DOCUMENT 18–4: Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth

Reading the American Past: Printed Page 52

DOCUMENT 18–4

Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth

Gilded Age critics argued that the concentration of wealth in the bank accounts of the rich robbed workers of just compensation and gave the few too much power. Andrew Carnegie, one of the nation's leading industrialists and among the richest Americans of the era, defended the concentration of wealth. In an article published in 1889 — the source of the following selection — Carnegie declared that the wealthy knew best how to use their riches for the public welfare.

Wealth, 1889

The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and those of his retainers. The Indians are today where civilized man then was. ... The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day measures the change which has come with civilization. This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential, for the progress of the race that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, — and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor. ... The “good old times” were not good old times. Neither master nor servant was as well situated then as to-day. A relapse to old conditions would be disastrous to both — not the least so to him who serves — and would sweep away civilization with it. But whether the change be for good or ill, it is upon us, beyond our power to alter, and, therefore, to be accepted and made the best of. It is a waste of time to criticize the inevitable.

It is easy to see how the change has come. ... In the manufacture of products we have the whole story. ... Formerly, articles were manufactured at the domestic hearth, or in small shops which formed part of the household. The master and his apprentices worked side by side, the latter living with the master, and therefore subject to the same conditions. When these apprentices rose to be masters, there was little or no change in their mode of life, and they, in turn, educated succeeding apprentices in the same routine. There was, substantially, social equality, and even political equality, for those engaged in industrial pursuits had then little or no voice in the State.

The inevitable result of such a mode of manufacture was crude articles at high prices. To-day the world obtains commodities of excellent quality at prices which even the preceding generation would have deemed incredible. ... The poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of life. The laborer has now more comforts than the farmer had a few generations ago. The farmer has more luxuries than the landlord had, and is more richly clad and better housed. The landlord has books and pictures rarer and appointments more artistic than the king could then obtain.

The price we pay for this salutary change is, no doubt, great. We assemble thousands of operatives in the factory, and in the mine, of whom the employer can know little or nothing, and to whom he is little better than a myth. All intercourse between them is at an end. Rigid castes are formed, and, as usual, mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust. Each caste is without sympathy with the other, and ready to credit anything disparaging in regard to it. Under the law of competition, the employer of thousands is forced into the strictest economies, among which the rates paid to labor figure prominently, and often there is friction between the employer and the employed, between capital and labor, between rich and poor. Human society loses homogeneity.

The price which society pays for the law of competition, like the price it pays for cheap comforts and luxuries, is also great; but the advantages of this law are also greater still than its cost — for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train. But, whether the law be benign or not, we must say of it, as we say of the change in the conditions of men to which we have referred: It is here; we cannot evade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department. We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environments; the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few; and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential to the future progress of the race. ...

What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This is not wealth, but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire, and which it is for the best interests of society should be acquired. ...

There remains ... only one mode of using great fortunes; ... in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor — a reign of harmony. ... It is founded upon the present most intense Individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal State, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the many, because administered for the common good; and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among themselves in trifling amounts through the course of many years. ...

Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life, narrow our horizon, our best work most imperfect; but rich men should be thankful for one inestimable boon. They have it in their power during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives. The highest life is probably to be reached, not by such imitation of the life of Christ as Count Tolstoi gives us, but, while animated by Christ's spirit, by recognizing the changed conditions of this age, and adopting modes of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions under which we live, still laboring for the good of our fellows, which was the essence of his life and teaching, but laboring in a different manner.

This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: To set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community — the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves. ...

[O]ne of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that nine hundred and fifty dollars is unwisely spent — so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it hopes to mitigate or cure. ...

[T]he best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise — free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste; and public institutions of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people; in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good.

Thus is the problem of rich and poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free, the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor, intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself. ...

Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring “Peace on earth, among men good will.”

From Andrew Carnegie, “Wealth,” North American Review (1889).

Questions for Reading and Discussion

Question

Hh9iJARgIqxHQl8s/iisKSEq6hWJz6WocgSH4Tz6eKo43c5rNU0sBPqiGKjdBZoPIUzqs7vWH2L00HLcR7LKxCfU/yOKqFgO7H/AKgm1u/qbM3zcTTSnUpfIY89I7RdVr1q0nSOP+EhotWJXXWB2eDa3eSex3AUYbyCJ0GXnd7wGenZDqIG4oqatYnE9DFmbcCdEB0NRW5yakkRO

Question

AL+h7lzKcNNDuzVcGpIcmhmo1HPuWkDO+kHl62Z+DAX+269iEM9hBEyt1S+lF8xhRvCpr78oZv0yCDCJZdlvN9Zm0ZsnD6b19KteCNnGwwqAYZ84AEg20CPCJiEuhvpeLme5Qd0F4vEhaFPbKDwW/x45cAnrJ6JHvElFcaJhL83tD/TJ/tRSdjoen5K0GHPP8yuKhkpURw4konxEc+FB0g==

Question

AHw0QsmtZtaGcTwYpbEbn4uAttC57etHmW7T0AFgzXPP2fKTAl2pi5iz4VNMgA4e2PihHuSeaqCmDSXZAF979f2tkkbVlwJYEEybdCjTXMFUpoVLFizR3RLtLcYtyXdCQsciIpzMAI56pCVCyynK5Y3HHANEFyQGaiduXbGG16U/L9zhMOibSFwKGUpHN/mZK2Y+bLOqmnpWO0EQV7wkGaI5EerX3GOlo4ivRasfxfHAwaxl

Question

mOoDJ37sjjt/kFAJ5vWtghLf1C7uyRX+OYwXNql8QVTy04vs9Y7zbnXNc0LYenxULwk9wczGmOAd2rUHfCTNxHY8dlQUN8AvzZ8Uq/CSpYOFl8c36x1aSuf1Dnu3frWG+eKjpsZDPdRNlpCrY6m9JaN1hSGWUtIIAQs5YamUeIyG11I/xJUrImweMi3uV9swkyPGFzF7GldiPn+V