating to the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought (Merriam-Webster, 2016). The economic process that we will mainly focus on is capitalism. In a capitalist society, the main goal of any firms is simply to make profits for the owner. In the following essay, I will attempt to explain why do

Marx thought of capitalism in a pessimistic way, he saw the relationship between the employee and employer in a capitalistic society as toxic. To Marx, in a capitalistic society the employee would always be at a constant struggle for power be never endlessly repressed by the bourgeoisie. The employer would pay employees only what they needed to survive making it impossible to move up in class or society. He also recognized that in capitalism everything becomes corporatized. Things like marriage go from a sacred bond between two individuals that once never included money or the government, to something that is regulated by the national government and must be done through the federal court and include ties between the individual's financial status. Small businesses would also become corporatized, a local family doctor has now become part of a larger practice that brings in complex forms of payment such as insurance instead of simply paying a small family doctor directly. He also goes into the downfall of capitalism. The way capitalism works is through a series of economic highs and lows, each high is marked by prosperous times, high employment rate, and overall happiness. But the lows are marked by deterioration of the national economy, low employment rates, and struggle for all classes. To Marx’s these highs and lows are what's killing capitalism with each low being worse than the last until the people revolt and create a new form of government. The next would be socialism and once this fell like capitalism, the new governing system would be communism. Communism is an ideal system where people are never struggling for money and are paid based on their needs rather than their particular job. Through this system a

Marx thought the wealth should go to everyone, but Carnegie delved deeper and believed in giving the wealth to public entities such as colleges, library’s, parks, museums and other creations. They both in some way wanted to make a better society for everyone – not just the wealthy. Next Marx and Carnegie thought inheritance, the idea that the wealthy persons business, money, and property would go to their heirs, was wrong. Marx wanted a communist society, and inheritance would just make some people get more than others, therefore it had to go. Carnegie disliked the idea of inheritance because he believed in hard work and thought that by handing over great sums to people who don’t even work hard for it would do more harm than good.

Karl Marx and Adam Smith wrote in the same time period – during the industrial revolution, where the bourgeois had risen to power by oppressing and exploiting the proletariat. The term bourgeois refers to the people in the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor. The proletarians are the people in the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. While Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, wrote in favor of capitalism, Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, was a harsh critic of the system and declared its inevitable destruction and consequent rise of the working class.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx both came from very different worlds, however they saw the world in similar ways. Both had thoughts derived from different views. Smith had a very capitalistic view on things, while Marx was socialist in many ways. They expressed their thoughts in ways that were surprisingly similar while other ideas were dissimilar. Ultimately socialism and capitalism can go hand in hand. One main idea that both works addressed was the productivity of work and the ability to accumulate property, stock and capital. They both wanted a wealthy nation but Marx believed that redistribution of wealth was the way to go. Smith believed in a free economic system that gave capitalists rights to accumulate their wealth.

There is perhaps not a more famous ongoing dialectic argument in the field of political economy than the one between Adam Smith and Karl Marx in regards to capitalism. The two thinkers, although coming to radically different conclusions about the outcomes of the capitalist system for all parties involved, agree on a surprising number of ideas such as labor being the source of commodities’ value, as well as the fact that the division of labor increases productivity. However, their different conceptions of what determines the price of a commodity, the driving force behind and the effects of the division of labor, and the purpose of the capitalist system have widespread implications that cause their holistic arguments to diverge considerably.

Karl Marx developed his theory on class division by suggesting that all societies have two major classes, a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owned a means of production such as land or capital, whereas the subject class did not. Marx argued that this leads to the ruling class exploiting the subject class. The ruling class use a superstructure of the legal and political systems to justify its position and prevent protests by the subject class. In capitalist societies the main classes are the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and the proletariat (working class). In these societies the bourgeoisie exploits the working class through wage labour. The capitalists pay wages to the workers, but make a profit because they pay the workers less than the value of what they produce. Capitalism is the newest type of class society but it will also be the last. Eventually it will be replaced by a communist society in which the means of production

To Marx, capitalism is an economic system where the upper class exploits the lower, working class and conflict is inevitable. The alienation of the working class was caused by their labor. All they were to the upper class were just people who wanted to be fed that would work long hours and be separated from their families and each other to do so. The idea to de-alienate the working class from the upper

Karl Marx, in the 19th century was the first to discuss capitalistic societies. He was known for his discussions on communism. Marx believed that capitalism was a product of the industrial revelation. This labor class and class division, he felt crippled individuals which made them have little or no self worth. Harriet Jacobs, Life of a Slave Girl, John Locke, Second Treatise of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract all have similar beliefs and discussions on the equality of man.

In Capital, Karl Marx reveals the ugly truth that capitalism lays on the foundation of class exploitation. Without such exploitation, there is no profit to be made and capitalism will cease to exist. Capitalism, which relies on the reproduction of capital, creates and concentrates wealth to a small portion of society’s population while reproducing poverty and widening the size of inequality.

Marx viewed society as a conflict between two classes in competition for material goods. He looked at the history of class conflicts and determined that the coming of the industrial age was what strengthened the capitalist revolution. Marx called the dominant class in the capitalist society the bourgeoisie and the laborers the proletariat. The bourgeoisie owned or controlled the means of production, exploited laborers, and controlled the goods produced for its own needs. He believed that the oppressed class of laborers was in a position to organize itself against the dominating class. He felt that it was the course of nature, that is, it is the way that society evolves and that the communist society would be free of class conflict, "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Marx & Engels 1948, 37)

The system of capitalism is partially based around the unpaid surplus labour of workers that allows for the generation of profit for the workers ' respective superiors. Marx argues that such a system rewards those who have some sort of domination over the workers, the actual producers of commodities. This results in terrible living