People who make themselves wealthy sometimes make others better off as well, and it's possible to view the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Stanford types much more positively than I suggested in lecture. With Andrew Carnegie especially, it's easy to view him more positively than I do. Please read through Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth. How does reading this affect your general impression of Carnegie? Does it make you more sympathetic or not?
Friday, May 22, 2026
Carnegie: The Gospel of Wealth
People who make themselves wealthy sometimes make others better off as well, and it's possible to view the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Stanford types much more positively than I suggested in lecture. With Andrew Carnegie especially, it's easy to view him more positively than I do. Please read through Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth. How does reading this affect your general impression of Carnegie? Does it make you more sympathetic or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth,” my feelings about him became highly mixed. On the one hand, there is much that can be easily understood, or even sympathized with, given the times in which he was writing, particularly during the Gilded Age. He was strongly opposed to dynastic wealth, considered fortunes to be trust funds for the common people, and favored extremely heavy taxes on estates. These facts alone seem to indicate a very socially conscious individual who was deeply committed to helping others.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the text exposes a patronizing, Social Darwinist elitism that makes him much harder to sympathize with. Carnegie fundamentally believes that extreme wealth inequality is not only inevitable but “highly beneficial” for the progress of civilization. The rationale behind his desire for wealth concentration among the few, however, is very paternalistic indeed, as he regards the millionaire as a “trustee for his poorer brethren” because the rich have a “superior wisdom” to determine what the rest need, rather than letting them do so. Ultimately, Carnegie stops being a flat historical caricature of a “robber baron” and becomes a much more fascinating contradiction: a man genuinely driven by a duty to humanity, yet entirely blinded by the aristocratic assumption that the working class couldn’t be trusted to manage their own futures.
-Kelly Mayo
As I was reading "The Gospel of Wealth" I was a little confused. However, his view on the wealthy man providing for those lesser than him makes sense regarding the time period. This view of only a few wealthy men "controling" the public was more common and accepted during the 1800s and early 1900s. That still doesn't make some of his talking points ok in my opinion. He says "There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes: but in this way we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor-a reign of harmony-another ideal, differing, indeed from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing condition". In short this line states that in order for equal wealth and to improve the current economical state a communistic approach is needed. This would be done by using the wealthy citizens money for public amenities. But, that the use of this money can only be done if few have the money. That way there is a larger acumulation of it and fewer voices to retaliate. I don't love Carnegies approach here as it makes out for few money holders/decision makers with everyone else at their mercy.
ReplyDeleteCarnegie addresses how wealth should be distributed in his writings in "The Gospel of Wealth," however, I do not necessarily agree with everything he states. One thing that stands out is that he believes only a few should hold the power of wealth, which to me is disingenuous. I also do not agree that upon death there should be additional taxation. Let's be real, we are taxed over and over again on the same money and property. This limits our ability to improve our families due to continually paying property taxes, sales taxes on everything we purchase, and excise taxes on top of the sales taxes we have already paid on business materials purchased. The monies he made were taxed already, then you impose a death tax on top of those taxes already paid? That doesn't seem like the American dream.
ReplyDeleteI will admit that he did do a lot of good in regard to the schools and libraries he afforded existence and that those entities provided opportunities to those that otherwise would not have had them. I believe he may have had ulterior motives to provide those opportunities such as name recognition and more power possibly. It's possible that my opinion regarding this comes from my lack of trust in people to actually do good because it's the right thing to do and not because it gives them recognition for their great sacrifices.
Ultimately, kudos to him for the good he did, but he'd have to convince me that he didn't have ulterior motives in his generosity and obviously, he is unable to do that.
In my opinion reading and hearing the lecture of Carnegie makes me feel like he is just like the rest of them greedy, wanting never ending wealth and power and willing to take it by any means necessary. Reading The Gospel of Wealth almost gives me the opposite feeling. It seems like he has success guilt. Like he realized that maybe some of the things that he did were not always on the up and up. Then he realizes that he needs to do good by the negative choices he made in life. Sure, take care of your wife and daughters and if you are so inclined, your sons. Take care of others that aren’t as fortunate. The other clear note I took from it is don’t just give it to the government, in the way of taxes and such. He did what he could to spread his help to as many people as he could in the form of schools and libraries. I like to think I have been slightly touched by this generosity as the city I live in (Moline, Il) has a Carnegie library that I used to go to as a kid.
