Within a society there is always a separation of people, there is no denying that. Carnegie called the people in this separation the fittest of men and the men who needed to be taken care of by them. Marx called them the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In discussing how these two authors envisioned and poverty I will discuss this separation, the tangible and intangibility of being wealthy while including insight from the Tanner painting, The Thankful

Poor (Jacobus p. 438) and my own perception.

Carnegie believed that there was a fittest man, a superior man in a society. Jacobus

(2013) states, “[Carnergie] felt that there were superior people (he said “men” who were indeed the fittest in any economy and who deserved to profit from a laissez-faire economy and to rise in society” (p. 482) and that, “the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could for themselves” (Jacobus p. 493).

Carnegie believed that there would be men higher in society than others and that these men needed to take care of the less fortunate. I do believe that there are people who have natural talents that help them achieve more or are more capable or educated, they may even work harder but I don’t agree that they should be the “agent and trustee” for the poor. People need to be given the chance to build their own future, build their own character. There is more to life than wealth as with the Tanner painting, when I see the painting and think of the topic I think that the man worked hard for what he has and that has value.

Marx talked about the bourgeoisie, “those who own property” and the proletariat, “those who owned nothing but whose work produced wealth.” (Jacobus p. 454) Marx said that the bourgeoisie was the oppressing class (Jacobus p. 466) in a society. He stated that in order to keep a group oppressed the ruling class of a society must “continue its slavish existence” (Jacobus p. 466) and he believed that, “the abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeoise freedom is undoubtedly aimed at” (Jacobus p. 469). I do not agree that our society today would benefit from abolishing all that the bourgeois have. The painting is a good example of this, I don’t believe people at the table would be more grateful if they had more “stuff”.

The tangible and the intangiblity of wealth are precarious things. Marx believed in eliminating personal property and Carnegie believed in the wealthy giving back through and charity but while the wealthy controlled it. Life is about the people learning their own lessons, learning to cope with what we have. I do not believe personal property should be given up and I do believe that everyone should give charity. I’m sure the man and the boy in the painting would not mind being given an extra chicken or bag of potatoes from a neighbor or have a local student in high school come by and tutor the boy.

I have talked about wealth and poverty from the points of view of , Karl

Marx and from by perspective. I have also shared insight from the Tanner painting, The Thankful

Poor. I believe we have left with a sense of what the authors envisioned as their separation of people in a society who have wealth and those who do not. We also discussed tangible and intangibility of wealth and how it is important within society today.

Works Citied

Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. Jacobus, L (2013) A World of Ideas: Essential

Readings for College Writers. Bedford: Boston, MA.

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. Jacobus, L (2013) A World of Ideas: Essential Readings

for College Writers. Bedford: Boston, MA.

Jacobus, L. (2013) A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers.

Bedford: Boston, MA