The Gospel of Wealth

by Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie was a dedicated massively successful business man and philanthropist. After accumulating a massive fortune of 480 million in 1901 for selling his Carnegie Steel Company, Carnegie decided to give away 90% of his fortune. Carnegie's massive philanthropic efforts emphasized libraries, world peace, education and scientific research. He build Carnegie Hall and founded Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Carnegie Institution for Science, the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, the Carnegie Hero Fund and many more.

Genres: Business, Economics, Nonfiction, Finance, Philosophy, History, Classics

39 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1889

About the author

Scottish-born American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie amassed a fortune in the steel industry and donated millions of dollars for the benefit of the public.

He led the enormous expansion in the late 19th century. He built a leadership role for the British Empire. During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away $350 million (in 2011, $225 billion), almost nine-tenths, to charities, foundations, and universities. His article, proclaiming "The Gospel of Wealth," in 1889 called on the rich to use their wealth to improve society, and it stimulated a wave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_...

Reviews

[Ipsa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Andrew Carnegie, a multi-billionaire by today’s standards, wrote this alarmingly eloquent essay in 1889; and this is one of the most influential bits of philosophy I think I’ve ever read in my life! He was also, fun fact, the real life inspiration for Scrooge McDuck! Most of us have been hearing his ideas almost verbatim all our lives. The idea that the best way to help poor people is by giving them a job as a “ladder out of poverty”, that is Carnegie. The idea that socialists are just lazy and resent rich people for their success, that is Carnegie. The idea that wealth was created not by labor but by the intelligence and organization of people at the top, that’s Carnegie. The idea that “almsgiving” directly to the poor will hurt them even more, and make them more dependent, that is Carnegie. A lot of these ideas are a magnification of the ideas of the philosopher Herbert Spencer; but Carnegie updated them and more importantly, he made them seem like kindness because by most accounts, he gave away billions of dollars in today’s money and encouraged rich people to give their wealth away for public good rather than hoard it.

But who gets to decide what the public good is? Well, Carnegie does, of course! He didn’t go to the public asking about what they need; because that would’ve put them in control. He described himself as an agent of the poor, but an agent is someone who works on your behalf and who you can recall if you want to. But that isn’t what he was describing; what he is describing is technocracy- a system of government in which the most competent people have control, but they are also the people who will decide what competent means. And therefore, like Oliver Thorne said, that is a dictatorship with a brunch. I don’t care if you call it Bezos Academy or Gates Foundation, I don’t want presents from rich people, I want control over my own life!

Carnegie really believed, “Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor”. He did see the every-widening abyss between the rich and the poor, but that was alright with him because AT LEAST SOME OF US ARE BETTER THAN YOU SUCKERS NYAHAHA. There are remnants of Carnegie to be found in Ayn Rand’s “Virtue of Selfishness” as well...and that did not age well! The wealth doesn’t come from the people at the top; it comes from the people at the bottom; in spite of the clarity of the essay, it is incredibly short-sighted.

So you can shove your “benevolent billionaire” and a “trustee for the poor” charade up your butt, you charming yet insidious Scottish Duck!

[Amy Bailey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ok, so this isn't really a book and it's a bit unfair to count it as one, but I wanted to review it, so I've added it. I studied this work for a current paper I've written for my Public Library class on Andrew Carnegie's impact on public libraries in the U.S. While I think his philosophies are a bit short-sighted and I don't agree COMPLETELY with what he advocates, I think he approaches it from a good angle. Carnegie had a disdain for the wealthy people who gave to charity simply for the fact of giving, or what he termed "almsgiving." He argued that those who just dole out money without regard to where it's going or what it's used for are wasting their money. He believed the rich superior in practically all forms, especially in their capacity to know what the money should be used for. The poor, he felt, would use the money unwisely if not directed on how the funds should be used. Now, I'm not completely set on that point, but I do agree with what Carnegie did with his, and I agree that the philosophy is sound. Carnegie believed the best way to impact the world is in giving the money for the setting up of places and services for the people that belong to the people. In setting up public libraries, parks, recreation areas, and more, the poor had access to a wealth of information they wouldn't otherwise be able to enjoy. They were then free to take control of their own futures by educating themselves, cultivating intellect and moral fortitude, and thereby becoming successful human beings. This I agree with. No matter how arrogant the man seemed to be and no matter what a lousy boss he was, he certainly did a lot for America through his philanthropic endeavors. And he was successful at it. He had a great impact on Public libraries especially. Even today there are very few wealthy men who do the amount of good work that he managed to do, and for that he deserves a lot of credit. The Gospel of Wealth is fascinating to read, and I wish more wealthy people would take his viewpoint of living humbly and using their excessive wealth to do good things. Today it would be especially helpful!

