Andrew Carnegie and The Gospel of Wealth

Why does Carnegie think that the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of individuals is both good and necessary? What duties do the wealthy have? Do you find Carnegie persuasive, self-serving, or both?

6 thoughts on “Andrew Carnegie and The Gospel of Wealth

  1. Mary Sackbauer

    Carnegie provides his readers with a very distinct explanation on how to best attain and distribute wealth. In The Gospel of Wealth he explains the if the rich really want to help ones need they must make a conscious effort to make change rather than just throwing money at a group or charity. If the money is simply given to the people who are begging they will never learn the true value of money or the hard work parallels it. Hard work pays off and the more that people see the hard work pay off the harder they will want to work or at least Carnegie alludes to this. Competition is necessary and so individualism. Both of these facilitate the unequal balance of society that leaves one group with every amenity they could ever possibly need and others without the slightest clue of how to move forward in the world.
    How can Carnegie believe both that the world must remain unbalanced and that people must set high goals and dream for better jobs. It seems to me that someone must do the dirty work and the difficult jobs that the benefactors are certainly not taking part in, yet Carnegie tells men to aim for the highest. In some ways it seems as if he is trying to hold society as a whole to a higher level by telling the men of the lowest tear to work towards their goals and achieve greatness. I found Carnegie to be a combination of persuasive and self serving. In many instances his writing seemed to speak to a certain audience one that has the money to make change and the possibility transform society as a whole. However at the same time in was self serving in that his speech really is not directed towards everyone. There are many who will work as hard as they can for their entire lives and will still not meet greatness or achieve certain goals.

    1. Russell Morris

      If you want to know the truth behind the
      Effects of Carnegie’s actions ( not his “beliefs” )
      You must read page 327 of The Natural Economic Order
      By Silvio Gesell. Then confront your professor
      With some questions based upon this new information
      And you will see him stumble and regrettably agree.
      Don’t stop there however, read the rest of
      The Natural Economic Order, and learn how to have
      a meaningful conversation about economics.
      Good luck friend.
      Russ

  2. Higginson Roberts

    Kevin nicely summarizes Carnegie’s stance on philanthropy and the role of the wealthy in promoting both community improvement but also notions of social mobility among the poor and working classes. I, however, find Carnegie’s argument somewhat troublesome and fraught with contradiction. It is contentious to claim such an opinion because although it is hard to argue that Carnegie’s actions and ideas have been harmful to American society; it is also however important to see in what ways has it been beneficial, and in particular, to what groups of people have benefited from such philanthropic actions. And more abstractly, what is Carnegie saying about the poor/working classes of America? While I understand Carnegie’s desire to ameliorate American poverty through education reform, public work funds, and other charity organizations, it is problematic in the way he views the role of the people who will be directly affected by his philanthropic measures. His staunch belief that philanthropy and the allocation of surplus funds is the sole role of the wealthy classes not only breaths a negative sense of “Social Darwinism”, but also undermines the intellectual capabilities of the lower classes. It is not to say that Carnegie’s intentions were bad, but by demeaning the intellect of the lower class, he is failing to understand the holistic system of philanthropy. In order for philanthropy to work at its best form, the people who are receiving the contributions must have some sort of say and position regarding the allocation of funds. Otherwise, the wealthy will continue to assist organizations and groups that support their worldview, beliefs, code of ethics, and values. Undermining the control and capability of the poor can do as much harm as good, even if the intentions were not to do so.

    1. Daniel Sundali

      Andrew Carnegie believes that it is beneficial to American Society for a few amount of wealthy people in the nation to control the surplus of wealth. Carnegie’s main argument is based off of the duty he suggests the wealthy in our nation are meant to uphold. He claims that instead of having widespread wealth, and therefore widespread spending on many different things, a few people should be in charge of making the decisions of what to do with excess wealth. This way more money will go to the institutions that Carnegie believes are important to the nation being mainly public works programs and education. While he makes a compelling argument despite being an incredibly wealthy citizen, his proposition has flaws. Even if we assume that all wealthy citizens are spending their extra money on the correct things and that public works funds, education, hospitals, parks, etc., then the system would still reverse itself. These programs would lead to increased wealth and decreased dependency for the general population, so the distribution of wealth would start to disperse. This would mean that surpluses would then not be spent (if we are still assuming Carnegie to be correct in his assumption that the general population won’t spend their excess wealth on the correct programs) in a manner that furthers this trend. We can therefore assume that if Carnegie is correct in his assumptions, the distribution of wealth is cyclical, so it doesn’t really matter who is holding wealth. I therefore do not believe that his argument of necessity is valid.

    2. Samuel Redmond

      While I agree with Higginson’s argument that Carnegie’s stance on the concentration of wealth and the philanthropic duties the wealthy is both troublesome and degrading towards the working class, I believe Carnegie recognizes the implications of his stance, and sees no better solution for the advancement of mankind, specifically in America. Carnegie is a true believer in Capitalism as a healthy catalyst for intellectual growth, and healthy competition when surplus revenue and wealth is properly allocated for others to succeed and grow. He uses the growth of productivity and material wealth of the masses in recent years to argue that capitalism is in fact a successful system for the growth of the country. If Capitalism works, then, wealth will inevitably fall into the hands of those who have proven to be determined, and successful in their field. I agree with Carnegie’s belief that the best thing for those who have succeeded in a Capitalist environment, is to use their proven judgement for the betterment of their fellow mankind through providing for education, public health, and public facilities. Because Carnegie has provided the best possible solution for the concentration of wealth within a small minority through the process of capitalism, in my opinion, it seems as if any apprehension towards Carnegie’s stance is founded in disapproval of capitalism as a whole.

  3. Kevin Liang

    Carnegie believes that the concentration of wealth in the hands of individuals is beneficial to society for several reasons. He mentions that, historically, it is in society’s best interest to have a system in which there is competition and with it the destruction of homogeneity. He states how the poor man now can afford things that even a rich man back then cannot – and this is because of the new capitalistic ideals that we have.
    He then mentions that the concentration of wealth is good because, essentially, these men can act as trustees for society. It is apparently much safer and more reliable that only a few men, rather than many, have the ability to decide how money is spent. Behind this is Carnegie’s ideas of how surplus should be dealt. He strongly disagrees with the thoughtless “charities” to men who cannot help themselves – even calling this worse than doing nothing with the money at all. Instead, he encourages the surplus to be pushed towards communal advances such as universities, libraries, parks, hospitals, etc. This is the duty of the wealthy. They must be willing to give their surpluses to the right causes and be careful to not splurge it otherwise.
    I found Carnegie’s argument agreeable, but also idealistic. I think it’s too much to expect the wealthy – even if the betting odds are higher with only a few men than many – to participate in such “good” expenditures. Carnegie’s view would be wonderful in theory, but the practicality of it requires an immense amount of trust from the poor on the rich.

Leave a Reply