Since the nineteenth and twentieth century, there has always been a division between the wealthy and unfortunate. During these times the higher class continued to prosper while the lower class remained at the bottom, the separation continues to grow. Three men vocalize their views on the social division, capitalism, and individualism. Andrew Carnegie, an industrialist, believed the rich should distributed their wealth to benefit society while they’re alive. Carnegie elaborates this idea in his article, The Gospel of Wealth, written in 1889. Russell Conwell, a philanthropist, expresses in his speech, Acres of Diamonds, men should utilize their surrounding opportunities to make themselves wealthy. Edward Bellamy, a socialist, wrote Look Backward about a wealthy young man, Julian West, who enters hypnotic sleep in 1887 and awakes 113 years later. Although, the men state similar matters their views contrast, Carnegie and Conwell would most likely be critical to Bellamy’s vision. Julian West is educated and the third generation of his family to have great fortune. West’s life of luxury succeed through “support from the labor of others, rendering no sort of service in return (Bellamy).” When West enters hypnotic sleep and awakes in 2000 he realizes the 20th century is very different from the 19th. Bellamy’s Looking Backward was vastly popular particular among the middle class. His vision is desired by the middle class because it’s better than today’s world. Bellamy’s vision
In Bellamy’s novel, we start out in the late nineteenth century. Julian West, the main character, was born into an aristocratic family. Just as the rest of his class did, Julian thought of himself to be a higher rated citizen to the rest of the population. Julian had everything, even his fiancé Edith was an aristocrat, and together they felt as if they could take on the world. The gap between the rich and the poor sometimes affected the rich just as much as it did the poor. The two were to get married as soon as their house was finished, but strikes from the poor construction workers were prolonging that process. Julian had been suffering from insomnia all of his life, so he hired a hypnotist to help him get his sleep. He even went to the extent to build a secret underground chamber
Andrew Carnegie, the “King of Steel”, the benevolent employer, the giant of industry, was among the greatest influences of the second industrial revolution. It is sometimes questioned whether Carnegie was the ruthless, sneaky steel tyrant some made him out to be, or the generous, benevolent education benefactor he appeared to be. I believe him to be a combination of both, but more so the great giant of industry.
Edward Bellamy shows how he wants to create changes for society at the time to ensure a better future. He wrote in the nineteenth century about a boy named Julian who comes from a very well off and wealthy family. During this time period there was a huge distinction between the wealthy and the poor and many believed that there was no way that society could bridge that gap. Wealthy people thought that they were superior. After Julian is put to sleep for over one hundred years, he wakes up in Bellamy’s Utopian modern age. During Julian’s stay in the new country, he experienced the differences that Bellamy believes could change the country making it a better place for everyone both rich and poor. Bellamy is stressing the need for equality.
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.
In Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth, he asserts that while you’re young you work hard to make money and once you’ve acquired a surplus of money it’s your responsibility to give back and help others. While I can’t say that I’ve acquired a great amount of money in the last four years I have learned that you don’t need money to give back and it’s never too early to start giving back. At the end of my freshman year I went to on a trip to Detroit with my church. Of the many things we did on that trip one day we spent the whole day in a slum cleaning up the neighborhood.
People have always wondered what the future will be like. Certainly Edward Bellamy did when he wrote the novel, Looking Backward (1888). Bellamy uses a man named Mr. West as the main character in this novel. He opens by telling who he is and what his social standing is. West is a young man, around the age of 30, and is fairly wealthy. At the beginning, he tells us about his fiancé, Edith, and the house he is having trouble building for her. The trouble comes from the fact that the workers keep going on strike due to financial reasons, which prolongs the completion of the house. The biggest hint to the end of the novel comes from when he tells the reader that he suffers from insomnia. West must be put
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.
He discusses all that is wrong with the wealthy individuals and how they are spoiled. He makes his argument by revealing how wealth is disposed of, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can all be left to the families of the descendants; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administrated during their lives by its possessors” (3). The author is Andrew Carnegie and intended audience is the general public but more specifically are those of wealth and make them conscious of how surplus wealth is disposed of. This is a primary source and reveals that even though this was how the world was a decade ago, it is quite similar and not much has
Dear editor, Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth can have some valid points about things. One quote Carnegie stated is “In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will become themselves” (61-62). He is explaining how if people were to help themselves, then that’s the biggest charity there is because you won’t end up becoming or remaining poor. This in my opinion is true since you have to work hard in life to succeed and it doesn’t come easy. A second point Carnegie made was “we accept and welcome… as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves” (5-6). He is saying how we as people accept conditions to which we have to work hard for and maintain it and work with other people with that same mindset. I agree because
In the 20th century it was a time in which you could attain wealth quickly manufacturing without having capital to start off with. He believes the advantage of becoming wealthy does not lay within starting out with wealth, but with having the knowledge of what people need. His ideals derive from the certainty that opportunity is in the hands of human needs. Conwell expands on how prospects of money is in near reach of many, however, they are just unaware of it. He gives many examples of people and their experiences with wealth and poverty. Conwell spoke of many people moving to find wealth, when there was many opportunity for wealth within the city that they had lived. However, they did not know of those opportunities; again, referencing that wealth is in close connection with knowledge. Conwell concludes his speech with describing his definition of greatness. Greatness defined by Conwell is accomplishing things of significant purposes, as well as working, no matter what career, and becoming something better than where you started. He reminds the audience that they can become successful starting from where they are and being who they are, and that these circumstances don’t matter when it comes to being
In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could
The richest man in the world, in his time, was Andrew Carnegie. His story of success was truly one of rags to riches. After coming to the U.S. from Scotland as part of a working-class family, he moved from job to job, eventually becoming more influential and gaining a large sum of money. Soon he was using his wealth to contribute to many public services, such as libraries and schools. Andrew Carnegie's life and actions have left a long-standing legacy and have contributed greatly to the American way of life, particularly toward education.
intellectuals. By being transported to the "modern day," Julian West, the protagonist, is able to contrast the two societies he has lived in: the capitalistic 19th century and the utopian, socialist 20th century.
Although the gap between rich and poor during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was unquestionably large, the nation was also prospering through large economic gains. Although it may have seemed like a nation in which the rich were detached from the poor, the US was actually harvesting a new breed of self-accomplishing individuals. With the end of free labor, the US had sought a new ideology, and found it in Adam
In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith talks about international trade and subsequent government policies which became increasingly significant throughout modern history. Protectionism is the term for economic policies of restraining trade between countries when they want to protect their domestic industries from foreign competition. Trades nowadays have different forms and methods and involve more businessmen as well as consumers, which is why trade diplomats are looking to regional agreements. The US experienced two major economic declines during the 20th century, both of which had much to do with international trade. Smith mentioned tariffs in the 18th century, but the role and forms of protectionism have changed across time, so we should know whether the development of economy should actually be correlated with or decided by the political sector of the society and when protectionism will benefit or hurt economy.