[Markus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Haha guys don't develop class consciousness I'll be nice to you haha

[James Steele · Rating 1 out of 5]

(part of my series exploring what communism actually is. Full series is on my blog)

Andrew Carnegie is often portrayed as the nice robber baron. The reluctant superrich businessman conflicted about the morality of what he was doing.



Well, that’s how he is shown in the Men Who Built America. Remember that docu - series? It was produced in the wake of the Occupy Wall Street protests and is clearly aimed at them, informing the public about all the wonderful things the rich do for us, how they create jobs for everyone and they make all the things we enjoy, such as iphones and cheap clothing, and if not for them we would all live in squalor.

In the essay The Gospel of Wealth, first published in 1889, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie puts forth the following chain of logic:

1) In the beforedays, the economy was in the hands of individual craftsmen, and the result was a small quantity of poorly-made articles nobody could afford except the rich.

Formerly articles were manufactured at the domestic hearth or in small shops which formed part of the household. The master and his apprentices worked side by side, the latter living with the master, and there- fore subject to the same conditions. When these apprentices rose to be masters, there was little or no change in their mode of life, and they, in turn, educated in the same routine succeeding apprentices. There was, substantially, social equality, and even political equality, for those engaged in industrial pursuits had then little or no political voice in the State.

But the inevitable result of such a mode of manufacture was crude articles at high prices. To-day the world obtains commodities of excellent quality at prices which even the generation preceding this would have deemed incredible. In the commercial world similar causes have produced similar results, and the race is benefited thereby. The poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of life. The laborer has now more comforts than the farmer had a few generations ago. The farmer has more luxuries than the landlord had, and is more richly clad and better housed. The landlord has books and pictures rarer, and appointments more artistic, than the King could then obtain.

→ → → →

2) Some people are naturally talented in administration of things and people, and they cannot help but found businesses and get rich, and in so doing they organize the people to make luxury goods that all enjoy, even if the lowest classes must be sacrificed in the factories so the species itself can rise.

The price we pay for this salutary change is, no doubt, great. We assemble thousands of operatives in the factory, in the mine, and in the counting-house, of whom the employer can know little or nothing, and to whom the employer is little better than a myth. All intercourse between them is at an end. Rigid Castes are formed, and, as usual, mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust. Each Caste is without sympathy for the other, and ready to credit anything disparaging in regard to it. Under the law of competition, the employer of thousands is forced into the strictest economies, among which the rates paid to labor figure prominently, and often there is friction between the employer and the employed, between capital and labor, between rich and poor. Human society loses homogeneity.

The price which society pays for the law of competition, like the price it pays for cheap comforts and luxuries, is also great; but the advantages of this law are also greater still, for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train. But, whether the law be benign or not, we must say of it, as we say of the change in the conditions of men to which we have referred: It is here; we cannot evade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law may 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 must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few, and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race. Having accepted these, it follows that there must be great scope for the exercise of special ability in the merchant and in the manufacturer who has to conduct affairs upon a great scale. That this talent for organization and management is rare among men is proved by the fact that it invariably secures for its possessor enormous rewards, no matter where or under what laws or conditions. The experienced in affairs always rate the man whose services can be obtained as a partner as not only the first consideration, but such as to render the question of his capital scarcely worth considering, for such men soon create capital; while, without the special talent required, capital soon takes wings. Such men become interested in firms or corporations using millions; and estimating only simple interest to be made upon the capital invested, it is inevitable that their income must exceed their expenditures, and that they must accumulate wealth. Nor is there any middle ground which such men can occupy, because the great manufacturing or commercial concern which does not earn at least interest upon its capital soon becomes bankrupt. It must either go forward or fall behind: to stand still is impossible. It is a condition essential for its successful operation that it should be thus far profitable, and even that, in addition to interest on capital, it should make profit. It is a law, as certain as any of the others named, that men possessed of this peculiar talent for affairs, under the free play of economic forces, must, of necessity, soon be in receipt of more revenue than can be judiciously expended upon themselves; and this law is as beneficial for the race as the others.

