Henry George and Andrew Carnegie - Essay Example

Henry George and Andrew Carnegie Henry George was born in Philadelphia on September 2, 1839. He is known to be a very famous political economist whose theories are still well accepted all over the world. He started as a common man but later turned out to successfully write on his theories to help people understand his views on wealth and equality (Henry & Wenzer XIII). Andrew Carnegie was born on November 25, 1835 in Dunfermline, Scotland. Carnegie started from the scratch as a worker to reach a very high position of owning a steel mill in the United States of America. He personally had his own theories regarding wealth and equality too which he later on made public in his book (Edge 11, 82). This essay will revolve around the two important figures and would develop an argument as to who had a better perspective about the concepts of wealth and equality with regard to the general public. Henry George had visited a lot of places to become a democrat and develop views against the corruption that was prevalent in a government set up. He closely analyzed the situation of poverty in the different cities of the world. He finally came to the conclusion that industrial capitalism was a ground reality which was increasing the poverty in the world. It was during his early times that the rail roads and tractors were coming as new technologies. But as he reviews in his book these new technologies were of no good to the poor community as they did not up heave the status of the poor communities (Henry 1). He rather saw all these new technologies as an act of deception to put the poor communities in a bitter turmoil where they could not avoid the overall situation. In his belief it was the material progress which was the primary reason of poverty and hence he was against industrial capitalism as a whole. Henry George believed that poverty is being caused because the rich people are becoming richer every passing day. He gives an example of labor and rich people altogether to prove his point in the book that he had written. A rich individual can possibly inherit monetary goods from his lineage which can be easily served in terms of a good and healthy life whereas a poor individual would not inherit anything and would be serving as a laborer. In the same context he believes that if this laborer stops working then the rich individual cannot survive at all (Henry 43). In totality Henry tries to prove that the wealthy do not deserve being rich as they are not contributing enough for the people who are poor. Henry puts forward that the wealth in the world is increasing but despite that the poverty is also increasing simultaneously. He emphasizes that in order to eliminate inequality from the world it is necessary that strict measures are taken in accordance to the distribution of wealth. He states that “we must make land common property” (Henry 180). By this he means that a general value tax should be imposed on land and not on the production/texture of the land. He indirectly believed that wealth should be distributed in such a way that everyone benefits from it. On the other hand Andrew Carnegie was also an important character in history who had his own views regarding wealth and inequality. He believed that wealth is something that should only be with people who have control over it and are deserving. He thought that the equal distribution of wealth can be harmful to the society and the creators of wealth should be the one leading it in the society. He puts it in these words “Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who have had the ability and energy to produce it” (Burlingame 4). Carnegie was always of the belief that the laborer and a millionaire has a difference in their stature only because the civilization is dependent upon this difference. It can be clearly seen that Henry George and Carnegie were different in these opinions about wealth. Carnegie believes that only the wealthy should be controlling the wealth of the world whereas Henry believed that it should be equally divided amongst all the people so that inequality and poverty would be eliminated. Carnegie has his own view point with regard to the distribution of wealth as he believed that the proper administration of wealth in this world is necessary or the world would rather be in a turmoil because of equal distribution of wealth. A sense of power is emphasized by Carnegie so as to show that the wealthy people are the ones who can impose control over the poor ones (Burlingame 4). Although Carnegie debated about inequality as a weapon for the development of civilization, several examples can be taken from the history to prove him wrong in his concept. The Pullman Strike in 1894 can be taken as an example in which the workers went against George Pullman. He had created a residential area for his employees so that he could create his own monopoly to decide the wages of the employee. George Pullman had created an environment for the employees where they could not protest against the low wages. As the demand for the cars went low it was decided that the wages of the labor were to be decreased even further. Eugene Debs was the individual who came to the help of these workers and hence the strike started. The strike however was not successful as the government interfered and federal troops were sent to cut down the strike. Eugene Debs along with three members was arrested for initiating the strike. This example clearly shows that the wealthy was controlling the whole situation but the wealth was not distributed properly as a conflict began (Beik 79-81). Pullman Strike is an example of the society itself as put forward by Henry George as the wealthy are controlling the money in the world. But this can clearly create a situation of conflict in the world. Thus the point of Carnegie with regard to inequality can be denied after reviewing the whole situation that took place during the strike. Another incident can also be highlighted here to show the brutality of the individuals who are holding up wealth. The Ludlow Massacre of 1914 was an incident in which many innocent lives were killed by the state militia. The coal mines of Rockefeller were in danger as the miners were going on a strike. It was at this point that the company hired the strike breaking agency known as Baldwin Felts. These strike breakers used lethal techniques to kill the strikers including killing of women and children (Martelle 56, 62). The strike ended when the state militia killed around 20-25 people in the camp. This incident also goes against the argument of Carnegie as the wealthy individuals cannot control wealth and rather disrupt the whole situation of equality in the state. The debate clearly shows that in order to eradicate poverty the arguments given by Henry George were more applicable and practical than those of Carnegie. Carnegie always believed that the wealthy should administer wealth to the poor individuals but this has happened over the years in the history of the world and has resulted in many catastrophes. It can be said that the value tax idea of Henry George should be put into practice into many parts of the world to see if equality does persist in the world with the help of this solution. In the world today the wealthy people are becoming wealthy but the poor individuals are still on the same track as they are not getting enough from their counterparts. Conclusion It can be clearly seen that Carnegie had his own points in discussing poverty and wealth whereas Henry George had his own economic concepts when putting them into practice. However the theories given by Carnegie have been denied by the incidents mentioned above. Pullman Strike and Ludlow Massaccre could have been avoided if the wealthy individuals distributed wealth in accordance to the needs of the people. However on the other hand the question also stands as to if the theories put forward by Henry George would be applicable enough to alleviate poverty in the modern days. If wealth is equally administered in terms of the theories of Henry George it might prove to be better than the incidents that have occurred in the past. The implications of the theories cannot be confirmed yet though as they would only be known when put into practice. In the conclusion it can be said that the views of Andrew Carnegie are clearly wrong as the wealthy individuals do not administer wealth effectively as they should. Works Cited Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Beik, Mildred A. Labor Relations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005. Print. Burlingame, Dwight. The Responsibilities of Wealth. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press, 1992. Internet resource. Edge, Laura B. Andrew Carnegie. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Co, 2004. Print. George, Henry, and Kenneth C. Wenzer. Henry George: Collected Journalistic Writings. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, 2003. Print. George, Henry. Progress and Poverty. New York: Published for the Classics Club by W.J. Black, 1942. Print. Martelle, Scott. Blood Passion: The Ludlow Massacre and Class War in the American West. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2007. Print. Read More