ReplyDeleteI really do believe Carnegie was a good man, and The Gospel of Wealth only adds to that. I see other responses to this blog talking about how the lecture made him seem evil. I do not have that impression. While he was ruthless, I got the impression that of the big tycoons of his day, he was one of the best. This reading even further accentuates that. I am not an expert on the man, but if he really lived Iike he outlined in The Gospel of Wealth, then he was a good man. Yes, he was ruthless in business, but him giving the money he made away would do far more good than making one man richer. While he isn't the best, most generous person who has ever lived, I do respect him, for caring about others in a time when nobody seemed to.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Andrew Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth," I am somewhat more sympathetic toward him. Carnegie argues that great wealth can benefit society when it is used responsibly. Instead of leaving large fortunes to family members or waiting until death to donate money, he believed wealthy individuals should actively use their resources to improve society during their lifetimes. I can appreciate his belief that the wealthy have a responsibility to support education, libraries, and other public institutions that help people improve their lives.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not completely agree with Carnegie's perspective. While he presents philanthropy as a solution to inequality, he also suggests that wealthy individuals are better equipped to decide how money should be used than ordinary people. This idea can seem paternalistic because it assumes that the rich know what is best for everyone else. In addition, Carnegie's argument does not fully address the difficult working conditions and economic inequalities that helped create these large fortunes in the first place.
Overall, reading "The Gospel of Wealth" makes me view Carnegie more positively because he saw wealth as a responsibility rather than simply a privilege. His commitment to giving back to society is admirable, but I still think it is important to consider both the benefits of his philanthropy and the conditions under which his wealth was accumulated.
Reading Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth makes me somewhat more sympathetic toward him. He believed that wealthy people had a responsibility to give back to society and use their money to help others. His support for libraries, education, and even higher taxes on large inheritances shows that he wanted his wealth to benefit the public.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still have some concerns. Carnegie believed that rich people were better qualified than ordinary people to decide how money should be spent. This can seem arrogant, and he accepted the large gap between rich and poor as a normal part of society.
The reading improves my opinion of Carnegie because he tried to use his wealth for the common good. However, I do not completely agree with his belief that the wealthy should have so much control over helping society.
This reading leaves me a little back and forth on my opinion of Carnegie. It makes me want to like him since he basically says that it is the rich's responsibility to pour that money back into the economy, and into society. Even in today's time, that is a concept that a lot of wealthy people don't live by. Most wealthy people are a lot more selfish with their money, and believe that it should only belong to them and their family. So for this, I can appreciate Carnegie's point of view. However, he also says some things in this reading that didn't really sit well with me. He basically claims that rich and wealthy people are the only ones who know what's best for society. He even goes so far to claim that the rich are a trustee for their "poorer brethren." Because of this, I'm really torn on how I genuinely feel about Carnegie. In one hand, I really was blown away about his opinion that the rich should use their success to help society, and to help others, but on the other hand, I completely disagree with the idea that rich people are smarter and better than poor people. Overall, I really don't know how I feel about him. I guess depending on the topic of conversation I can either agree with him and support him, or I can completely disagree with him, and despise him.
ReplyDeleteThis reading left me with the thoughts that Carnegie knows he is a wealthy person and is high above others, but that he also believes that his wealth should be put towards better things than himself. In the beginning, he stated that the gap between the wealthy and poor was needed. This set me off a little, but once he explained it, I ever so slowly started to understand where he might be coming from. He doesn't really like the idea of leaving all your wealth to your children or holding on to it until your death. He believed that the best thing one could do with their wealth was to give it back while you are still breathing and able to. The best ways to give back are simple things like giving back to libraries, schools, etc. Overall, I think that he has the right idea when it comes to sharing one's wealth with others, but I also think there are way too few people like him, so it doesn't seem realistic.