→ → → →

3) It is pointless to give to the common person a fair wage, or even a surplus, because the average person will not know what to do with it. He will waste it on vices and subsistence living and won’t create anything for the good of mankind. The great wealth generated by industry flows into the hands of the great administrators and founders of businesses and should be managed by them because those men and women will know what to do with such wealth. They will put it to uses that benefit the species.

There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this 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 conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.

If we consider what results flow from the Cooper Institute, for instance, to the best portion of the 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. Much of this sum, if distributed in small quantities among the people, been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use, that of adding to the comforts of the home, would have yielded results for the race, as a race, at all comparable to those which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute from generation to generation. Let the advocate of violent or radical change ponder well this thought.

[...]

This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.

You really should read it for yourself. It’s not that long, and it’s not hard to understand.

This is what the rich think of us. We are incapable of doing anything ourselves. We need a rich businessman to give us things.

So what does Carnegie recommend the wealthy spend their money on within their lifetimes? Not building new roads or funding public education, but building libraries. Music halls. Private universities which only the richest of the rich can afford to attend. Public parks so the poor can sniff flowers within city limits. Certainly nothing that actually benefits the people who work for him, but places that enrich the mind and encourage the people to help themselves.

You know what would help the people help themselves? A livable wage! A 5-hour workday, three days a week, so they have time to enrich their minds! Such a thing is possible! It is only pressure from investors that pushes wages down and increases the length of the working day!

I like how Upton Sinclair mocked Carnegie’s views directly in The Jungle:

You would begin talking to some poor devil who had worked in one shop for the last thirty years, and had never been able to save a penny; who left home every morning at six o’clock, to go and tend a machine, and come back at night too tired to take his clothes off; who had never had a week’s vacation in his life, had never travelled, never had an adventure, never learned anything, never hoped anything—and when you stated to tell him about Socialism he would sniff and say, ‘I’m not interested in that—I’m an ‘Individualist.’ [...] And then he would go on to tell you that Socialism was ‘Paternalism,’ and that if it ever had its way the world would stop progressing. [...] For how many millions of such poor deluded wretches there were, whose lives had been so stunted by Capitalism that they no longer knew what freedom was! And they really thought that it was ‘Individualism’ for thousands of them to herd together and obey the orders of a steel magnate, and produce hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth for him, and then let him give them libraries; while for them to take the industry and run it to suit themselves, and build their own libraries—that would have been ‘Paternalism’!

Why should we trust these rich people with the value of our labor if all they will give us in return is a public park and a library? If people must be sickened by pollution and have their land strip-mined and ruined and their lives shortened in factories so the rest of us can enjoy the benefits of iphones and cheap clothing, maybe those businesses should not exist and we would be better off going back to true individualism, when the individual really was the economy, and individuals were masters of their own professions and didn’t have to rely on an employer for their very survival.

Craftsmen produced works of quality and beauty. They did not need the factoryowner to come along and design a machine to make those same goods in larger quantities. Quality has certainly not improved. Only quantity and waste. Capitalists did not swoop down to rescue mankind from poverty by building factories. They robbed people of their independence. People would not need charity and benevolence of the rich if they were paid a fair wage for their labor, but Carnegie's essay is self-serving, using charity as the guise to justify everything he did to his workers.

Carnegie defends employing the masses at starvation wages, for people won’t know what to do with a good wage anyway. This means Henry Ford’s notion of paying people enough to be able to afford the cars they were making really was radical, and it proved Carnegie wrong. Not that I admire Ford; he was antisemitic and a Nazi supporter, among other things.

Carnegie was wrong about all of this, and his screed is the foundation on which Ayn Rand deified the founders of industry. This is the mindset we are living under today. People more or less quote this essay when they defend the rich:

“Well, you have an iphone and refrigerator, so how can you call yourself poor? A poor person 100 years ago would love to have what you have, therefore when we let the rich man do as he pleases, he raises all of humanity.”

