Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gomper have different takes when it comes to the role that wealthy people should have in society. The two authors have opposed feelings toward the poor people being in the state of condition that they are in. Although their views are different what they are proposing in both documents can help the poor people. Carnegie’s The Gospel of Wealth focus more on what the wealthy people should do with their wealth to benefit the society.
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.
In this composition, he addressed that the three ways for wealth to be distributed are give it to the family, use it for public service, or to administer it throughout the life of the possessor. (Wealth and Its Uses 31) He later goes on to explain that, “The only mode of producing lasting good by giving large sums of money is from the millionaire to give as close attention to its distribution during his life as he did to its acquisition” (Wealth and Its Uses 31). From all the uses that he listed, it is clear that he believed most strongly in giving large sums of money for the people. Carnegie used dedication and strategical thinking to build a fortune and use it to help others.
Carnegie could have discussed the reservations the poor had about the ability of some to become rich through industrialization and how they felt about his Gospel of Wealth. Did the poor really want money from the rich, who had control of many forces throughout the nation? Carnegie fails to provide a bias opinion on the divide between the rich and the poor because he is no longer poor. He expresses the faults in the wealthy hoarding their money for themselves, but continues to believe the wealthy should exist. The classifications of rich and poor also goes against Carnegie’s belief that the American society was changing into something new, when in reality they were adopting some of the old colonial ways like
He was already elderly and had a contempt for the law. He was used to getting his way and the addition of more wealth only made his self important attitude worse. He was universally an unemphatic individual placing the acquisition of wealth far above any other individual. Andrew Carnegie, the steel baron, was a Scottish immigrant who worked his way to the top. He was the master of Vertical Integration, owning all aspects of his industry from mining to selling the product.
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.
Document 4 states that all wealthy men have given enough importance to the middle class, that they even have established jobs for them. Well I say that Andrew Carnegie believed in social Darwinism and therefore would not do anything to justify his richness and to help the less privileged. His steel production may have opened up new job opportunities but the jobs were a living hell and so I say that the working conditions for workers in the U.S. were horrible and Andrew Carnegie only supported himself and wanted to look good so he offered jobs in his factory, which were bad.
The distribution of wealth has always been a conflict of interest between those in an industrial society. Many times, we find the all the poor being grouped as oppressed, and all the rich being grouped as oppressive. But this is not the most accurate way of thinking. We see Andrew Carnegie as part of the rich being grouped as oppressive, or a villain. Given the fact that he saw his success in the height of the American Era of Industrialization, Carnegie got a lot of backlash for the issues surrounding the poor that worked for him.
Carnegie was without a doubt a beneficent man. Not having any desire to kick the bucket with a crazy measure of cash, Carnegie chose to help general society. He was exceptionally contributing individual from society and gave away as much cash conceivable. " There stays, then, just a single method of utilizing incredible fortunes; … The obligation of the man of riches (is to) set a case of unobtrusive … living … ; and … to consider every surplus income … as trust assets … to create the most useful consequences of the group - the man of riches in this way turning into the … operator for his poorer brethren, conveying to their administration his prevalent astuteness, experience, and capacity to direct; showing improvement over they would or could accomplish for themselves… " (Document 8) says Carnegie.
In document B, we can see an article that Carnegie himself wrote, in June of 1889, where he states “(why should a man) wait until he is dead before he becomes of much good in the world?” He shows here not only his desire to help the world before he dies, but his aspiration that others do the same. He also expresses in the same article “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” He again here exemplifies his want for the wealthy to do good for communities with their finances. These pieces of evidence show Carnegie not only wanted to make sure he was giving back, but that other affluent people were
(Document 3) Andrew Carnegie was obsessed with his money and focused on keeping that money from dropping. He made many great purchases and donations, but could not even help his workers. His worker's wages were not only low, but their suffering was high. Andrew Carnegie was blinded by his riches, is a selfish man, and is truly a cruel fanatic for
What he did was give money to organizations, but not to the community who actually needed it. “The duty of the man of wealth is to set an example of modest living” (Document M). This says that all rich people should try and hide the money they have but, not all do that. Many people, like Carnegie, who are rich will flaunt it and not care what others say. That is not being moral or having integrity.
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”.
One of the many Gospel of Wealth advocates was Andrew Carnegie, 1835-1919, who was an industrialist who emigrated from Scotland to American in 1848 (Wall, ANBO). Carnegie’s “Wealth” written in 1889
He believed that if the wealthy don't give back some of their profits to the community, they are living a dishonorable life, and although I didn't necessarily agree with this radical viewpoint at first, I now am a firm believer in Carnegie's argument about wealth.
