Americas’ core industries. Civil rights and fundamental worker rights and opportunities
were supplanted in the name of this perverse philosophy. To resolve what might seem to
be contradictions between the creation of wealth, which Carnegie saw as proceeding from
immutable social laws, and social provision he came up with the notion of the "gospel of
wealth". True to his word, he gave away his fortune to socially beneficial projects, most
famously by funding libraries. However, this ideology did not reach the working poor
who, through their backbreaking labor, had made him very wealthy. He in fact broke
unions at his plants and unlike Samuel Jones did very little to assist the working poor.
This essay was written at a time when the masses were in the beginning of up rise. The
poor were very dissatisfied with their substandard existence and the lack of opportunities
to rise out of their conditions. While the essay has some noble ideas regarding the
betterment of society its fundamental ethic still seems to attempt to substantiate the caste
system of society that was prevalent during the 1800’s. In other words, the premise is that
this system of competition that enables a select few to achieve great wealth was simply
the result of natural progression. Here lies the fundamental flaw in this ideology and as
such served to cause more damage than good. After all, what good comes of donating
millions of dollars to build libraries when the majority of the masses are too busy etching
out a meager existence by working for slave wages and having to work extraordinarily
long hours. These people for the most part could not even read.
Carnegie saw himself as a hero of working people, yet he crushed their unions. The
richest man in the world, he railed against privilege. A generous philanthropist, he
slashed the wages of the workers who made him rich. By this time, Carnegie was an
established, successful millionaire. He was a great philanthropist, donating over $350
million dollars to public causes, opening libraries, money for teachers, and funds to
support peace. In the end, he gave away about 90% of his own money to various causes.
He also preached to others to do the same as in giving money for education and sciences.
The problem, however, was that there was such a contrast between the rich and the poor.
By this he was referring to the inequalities in rights, hereditary powers, and such things.
He also felt we should have a continuum of forward progress, i.e. civilizing,
industrializing.
During this era there was a movement to drift back into a time when there was little
advance in modernizing and technologically advancing; when "neither master nor servant
was as well situated." This proves that the direction the U.S. took until now was, in fact,
the right path since the goal was already in progress. He has to argue and prove that
through forward motion all of these problems of social difference, that the poor would
also advance with the times, thus diminishing the difference slowly but surely. As the
rich get richer they bring up the standard and, in effect, the poor with them as the
economy grows. The government comes up with a way to run money that is suited to be
in the best interest of the most possible people. In the end, however, the majority of the
wealth made in this new system is going only to a few people.
Since the wealth inevitably goes to a concentrated amount of people in the best possible
set of circumstances, the question is what to do with the money in order to best serve the
general public. So what can a man do with the excess wealth he has amassed? His money
is not just for "competence," but rather surplus money. There are three solutions that
Carnegie gives for this. The first includes leaving one's money to his family or his oldest
son, a common practice in Western Europe. This is a bad idea according to Carnegie,
because one cannot duplicate the styles and strategies of another no matter how hard he
tries. A son can make mistakes and lose his fortune or he can lose it "from the fall in the
value of land." It has also been proven that it is not good for the state for a son to take his
father's place as a leader. He could mean that the son has been given all of these treasures
from birth and does not appreciate what he is getting. He also may not be sensitive to all
that is necessary in the processes of development. Another way one could dispose of
surplus wealth is to have all the money earned be spent by the one who earns it. But
spending frivolously just because one can isn't exactly the best trait; one should live in
modesty.
One other way Carnegie suggests the money could be distributed would be to donate it to
public services. This is the one he personally preferred because it serves the most good to
most amount of people possible. It is therefore not detrimental to the value of money to
others, and is enjoyed by he who earned it - a very fair way of disposal. The objective,
however, he wished to achieve may not be achieved after he's gone because he can't
oversee the operation of the distribution, and there's nothing he could do about it then.
Taxing the hoards of wealth obtained by a recently deceased man is a great way of giving
back to the community what was taken over the years. It also condemns the lifestyle of
the "selfish millionaire's unworthy life." (Nash 610 : 3) This helps make men deal with
the distribution of their money while they're still alive, with the intent that the best
possible solution would be achieved and finding the way that would be "most fruitful for
the people." There is only one solution which pleases both rich and poor and works out
best for everyone. This idea differs from communistic ideals of spreading wealth evenly
throughout, at all times, and doesn't require an overthrow of the government, rather an
"evolution of existing conditions." The idea is that each individual work for himself in
attaining wealth , each man fighting for his place, creating competition. In the end, there
will still be a concentration of wealth in a few, but they will spread their wealth to the
masses through public services, thus benefiting all, instead of money coming to all people
in small increments as suggested by communistic ideas. This appealed to the people
especially in the concept of anti-communism sprinkled in Carnegie's document. This also
gives concrete evidence proving U.S. superiority in understanding their nation's needs.
Finally, there are specific duties the rich must do in order to maintain the balance. The
wealthy must be modest in their ways. They must provide modestly for those dependent
on them and should think and administer their money in the best possible manner to
benefit the most possible people. We trust in this wealthy man because he obviously
became wealthy through superior wisdom. However, this caste system in the end does
little to advance the overall welfare of the people. Social Darwinism is a faulty premise
and therefore does little to benefit mankind.