Would they, knowing entire communities are being poisoned and impoverished to make the chemicals and the circuit boards that make those devices work? There is a way to make them without such side-effects, but it means profit cannot be the motive. All profit does is pile the money in the hands of a tiny group, and we apparently must hope they build us a park in return for giving us cancer.

[Rubell · Rating 2 out of 5]

বইটা নিয়ে কথা বলার আগে অ্যান্ড্রু কারনেগিকে নিয়ে কিছু বলা দরকার। কারনেগির জন্ম 1835 সালে, স্কটল্যান্ডে। ছোটবেলায় ক্ষুধা ও দারিদ্র্যের সাথে লড়াই করতে হয়েছে তাঁকে। মাত্র 12 বছর বয়সে পরিবারের সাথে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে পাড়ি জমান কারনেগি। 1948 সালে একটা টেক্সটাইল মিলের শ্রমিক হিসেবে কাজ শুরু করেন, সপ্তাহে 12 ঘন্টা করে 6 দিন, বেতন 1.20 ডলার(বর্তমান মূল্যমানে 36 ডলার)।
এরপর সময়ের পরিক্রমায়, যোগ্যতা আর ভাগ্যের ছোঁয়ায় অ্যান্ড্রু কারনেগি পরিণত হন পৃথিবীর ইতিহাসের সবচেয়ে ধনীদের একজন হিসেবে। বর্তমান মূল্যমানে কারনেগির সেই সময়ের সম্পত্তির পরিমান 300$ বিলিয়নের থেকে কিছু বেশি। অর্থাৎ গুডরিডস ওয়েবসাইটের মালিক জেফ বেজোস, যিনি বর্তমান পৃথিবীর সবচেয়ে ধনী ব্যক্তি, তার সাথে আরেক শীর্ষ ধনী বিল গেটসের সম্পত্তি যোগ করলে যা হবে, সেটা কারনেগির সম্পত্তির কাছাকাছি।

অ্যান্ড্রু কারনেগি মানব সমাজের ক্ষেত্রেও বিবর্তনের survival of the fittest থিয়োরি সমর্থন করতেন। তাঁর ভাষ্যমতে, অল্প কিছু লোক বিশাল সম্পত্তির মালিক হয়, এসব তারা নিজেদের পরিশ্রম ও যোগ্যতা দিয়ে অর্জন করে। সমাজে যা কিছু সুযোগ সুবিধা আছে, সেসব পরিশ্রমী ও যোগ্য ধনীদের জন্যই আছে। অর্থাৎ যদিও অল্প কিছু মানুষ বিপুল অর্থ সম্পত্তির মালিক হয়ে পৃথিবীর অর্থনীতি নিয়ন্ত্রণ করছে, তারপরও এটা মানবজাতির ভবিষ্যতের জন্য ভালো যে যোগ্য লোকজন অর্থ সম্পদের নিয়ন্ত্রণে আছে। এতে যদিও দরিদ্রদের জন্য জীবন কঠিন হয়ে হয়ে পড়ে, কিন্তু সেটা তারা ডিজার্ভ করে, তারা বেশিরভাগ অযোগ্য, অলস; তাদের দুর্ভাগ্যের জন্য তারা নিজেরাই দায়ী।

And while the law of competition may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it ensures the survival of the fittest in every department.

হাহাহা!!! ক্লাসিক ক্যাপিটালিজম!!!

রচনাটা প্রকাশিত হয়েছিল ১৮৮৯ সালে। কমিউনিজমের চিন্তাভাবনা তখন জনপ্রিয় হতে শুরু করেছে। অ্যান্ড্রু কারনেগি কমিউনিজমের উত্থান নিয়ে কিছুটা চিন্তিত ছিলেন মনে হয়। তার কথা শ্রমিক তার শখানেক ডলার নিয়ে শান্তিতে থাকুক, মালিকও তার মিলিয়ন নিয়ে শান্তিতে থাকুক, যে যা অর্জন করেছে সে তাই নিয়ে নিরাপত্তার সাথে থাকুক।
Every man must be allowed "to sit under his own vine and fig-tree, with none to make afraid.

