Capitalism how much labor you can extract from your

Capitalism within
America has not only benefitted our country, but the entire world; having
expanded over the globe pushing the economic boundaries of many continents, and
converting them into a 1st world country. Within these countries lie
individuals who have acquired unmatched levels of financial abundance, through
the actions of entrepreneurship and globalization. Nevertheless, when taking
into account the elitists who own such a high percentage of the global affluence,
it cannot go unnoticed that the enormous wealth gap between these few
capitalist alongside the rest of all social classes remains a predicament that
has been left disregarded in political matters for more than a century. Thus, it
has led to debates focusing on whether the current economic system is a just one.
For Example, Andrew Carnegie, in “The Gospel of Wealth” explains that the rich
have earned the right to spend their fortune as they see fit, and stated that
the rich watch over lower classes assisting them in the “proper administration
of wealth”, which in Carnegies’ eyes would lead to cooperation between echelons.
On the contrary, Karl Marx, in “The Communist Manifesto” disputes that ruling capitalist’s
act as leeches to society only wanting to selfishly enlarge profits, and
further their ambitions by exploiting their workers. Marx’s argument between
the rich and poor is more convincing than Carnegie’s notions of segregation
between classes because, Marx believes that although capitalism has brought
upon an increase in the standard of living for all partitions, at its pinnacle,
the division in society splits farther apart due to the assets one has acquired
through the exertion of others.

Through
means of subjugation and exploitation, an issue brought into the limelight in
the “The Communist Manifesto” and the “The Gospel of Wealth” would be the exposition
of labor. As time progressed, the method of producing capital boiled down, to
how much labor you can extract from your workers while paying the lowest wages
possible in order to increase profits. In “The Communist Manifesto”, Marx
states that, “The bourgeoisie is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to
assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help
letting him sink into such a state it has to feed him, instead of being fed by
him” (347). For this reason, Marx believes the bourgeoisie see the proletariat
as nothing more than an object for the method of producing financial means for
one’s own gain; ultimately, exploiting their workers for the betterment of
their company. Moreover, this can relate to Marx’s “Labor Theory of Value”, in
which the value of an assigned commodity can be eventually traced to the labor
needed to construct it. Therefore, the focus of this would be that the
principle goal of a capitalist is to accumulate the commodity of currency in a
market full of competition.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In
the primitive times of man, the rules given by nature were straightforward;
life consisted of competing for, a place to live, a mate, and finding enough
food to keep you nourished. Which, up to this day in society these rules still
apply, to a certain extent. There are many variants of competition, which
exists across the world, throughout occasions, this has brought upon more harm
than good within a society. The disputation between Marx and Carnegie on the upper
class (known as the bourgeoisie), and the lower class (known as proletariats)
are a prime example of this, these two classes fight between each other,
ranging from word of mouth to the wounding of many. According to Carnegie,
“Under the law of competition, the employers of thousands is forced into the
strictest economies, among which the rates paid to labor figure prominently,
and often there is friction between the employer and the employed, between
capital and labor, between rich and poor” (365). In essence, Carnegie believes
that an individual who is part of the bourgeoisie or, once an individual enters
the society of the bourgeoisie, is then in the hardest position of the socioeconomic
class. This contrasts distinctly with the ideas of Marx, which debates that the
main purpose of the bourgeoisie class is to immerse in capital gained through modification
of wage labor, which in turn, causes critical living conditions for the
proletariat: “The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of
the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital. …. What
the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers. Its
fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (347). Conversely,
Marx creates an image, which displays that the proletariats depended on the low
wages given by employers due to the competition for labor, thus, had
figuratively turned them into slaves of the bourgeoisie; specifically,
depriving them the enjoyment of working and the struggle for obtaining their
basic needs. The differences brought upon by these viewpoints shows how each
side faces struggles of their own, but ultimately the lower class must take the
fall in the end.

Social
classes steer the population to become separated from one another, and
consequently from themselves as well. As stated by Carnegie, “When visiting the
Sioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief. It was just like the others in
external appearance, … the difference was trifling between it and those of
the poorest of his braves. The contrast between the palace of the millionaire
and the cottage of the laborer … measures the change which has come with
civilization” (364). Carnegie observing the Native Americans, and calling them
“uncivilized” due to the unobservable differences in status  is the leading example of how socioeconomic
classes separates one from another believing that just because, an individual
does not own materialistic objects, (such as, Mansions, Cars, or Jewelry) that dictates
one wealth from the rest. On the other hand, Marx believes that when pursuing
Communism, the principle of “Alienation” which is caused by capitalism, repeals
itself. Then forth, every individual no matter status is equal to one another,
and not seen as more than a commodity for labor and capital.

Marx’s
perspective on capitalism mainly focuses on  the socioeconomic effects that industrialism
has brought about differ from Carnegie’s (Such topics as the financial wealth
one gains, the property owned, the clash between related industries, and the
ill-treatment of the Blue-Collar worker). With “The Communist Manifesto” facing
the social problems of governing within a society, meanwhile “The Gospel of
Wealth” overlooks the affairs of our economy.  While this is the case, when it came down to
matters of communal problems brought upon by the industrial era, and
the harnessing of the working population, their views would coincide with one
another. Consequently, the lower classes have and will always struggle when put
against the wealthy as they have aimed to grasp the same lifestyle as theirs. As
a result, the rich get richer, while the poor not only aim for a better income,
but also strive to seek academic and life prosperity.