Gospel of Wealth Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that ‘The Gospel of Wealth’ happens to be one of the most profound writings of the 19th Century. This is more so the case owing to the timeless relevance of the subject matter. However, before delving deeper into this great piece of writing, it would be prudent to first familiarize ourselves with Andrew Carnegie, the author of the said text. In brief, Carnegie was a steel tycoon who later on embraced philanthropy after having made a fortune in the steel industry. Before his death, Carnegie had given away millions to charitable causes. On this front, therefore, we could come to the conclusion that Carnegie was uniquely qualified to delve into the subject of philanthropy – which is exactly what he did in this popular piece of writing.

In basic terms, the piece largely advances the ideal or notion of distributing one’s wealth back to the society prior to exiting this planet. To a large extent, Carnegie summarized the whole subject matter of the essay in one of the quotes therein: “the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” In essence, he argued that an individual’s extra wealth should be assigned a trust fund whose administration ought to be inclined towards the wellbeing of the society. It is important to note that extra wealth is on this front used to indicate any personal wealth over and above what a family or household would require to fulfill its needs. This particular assertion appears to be a departure from the generally held viewpoint that wealth ought to be passed down generations. It is clear from the essay that Carnegie was deeply disturbed by the great divide between the wealthy (i.e. those who had amassed and decided to hoard great fortunes) and the poor. It is for this reason that he suggested that wealth be administered in efforts to bridge this gap. Indeed, in his essay, he was against the notion of wasteful utilization of wealth or resources – i.e. in terms of imprudent indulgence or extravagance. For instance, in his opinion, it was inappropriate and inconsiderate for wealth persons to be merely focused on the collection of private treasures. He was clearly in favor of a modest lifestyle.

According to Carnegie, the disposition wealth could take three routes. The first route happens to be that embraced by most families, i.e. bequeathing an entire fortune to the decedent’s family. On the other hand, wealth could also be left to the state. This would essentially mean that the said wealth is used for the advancement of certain public goals of relevance to the government of the day. According to Carnegie, the first two options were favored by most. Third, wealth could also be assigned to meaningful purposes – in line with the wants and wishes of the possessor of such wealth – during the said possessor’s lifetime. Carnegie was clearly in favor of this last option.

In seeking to reinforce his assertions, and further advance his notion of giving and philanthropic ideals, Carnegie points out that it is not uncommon for great wealth to be amassed only to be squandered latter on by heirs apparent. His concern is as true today as it was at the time of his writing of this particular essay. As a matter of fact, from time to time, one comes across a piece in the media about squandered fortunes, i.e. where heirs have largely wasted a significant portion of what was bequeathed to them by living a carefree highlife. Thus, in line with Carnegie’s assertions, there is indeed a slim chance of heirs growing and nurturing great fortunes that have been left behind. For this reason, trust funds appear to be the most ideal path in matters revolving around the best utilization of extra wealth. However, in the event that that a wealthy individual hold unto his wealth until his demise, Carnegie appears to be in favor of state apprehension of the said wealth in a scale that could be deemed progressive. In this case, Carnegie is categorical that wealthy persons who are determined to hold onto their wealth, “the proper use of which for - public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share”

To a large extent, in this particular essay, Carnegie makes it clear that he is not a fan of assignment of a fortunes to a charitable organization. In this case, Carnegie argues that there are no guarantees whatsoever that such an organization would be prudent in its assignment of donated funds, i.e. by ensuring that a fortune is assigned to a cause that the giver would be in favor of. This is more so the case owing to the fact that in some instances, funds could be allocated to causes that do not have any long-term impact on the poor. For instance, in my opinion, establishing a free meals program for disadvantaged members of the society would only help solve a short-term concern and largely perpetuate the root cause of the inability of the said persons to feed themselves. Thus, a better approach, in line with Carnegie’s point of view, would be equipping the said disadvantaged persons with skills, abilities, and tools to make a living and fend for themselves. According to Carnegie, a failed model of giving would be that which does not seek to uplift the poor and instead keeps them stuck in poverty. He is, thus, in favor of a model that is not merely inclined towards consumption but that which is designed to promote or enhance productivity.

In addition to giving away, and the relevance of philanthropy, The Gospel of Wealth also contains some nuggets of wisdom on wealth creation. For instance, a keen reader would make an observation to the effect that wealth creation is driven by the ideals of perseverance and hard work. This essentially means that persons who are lazy and possess the inability to live disciplined lifestyles are unlikely to accumulate any meaningful wealth to give away in the first place.