এত বড় ধনী মানুষটার এভাবে দুর্নাম করাটা ঠিক হচ্ছে না। এবার কারনেগির বদান্যতার কথা বলা যাক। তিনি বলছেন অযোগ্য, অলস, নেশাখোরদের দান করার চেয়ে মিলিয়ন ডলার সমুদ্রে ছুড়ে ফেলা ভালো। সাহায্য করতে হবে তাদের, যাদের উন্নতি করার ইচ্ছা আর যোগ্যতা আছে। ধনীদের উচিত হবে লাইব্রেরি প্রতিষ্ঠা করা, বিনোদনের জন্য পার্ক করা, শিল্প সাহিত্যের অগ্রগতির জন্য খরচ করা। মানুষকে রুচিশীল করে তুলতে সাহায্য করা।

ধনীরা বিলাস করে জীবন কাটাবে না, তারা সাদামাটা জীবন যাপন করে আদর্শ সৃষ্টি করবে। বিশাল সম্পত্তি রেখে কবরে যাওয়াটাকে তিনি লজ্জার মনে করেন, জীবিত থাকাকালেই তিনি শিল্প, সাহিত্যে, শান্তিতে দান করে যাওয়া কর্তব্য মনে করেন। তিনি বলছেন-

Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life.

এতক্ষণ রচনা থেকে কারনেগির ভাবনা বললাম। এবার নিজের ভাবনা বলি। কারনেগি এক ডলারের শ্রমিক থেকে বিলিয়ন ডলারের মালিক হয়েছিলেন। তাই তিনি মেধা আর পরিশ্রমের মূল্য দেন। মেধাবী ও পরিশ্রমীদের জন্য সুযোগ করে দিতে চান। লাইব্রেরি করে দিয়ে, অথবা কোন চাকরি দিয়ে। মেধাবীদের মানসিক ও শারিরীক স্বাস্থ্যের উন্নতির জন্য যা যা করা দরকার, কারনেগি বিনা পয়সায় সেসব করে দেবেন। কারনেগি সেটা করেওছিলেন, তিনি মৃত্যুর আগেই তাঁর সম্পত্তির 90 শতাংশ দান করে যান।

তাঁর দানে উপকৃত হচ্ছে মেধাবী ও পরিশ্রমী মধ্যবিত্ত শ্রেণী। কিন্তু যারা মেধাবী না, যারা জীবনের জেনেটিক লটারি জেতে নি, তাদের জন্য? তাদেরকে গণহারে অযোগ্য, অলস বলছেন কারনেগি। অথচ সেই শ্রমিকদের কায়িক পরিশ্রমে কারখানা চলছে। তাদেরকে অলস বলা ডাহা মিথ্যা কথা। তারা মাথার ঘাম পায়ে ফেলেও পুষ্টিকর খাদ্য বা স্বাস্থ্যসেবা গ্রহণ করার সামর্থ্য অর্জন করতে পারছে না। অথচ সম্পূর্ণ রচনার কোথাও এই দানবীর চিকিৎসাক্ষেত্রে ব্যয়ের কথা লেখেননি।

কারনেগির নীতি বর্তমান সময়ের বড় বড় ক্যাপিটালিস্টদেরও নীতি। তারাও শিক্ষা বা শিল্প সাহিত্যের অগ্রগতিতে অনেক দান খয়রাত করছেন। এতে লাভবান হয়ে একটা মেধাবী মধ্যবিত্ত সুশীল সমাজ গড়ে উঠছে। এরা ধনী প্রভাবশালীদের ফান্ডিং খেয়ে বেঁচে বর্তে থাকছে বলে প্রভুভক্ত প্রাণীদের মত কৃতজ্ঞ থাকছে। ভাগ্যবিড়ম্বিত শ্রমিকশ্রেণীদের নিয়ে মধ্যবিত্ত মাথা ঘামায় না, রাষ্ট্র বা ইন্ডাস্ট্রিয়ালিস্টরাও তাদের দুর্বলতার সুযোগ নেয়। আর মধ্যবিত্তরা ভাবে তারা বিজ্ঞান শিখেছে, তাদের আইকিউ ভালো, জেনেটিক লটারি তারা জিতেছে, তারা মেধা দিয়ে বিজ্ঞান, শিল্প, সাহিত্যে কনট্রিবিউট করব���, কারনেগিদের মত আলট্রা রিচরা প্রত্যক্ষ পরোক্ষভাবে তাদের সাহায্য করবে, গরিবরাও তাদের(মধ্যবিত্ত) সেবায় কাজ করে ধন্য হবে এবং এটাই হওয়া উচিত। কারনেগিদের মত প্রভাবশালীদের কারনেই এমন ক্লাসিক স্বার্থপর মধ্যবিত্ত শ্রেণি গড়ে ওঠে। সামাজিক বৈষম্য প্রকট থাকে এবং সহমর্মিতার অভাব দেখা যায়।

