Questions:
- How does Andrew Carnegie justify the contrast between thewealthy and the working poor? Provide examples.
- According to Carnegie, what is the \"proper administration ofwealth\"?
- Why would some people criticize Carnegie's proposals?
WEALTH
BY ANDREW CARNEGIE.
The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth,so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the richand poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human lifehave not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past fewhundred years. In former days there was little difference betweenthe dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and thoseof his retainers. The Indians are to-day where civilized man thenwas. When visiting the Sioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief.It was just like the others in external appearance, and even withinthe difference was trifling between it and those of the poorest ofhis braves. The contrast between the palace of the millionaire andthe cottage of the laborer with us to-day measures the change whichhas come with civilization. . . .
This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed ashighly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential for the progress ofthe race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that ishighest and best in literature and the arts, and for all therefinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so.Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor. . .
The price which society pays for the law of competition, likethe price it pays for cheap comforts and luxuries, is also great;but the advantage of this law are also greater still, for it is tothis law that we owe our wonderful material development, whichbrings improved conditions in its train. But, whether the law bebenign or not, we must say of it, as we say of the change in theconditions of men to which we have referred : It is here; we cannotevade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the lawmay 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 mustaccommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, theconcentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the handsof a few, and the law of competition between these, as being notonly beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race..
We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the bestinterests of the race are promoted, but which inevitably giveswealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist,the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The questionthen arises, --and, if the foregoing be correct, it is the onlyquestion with which we have to deal, --What is the proper mode ofadministering wealth after the laws upon which civilization isfounded have thrown it into the hands of the few ?. . .
There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can bedisposed of. It call be left to the families of the decedents; orit can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can beadministered during their lives by its possessors. Under the firstand second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reachedthe few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each ofthese modes. The first is the most injudicious. In monarchicalcountries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth areleft to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may begratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend tosucceeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this class inEurope to-day teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions. Thesuccessors have become impoverished through their follies or fromthe fall in the value of land. . . .
As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death forpublic uses, it may be said that this is only a means for thedisposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he isdead before it becomes of much good in the world. Knowledge of theresults of legacies bequeathed is not calculated to inspire thebrightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished. Thecases are not few in which the real object sought by the testatoris not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes arethwarted. In many cases the bequests are so used as to become onlymonuments of his folly . . .
There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; butin this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequaldistribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and thepoor--a reign of harmony--another ideal, differing, indeed, fromthat of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution ofexisting conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization.It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and therace is projected to put it in practice by degree whenever itpleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which thesurplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense theproperty of the many, because administered for the common good, andthis wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made amuch more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it hadbeen distributed in small sums to the people themselves. . .
This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First,to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunningdisplay or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimatewants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to considerall surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, whichhe is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter ofduty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is bestcalculated to produce the most beneficial results for thecommunity--the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent andtrustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service hissuperior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing forthem better than they would or could do for themselves.. . .
In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to helpthose who will help themselves; to provide part of the means bywhich those who desire to improve may do so; to give those whodesire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, butrarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race isimproved by alms-giving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rarecases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of therace never do, except in cases of accident or sudden change.Everyone has, of course, cases of individuals brought to his ownknowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and thesehe will not overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given bythe individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his lackof knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. He is theonly true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid theunworthy as he is to aid the worthy, and, perhaps, even more so,for in alms-giving more injury is probably done by rewarding vicethan by relieving virtue. . .
Thus is the problem of Rich and Poor to be solved. The laws ofaccumulation will be left free ; the laws of distribution free.Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but atrustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part ofthe increased wealth of the community, but administering it for thecommunity far better than it could or would have done for itself.The best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development ofthe race iii which it is clearly seen that there is no mode ofdisposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnestmen into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for thegeneral good. This day already dawns. But a little while, andalthough, without incurring the pity of their fellows, men may diesharers in great business enterprises from which their capitalcannot be or has not been withdrawn, and is left chiefly at deathfor public uses, yet the man who dies leaving behind many millionsof available wealth, which was his to administer during life, willpass away \" unwept, unhonored, and unsung,\" no matter to what useshe leaves the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as thesethe public verdict will then be : \"The man who dies thus rich diesdisgraced.\"
Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth,obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of theRich and the Poor, and to bring ' Peace on earth, among menGood-Will.\"
