Analysis Of Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel Of Wealth

Carnegie, Conwell, and Alger Advocates of Wealth for All During the late nineteenth century, a form of Social Darwinism emerged called the Gospel of Wealth also known as the Success Gospel. Social Darwinism is “Herbert Spencer’s adaptation of Charles Darwin’s concepts of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” as it applies to human society” (Nash p. 417). Social Darwinists believed that the social order was the product of the natural selection of the individuals that were best suited for the existing living conditions. These individuals were white, Anglo-Saxon, wealthy men.

Carnegie, who was a believer of Social darwinism, which was a belief held by many that stated that the rich were rich and the poor were poor due to natural selection in society. This was the basis of many people who promoted a laissez faire style of economy. He believed if you worked hard, you could be successful. He believed that a man of wealth should set modest examples and help those in need (DOC E) Carnegie donated more than 150 billion of dollars for libraries, colleges and concert halls. The high population density of the early twentieth century put pressure on fragile infrastructures and demanded insight from urban planners and politicians.

For instance, Carnegie presented his library named Carnegie Library, he considers this “the best kind of philanthropy” (Ernsberger). By this he indicates the correct way a wealthy individual should live,is by giving back to the community. On the contrary, Richard argues this as negative affect to the company due to the loss of income. Richard believes that Carnegie shouldn’t have spent his money on helping the community instead, he should have continued to invest it on the steel industry. Overall, Richard views Carnegie as “little capitalist who urged presidents to do right things in Philippines, Panama and international diplomacy [but] had never done the right or moral thing as a businessman,” (Ernsberger).

The captains of industry believed that the poor people were inferior to the rich people. The rich were superior because they had “wisdom, experience, and the ability to administer”. The duty of a rich person was to help out a poor person which was what was said in the Gospel of Wealth. The Gospel of Wealth is about how the rich person's responsibility is philanthropy. Carnegie believes in charity work so he would donate to libraries, and universities and schools and etc.

Underpinnings and Effectiveness of Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” In Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”, Carnegie proposed a system of which he thought was best to dispose of “surplus wealth” through progress of the nation. Carnegie wanted to create opportunities for people “lift themselves up” rather than directly give money to these people. This was because he considered that giving money to these people would be “improper spending”.

“To try to make the world in some way better than you found it is to have a noble motive in life.” This quote by Andrew Carnegie is a an accurate summary of the way Carnegie strived to live his life. Carnegie’s story began in Dunfermline, Scotland, in 1835, when he was born to lowly weaver Will Carnegie and his wife Margaret(“Andrew Carnegie: Pioneer.”). When Carnegie was thirteen years old, his family along with five-year-old Tom Carnegie, sold much of their belongings and sailed to America specifically Allegheny, PA. Will obtained ownership of a relative’s weaving shp after moving into the two rooms above it. Sadly, the business soon failed, puting the Carnegies in need of money once again(“Andrew Carnegie: Pioneer.”). Andrew soon joined

In the year of 1852, the industrious skill and dedication of a young twelve-year-old boy named Andrew Carnegie captivated Thomas A. Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad. 1 Awed by his diligence, Scott immediately hired and made Carnegie his personal telegrapher.2 With a “rags to riches” background that inspired others to work hard for the American Dream, Carnegie knew exactly how the less fortunate felt when they were compared to the wealthy. Noticing how society achieved social, economic, and political equality before industrialization, Carnegie shared his intake on America’s momentous shift from an agrarian society to an industrial society in the late

Carnegie thinks it is better to build public institutions than give charity to the poor because the poor need to have the “desire to improve” and find help in these public institutions. (Carnegie 30). He believes that rather wealthy “Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives” can find the proper use for their money, which is to help the community. (Carnegie 29). By just giving money to the poor the wealthy are doing all their work and instead the poor should find the assistance they need to improve their lives.

Likewise, many wealthy people, including big business leaders, came to realize that it was their role in society was to give back. Due to all the negative responses, people such as Andrew Carnegie were huge philanthropists . They stated that because they were wealthy and were better inclined than most, they should be willing to help those at the bottom. Andrew Carnegie’s, Gospel of Wealth, explicitly stated how the wealthy have a moral obligation to give back (Outside Evidence). Other major responses to changes and the impact of big business were responses from the government.

Carnegie is not a hero because he took money, only gave to other wealthy recipients, and contributed largely to his own.     Andrew Carnegie took money away from deserving people. Carnegie cut the wages of his workers to donate money elsewhere. In document D, there are two images of Carnegie, one is giving a wage cut notice to the workers and the other is giving a check to Scotland and donating a library to Pittsburg. Carnegie’s employees were working hard and trying to survive in a tough economy, their wages did not deserve a cut.

In Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth,” he argues that the affluent have a unique responsibility to help others by aiding the lower class. He does not, however, promote simply handing money to the poor. In a way, the wealthy should act paternally. He believes that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to provide

Foremost, "Wealth" written in 1889, by Andrew Carnegie, and “The Life of a Coal Miner” by John McDowell in 1992, both writers have poles apart perspective on social status and on how the economy works; share almost hardly to no comparisons in their philosophy. Carnegie 's views lay on the one base thought that no matter someone’s background they can make success for themselves, while the coal miner essay challenges that by stating “It is an endless routine of dull plodding world from nine years until death—a sort of voluntary life imprisonment. Few escape. Once they begin, they continue to live out their commonplace, low leveled existence, ignoring their daily danger, knowing nothing better.” In the past quote, he explains how the poor are always

Andrew Carnegie Once, there was a man to have the largest personal fortune in the world. He helped improve mankind by donating millions of his fortune to charity. This mastermind was named Andrew Carnegie, an industrial monopolizer who used steel to gain his massive fortune. Andrew Carnegie was born November 25, 1835 in Dunfermline, Scotland.

During the late 19th century, there was a growth in industrialization. This brought new opportunities for the poor and the rich. For example, Carnegie helped build the steel industry in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, which made him one of the richest man in the world. As Carnegie gained more wealth, he questioned who money should be given to. Carnegie was both a Robber Baron and a Captain of Industry.

Most people would define wealth as the accumulation of some sort of precious possession(s), or more specifically, just plain money. However, like most concepts, wealth can be observed differently, or it may be completely foreign, in another cultural group. In the early colonization of the New World, two cultural groups, the Northeastern Indians and the English settlers, began to interact more frequently for various purposes such as the purchasing of land. How could two seemingly different societies be able to share a large stretch of land without any conflict? Well, they did not. Their different cultural backgrounds, political structures, and languages made cultural misunderstandings, failed negotiations, and confrontations regular incidents. One of the biggest disagreements the colonists and indigenous populations consistently had was over property and wealth. Fueled by differing understandings on wealth and property, conflict ensued between the Indians and the English colonists as the two societies consistently found differences over attitudes towards land ownership and trade.