শিক্ষা, শিল্প, সাহিত্যের বিকাশে প্রচুর প্রচুর ব্যয় করার ব্যাপারে আমি কারনেগির সাথে একমত। কিন্তু যারা মেধাবী না, বা যাদের কর্মদক্ষতা কম- তাদেরও একটু আরামে জীবনযাপন করার অধিকার আছে। তাদের কাজের ক্ষেত্র স্বাস্থ্যকর হওয়া উচিত, উচ্চপদস্থদের সাথে শ্রমিকদের বেতনের বিশাল ব্যবধান থাকা অনুচিত। সেই বেতনে যেন আরামের সাথে শ্রমিকের মৌলিক চাহিদাগুলো (খাদ্য, বস্ত্র, বাসস্থান, চিকিৎসা,শিক্ষা) পূরণ হয়, তার নিশ্চয়তা থাকা উচিত। কারনেগি নিজেও একসময় শ্রমিক ছিলেন, তার কাজের পরিবেশও অমানবিক ছিল, অথচ তিনি শ্রমিকদের জীবনমান নিয়ে ভাবতে পারলেন না!

কারনেগির রচনাটি শ্রেণীবৈষম্য আর এলিটিজমের মত সংকীর্ণ চিন্তাধারায় পরিপূর্ণ। অথচ তিনি এমন সুরে কথাগুলো লিখেছেন যেন তিনি মানবজাতির মুক্তির সনদ রচনা করে যাচ্ছেন। নাম দিয়েছেন গসপেল অফ ওয়েলথ! কিয়েক্টাঅবস্থা!!!

[Vilmantas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great historical figure shares his opinion on past and present, rich and poor, capitalism and communism, taxation and value of public goods. He makes an extra effort in explaining the importance of duties of wealthy individuals to society.

Have to reread it in the future.

[Sofia · Rating 3 out of 5]

how to be a good capitalist if capitalism can be good at all

[Olivia Reinsel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting ideas about the distribution of wealth among the classes. One could say some views are a bit short sighted.

[James (JD) Dittes · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is more about gospel than wealth. Carnegie's gospel is this: money is best spent by the billionaires, not the government or the worker.

Over a series of four essays he lays out his case that most charitable contributions are wasted--as are the offspring of those who have worked to earn millions. Carnegie sees virtue in giving, and he highlights ways that his money has done good.

This isn't a strident book. Carnegie's social darwinism is evident, but he doesn't press his case against workers so much as against the fellow members of his class who aren't making a virtue out of their zillions of dollars.

The final section is a series of anecdotes that seem like they could have come from business school homilies.

I'm planning to use this book as the basis for a Common Core module on labor & capital. I'm planning to compare his writings with what was going on from the other side--namely with Carnegie's workers in Homestead, Pennsylvania, and with Theodore Roosevelt, the president who would ultimately bring the Gilded Age to an end.

[Jurjen Abbes · Rating 4 out of 5]

In zijn 'Evangelie der Welvaart' roept Andrew Carnegie, één van de rijkste mannen in Amerika's geschiedenis, andere miljonairs op tot filantropie. Zijn devies luidt: 'wie zo rijk sterft, sterft te schande.' In feite is dit boek een herdruk van twee eerder gepubliceerde essays. Het eerste is het minst pakkend; het is een soort verantwoording (apologie?) voor de ongelijkheden tussen arm en rijk, en waarom de allerrijksten een verantwoordelijkheid dragen jegens de rest van de maatschappij. Het tweede essay is concreter: Carnegie noemt zeven doelen die de miljonair kan ondersteunen, en legt daarbij uit hoe die een positieve werking op de samenleving kunnen hebben. Denk aan universiteiten en ziekenhuizen, maar ook parken en zwembaden.

