The Gospel Of Wealth

“It is a waste of time to criticise the inevitable.”

This quote characterizes Carnegie as a practical man who is primarily concerned with the aspects of life he can actually impact. Carnegie’s reputation as one of the most successful industrialists and businessmen in American history is consistent with this kind of pragmatism.

“The laborer has now more comforts than the landlord had a few generations ago.”

While putting forth his support of capitalism in its current form, Carnegie does not decry the fact that there is still a divide between the poor and the rich. The divide matters less to Carnegie because the poor of his day are able to access and enjoy things and experiences that might have been considered too luxurious even for the most wealthy in times past. 

“The Socialist or Anarchist who seeks to overturn present conditions is to be regarded as attacking the foundation upon which civilization itself rests, for civilization took its start from the day that the capable, industrious workman said to his incompetent and lazy fellow, ‘If thou dost not sow, thou shalt not reap,’ and thus ended primitive Communism by separating the drones from the bees.”

Carnegie distills the history of civilization in clear and succinct terms: those who are hardworking, successful, and worthy created civilization as we know it, and those same kind of people are likely to be the most affluent in his present day. Because the most affluent people were able to make the most of their talents, it only makes sense that they take charge of their fortunes and decide themselves how best to invest back into the societies from which they came. 

“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?”

Carnegie asks this question and then answers it in the article. He offers three possible modes of administering the great wealth that belongs to the few, and only one mode can be considered the correct mode. Leaving fortunes to family members and children upon one’s death is not acceptable to Carnegie, nor is bequeathing the money to the public in one’s will; the best way to administer wealth is to do so while one is still alive, so that the funds are disseminated properly and can improve the lives of the general public.

“There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the community.”

These unspoiled sons are the exception rather than the rule, according to Carnegie. Most sons of affluent men are ruined by the wealth they inherit; they have no reason to work hard or to seek inspiration and so they falter in their privileged states and make very little of themselves. Carnegie acknowledges that some sons, however, do make the most of their inheritances and do good.

“In many cases the bequests are so used as to become only monuments of his folly.” 

Carnegie refers here to the practice of leaving one’s fortune to public use after one has died. He believes that such a practice is foolish because the funds are rarely used as effectively as they could have been, had they been managed by the donor when he was living. As well, Carnegie criticizes anyone who bequeaths money upon their deaths because doing so is hardly a gesture of generosity. This mode of leaving money is an act of convenience, more than anything, as the wealthy can’t take it with them when they go.

“By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life.”

In this passage, Carnegie chooses to interpret the government’s decision to tax heirs heavily as proof of his own argument. By placing emotional and moral meaning on a government policy, Carnegie is seeking to shame his peers into following his suggestions. This shaming tone, combined with the religious overtones of Carnegie’s title, is pressuring, revealing to the reader that Carnegie does not shy away from appearing heavy-handed when he feels strongly about an issue.

“If we consider what results flow from the Cooper Institute, for instance, to the best portion of the [human] race in New York not possessed of means, and compare these with those which would have arisen for the good of the masses from an equal sum distributed by Mr. Cooper in his lifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest form of distribution, being for work done and not for charity, we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement of the race which lie embedded in the present law of the accumulation of wealth.” 

Here, Carnegie makes his case for using one’s wealth to positive ends with the example of a public-service institution like the Cooper Institute. Carnegie follows this sentence with assumptions that claim that had Cooper chosen instead to pay his workers more money, the wages would have gone to waste, as the recipients would have surely frittered away their money on individual and petty excesses. The Cooper Institute, instead, serves the public good, so it’s a much worthier way for a wealthy man to spend his money. 

“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.” 

Carnegie includes himself in this pronoun, “they,” as he himself worked tirelessly to ensure that his own wealth went to the social causes he felt were the most important. He explains that with wealth comes power, and he implores his fellow wealth creators to exercise this power by determining how best to use the money they have earned.

“We are met here with the difficulty of determining what are moderate sums to leave to members of the family; what is modest, unostentatious living; what is the test of extravagance.” 

By acknowledging that it can be challenging to deliver on one’s responsibility to one’s own family, Carnegie relies on words like “modest” and “unostentatious” to convey a message of moderation. These words, however, like the word “extravagance,” are subjective in meaning; what might be modest to one man is another’s luxury.

“Whatever makes one conspicuous offends the canon.” 

Carnegie argues that any blatant shows of wealth for the sake of showing off are to be avoided, no matter the cause for spending. Whether it be in the form of providing one’s family with inheritances, displays of wealth via expensive objects, or even shows of generosity with donations, anything too extravagant is problematic.

“He knew nothing of the habits of this beggar; knew not the use that would be made of this money, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly.” 

A writer acquaintance of Carnegie’s gives money to a stranger without thinking critically about how the money might be spent. To Carnegie, this action is a selfish one, an action that only serves to benefit the writer, who was able to rid himself of negative feelings by offering the stranger money. It is unclear why exactly the writer believes that the money would be spent “improperly.”

“Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance.” 

Carnegie’s controversial attitude toward the less fortunate is evident in this statement, which displays his presumptuous certainty in his own beliefs about humanity. Carnegie’s rhetorical style, both here in this sentence and elsewhere in the article, finds strength in its firm tone; though statements like this one do come across as strong and firm, they may also come across as arrogant and aspiring to omniscience.