How did the advocates of industrial capitalism and Marxist socialism view human nature and define the purpose of the state?

Advocates of industrial capitalism and of Marxist socialism in the nineteenth century differed considerably in how they thought of human nature and thus consequently how they thought of the purpose of the state. Both groups took a view of human nature which tended to accept a myth of progress, i.e. that humanity was improving over time, as opposed to the narrative of decline we find in ancient works such as Hesiod, Gilgamesh, and the Bible, in which humanity is seen as having fallen from an idyllic state. Instead, both Marxists and capitalists were fundamentally optimists who saw humanity as moving from barbarism to a more benign form of civilization, through a combination of cultural and technological progress. Where they differ is how to achieve this goal and the role of government in getting there.

Industrial capitalists in this period believed that humans varied tremendously in natural ability. They were sometimes literal Calvinists, such as Adam Smith who was a Presbyterian minister, and at other times often presented almost a secularized version of predestination as grounds for their understanding of the dramatic inequalities of wealth in their society. While many were active supporters of the Reform bills and tended to belong to the Whig party, they believed that inequalities were due to artificial obstacles placed in the way of success by government and custom, and saw the most fair system as one in which people were allowed to achieve as much or as little as their own individual skills and drive merited.

Marxists tended to view people as more strongly shaped by their external circumstances and environment than did capitalists. Rather than thinking that anyone could become a billionaire, regardless of their environment or upbringing, Marxists felt that much of the course of people's lives was determined by external factors. Thus their social and political programs focused on having the government actively create conditions favorable to the success of people from all backgrounds. They saw the minimalist government structures advocated by wealthy industrialists as simply propagating inequality.