Andrew Carnegie’s The Gospel of Wealth

The Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie

In the article “The Gospel of Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie, one of the most industrious and philanthropic people in the United States in the 1800s, argued that the best way to have dealt with the class inequality between the poor and the rich was through the thoughtful, and responsible administration of wealth. In his argument, he argued that it was the duty of the few individuals who had amassed great fortunes to give back to the masses through well-calculated means.

Carnegie insisted that charitable giving to the unworthy could only prolong or even worsen their conditions. Instead, he suggested that, establishing or administering their charitable portions of wealth in ways that inspired or helped those willing to have improved their lives among the masses to do so. In this case, he said it would not only improve the community but also leave a lasting legacy. By critically analyzing Carnegie’s article, he articulated his thesis well giving credible examples to support his philanthropic claim while still not refuting the need for individualism and the law of competition.

Social Stratification and Civilization

In his article, Carnegie stipulated that social stratification was a change that had been brought about by civilization. According to him, initially, all people were equal with no special nor demeaning standards applying to the masters and their servants respectively. He showed this through his illustration of past enterprises where servants learned and perfected their skills under the guidance of their masters living together and almost being part of one household (Carnegie 553). This was the routine trend that formed the basis of most industries and professions before civilization brought about the differences between the poor and the rich. However, Carnegie saw this as a positive change which could only be embraced and made beneficial. He added that the civilization had brought, along with it, a revolution of how the manufacture of things was now carried out enhancing reduced prices, improved quality and surplus production (Carnegie 554).

Capitalism and Individualism

Carnegie viewed capitalism with a lot of optimism and saw in it an opportunity for the smarted and most talented individuals to amass wealth as well as providing the solution to the same problem it was causing in the society. In his view, the price paid by the society due to the law of competition is less in comparison to the advantage it brought forth (Carnegie 555). Carnegie insisted that, despite the law being hard for individuals by pushing for the survival for the fittest, it was essential for the society since it ensured material development as well as opportunities for the people through employment and growth. Having thrived during the time of industrial revolution and dominated the steel industry in the late 1800s, Carnegie trusted that capitalism was the answer to the then widening gap between the rich and the poor, only if man did not only work for his own good but also for the good of others (Carnegie 556). Having owned one of that time’s largest monopolies, Carnegie believed that men like him owned the responsibility of distributing their wealth for the long-term benefit of the society during their lifetime.

Carnegie’s Support for Capitalism

Carnegie further supported individualism, private property ownership, the law of competition, and accumulation of wealth as the greatest fruits of human experience and the best that humanity had ever achieved. To him, these seemed as incentive for human beings to be more productive. He added that, instead of working hard to destroy the concepts, it would have been better to change the practical aspects to accomplish the favorable and more productive fruits from the same (Carnegie 557). In this case, he argued that the society could only accept the conditions brought about by civilization with only a few people having possessed wealth which he termed as competence that everybody should aim to attain. Nasaw (240) inferred that during the 1800s Monopolies were worse than slavery and were tools used by the rich to continue getting richer. This brought a perception that Carnegie’s support for greed was a way of protecting his vast empire. However, he was not impressed by the vast inequality.

The Administration of Wealth

Having asserted the role of the wealthy to the society, Carnegie analyzed the different modes of wealth distribution that were practiced, analyzing each with how it impacted personal legacy and societal benefit. The first was by leaving it to the family or hereditary to either the first-born son or division among children. Carnegie (557) argued that this caused more harm than good to the recipients. He termed it as misguided affection, and the recipients would soon drift to poverty if not educated on how to earn their own wealth (Carnegie 558). Carnegie did not believe that the heredity of wealth would translate to the continuity of the same without the knowledge of making it. The second mode was leaving the wealth for public use after death, which Carnegie claimed would never be held in grateful remembrance by the society. According to him, such a mode of wealth distribution could be equated to the lack of will to help, citing that if one waited to die for his wealth to improve his society, he would as well have chosen to go with it had it been possible. In regards to this mode, Carnegie applauded the imposition of tax by the governments on vast estates and amassed wealth left by the dead (Carnegie 559). He added that this would also have discouraged the selfish hoarding of wealth by the rich.

The Role of the Wealthy

The third and, in this case, Carnegie’s main proposition to end intense class stratification and elevate one’s society; was the thoughtful distribution of wealth by the rich through the hands of a few people, to establish institutions and facilities that would have been useful in improving the general condition of the people (Carnegie 660). Carnegie linked this mode to individualism in which the accumulated property would then be utilized for the growth and common good of the society. Basically, this would have enhanced the development of the society in ways that it would never have. Moreover, Carnegie insisted that this mode was better than the distribution of wealth in smaller amounts to many people, for instance through the increase of wages. To support his claims, Carnegie gave the example of the Cooper Institute by Mr. Cooper, which would have been utilized by many more generations as opposed to the wages he had paid during his lifetime. His second example was the free library constructed by Mr. Tilden, whose impact would be felt forever by those who seek the treasures in its books (Carnegie 561). Similarly, and true to his own article’s words, in 1901, Carnegie sold his steel business to the US Steel Corporation and embarked on a new journey of helping the society for the remaining part of his life. He built libraries, made donations, built schools, created a foundation, and engaged in other charitable activities across the US (Nasaw 244).

Conclusion

Carnegie’s article vindicated the laws of accumulation and individualism. It also solved the question of inequality between the poor and the rich by making the wealthy trustees of the poor. Through the article, Carnegie effectively supported his thesis that inequality between the poor and the rich would have been best dealt with through responsible administration of wealth by those who had the ability to accumulate it in surplus. Additionally, he was against almsgiving and extravagance, which he termed as vices not to be practiced by the wealthy. His proper use of valid examples enhanced the practicability of his claims too.

Works Cited

Carnegie, Andrew. “Wealth.”North American Review (1889): 653-662. Document.

Nasaw, David. Andrew carnegie. New York: Penguin Books, 2014. Document.