ReplyDeleteThe positive is that Carnegie saw wealth as an obligation and he felt that his wealth had to be shared with others. He funded libraries and schools. He also realized that capitalism had big inequalities. Reading the essay I was not completely sympathetic. He accepted inequality as inevitable and desirable. He assumed that the rich people are better equipped and the ordinary people, and that the rich should do how the funds are used.
ReplyDeleteThroughout learning more about Carnegie (The lecture *and* "Gospel of Wealth"), I noticed just how morally gray he is.
ReplyDeleteHe found himself giving to the ordinary person, which I approve of personally. He kind of was a "Robin Hood" so to say, and gave back; however, the interpretation I'm getting of him thinking that economic inequalities were "necessary" in society makes me a tiny bit less sympathetic. The only thing actually separating the rich versus the poor is merely income (sure, some may argue luck, work ethics, etc., but on the most bare-bones of ideas, it is income for this).
I do have to mention, though, that he wasn't hoarding his money. To me, out of the prominent people within his time period in history, he's the least evil arguably. He very well could have been a Cornelius Vanderbilt (who I may be bias with my dislike towards), but he didn't; instead of dying with riches to spend only on his own family, Carnegie gave back in the form of libraries, schools, etc. He very well could have been worse. That isn't to say, though, that he's good.
Ultimately, my opinion on Carnegie remains right on the fence. I can see why people think he's a good guy, and why people think he's a bad guy. I feel incredibly neutral about this person to the point that it astounds me.
After reading the "Gospel of Wealth" I continue to have mixed emotions about Carnegie. I admire that he wants to share his wealth with others, and that he was a hard worker in his childhood allowing him to buy into the business, however I don't believe he is much different than the other rich businessmen in this time. I understand that the business industry needs competition to thrive, however, he was dirty in the way that he rose to the top by sabotaging Duquesne. Like I said, I do appreciate that he gave his wealth to ordinary people through schools and libraries, but then he thinks that economic inequalities were necessary, which makes me very skeptical of him.
ReplyDeleteReading The Gospel of Wealth makes me more sympathetic to Andrew Carnegie because it shows that he believed wealthy people had a responsibility to give back to society. He argued that rich individuals should use their money to fund things like libraries, schools, and other opportunities that help people improve their lives. However, it does not completely change my opinion of him because he built much of his wealth through difficult working conditions and labor conflicts, including the Homestead Strike. Overall, I see Carnegie as a complex person whose philanthropy benefited many people, even though some of his business practices remain controversial.
ReplyDelete- Jake Merchlewitz
DeleteReading The Gospel of Wealth makes me more sympathetic to Andrew Carnegie because it shows that he believed wealthy people had a responsibility to give back to society. He argued that rich individuals should use their money to fund things like libraries, schools, and other opportunities that help people improve their lives. However, it does not completely change my opinion of him because he built much of his wealth through difficult working conditions and labor conflicts, including the Homestead Strike. Overall, I see Carnegie as a complex person whose philanthropy benefited many people, even though some of his business practices remain controversial. (PT2 accidently did anonymous for name.)
ReplyDeleteWhen hearing the last name "Carnegie" I instantly think of Carnegie Hall, the famous concert venue in downtown New York. Prior to this course and reading the "Gospel of Wealth" I did not know who actually funded that project and who "Carnegie" was. Now after reading the gospel of wealth it shows true that Andrew Carnegie was a man who believed in continuing the practice of reading and general arts.
ReplyDeleteI respect his acknowledgement of the lifestyle disparities in the rich and poor and his views on the ultra-wealthy. The only problem I find with Carnegie's mindset is that it is unrealistic in the modern age. The ultra-rich often appear to give back while still holding a level of greed for their money. What I find in most rich individuals that enough is never enough. They work so hard for what they have, but soon realize that the money was never what they desired. In truth they were chasing a feeling or process that got them to that point. Overall, this passage made me sympathetic towards Carnegie, especially because morals like these are hard to find today.