Soms is het langdradig, en enkele punten worden herhaald. Toch is dit 'evangelie' een wijze boodschap die het delen waard is. Dat de allerrijksten van nu er een visie uit mogen putten.
Nee, laat ik dat anders zeggen. Zou ik me ooit in een situatie bevinden waarin deze wijsheid voor mij relevant is, moge ik mij er dan door laten leiden.

[Ava · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure if I actually read all of this but I want it to go towards my reading challenge

[Aspen McClain · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stupid argument for stupid people.

[Mel Foster · Rating 3 out of 5]

Listened to while washing dishes.

Carnegie's brief book is interesting. He claims the person who is rich beyond providing for moderate means for himself and his family has a social duty--if a Christian, a CHRISTIAN duty, to give the surplus in a way to benefit society. Merely giving is not good enough. As the capable person who earned the money, he has the duty to vet the project and to see it through. It is not of any moral value whatever, says Carnegie, to give money upon one's death. Not only does it manifest a grasping until the end, but it also leaves the money without the wise guidance of the capitalist who earned it, and he suggests, puts one in danger of condemnation by Christ--citing Jesus' "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Of course one of the more insoluble problems here is "how much money is moderate?"

Carnegie argues that allowing the capitalist to manage and distribute his own money is a greater good for society than for the wealth to be taken and distributed by others. In our 21st Century mindset this comes across as rather elitist. He may be right in many circumstances! But when I think of some contemporary music, sports, and acting celebrities, I'm not at all convinced this is at all a universal principle.

Carnegie points out the beneficial as well as the harmful effects that can come of giving wealth. I think this discussion is worthwhile. Charity--in the sense of giving to beggars-- is not universally an unmitigated good, if the recipient will use the gift to finance self-destructive behaviors.

[Giovanni · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Gospel of Wealth essay is a very interesting read. We tend to have the image of amassing so much wealth you fill an entire swimming pool full of cash, but Carnegie doesn't only consider that a waste, but condemns it as evil. Carnegie states how wealth is best used by giving back to the community, not through charity, but administering you wealth accordingly to enrich society. Investing your money and creating industries, allocating your wealth to enrich the mind and experiences of your neighbors. As someone who donated what amounts to approximately $9 billion (in today's dollars) and was a titan of industry, Andrew Carnegie truly embodied this philosophy. And when you look around today, you see that the wealthiest nations are those in which money is circulating, one in which anyone in the society has the opportunity to create his/her "ideal life". Certainly, not all dreams will be realized, but the movement of capital through society by means of industry and entrepreneurship do a better job of enriching the masses than giving it away through charity, government coercion, or by a system where the wealth does not leave the position of the wealthy. I highly recommend this short read.

[Christopher Lewis Kozoriz · Rating 4 out of 5]

"This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community--the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves." ~ Andrew Carnegie

Thomas Edison recorded Andrew Carnegie which can be listened at http://archive.org/details/EDIS-SRP-0.... I encourage anyone who has a taste of wealth or expecting wealth in the future to listen and take heed to Andrew Carnegie's only recorded words.

[Avesta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whilst it most certainly is a very idealistic dream of Carnegie - it does provide ample evidence in defence of our current society; the free market; higher taxation(!); competition over cooperation; and other elements of the capitalistic system. Funnily enough however, I felt a consistent tinge of socialistic ideals throughout the text - such as in favour of social mobility and taxation of the rich, and against those who hoard wealth at the expense of the poor.

Interesting quotes from the book:

The price which society pays for the law of competition, like the price it pays for cheap comforts and luxuries, is also great; but the advantage of this law are also greater still, for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train. But, whether the law be benign or not, we must say of it, as we say of the change in the conditions of men to which we have referred: It is here; we cannot evade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law may 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 must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few, and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race. Having accepted these, it follows that there must be great scope for the exercise of special ability in the merchant and in the manufacturer who has to conduct affairs upon a great scale. That this talent for organization and management is rare among men is proved by the fact that it invariably secures for its possessor enormous rewards, no matter where or under what laws or conditions. The experienced in affairs always rate the MAN whose services can be obtained as a partner as not only the first consideration, but such as to render the question of his capital scarcely worth considering, for such men soon create capital; while, without the special talent required, capital soon takes wings.

Such men become interested in firms or corporations using millions; and estimating only simple interest to be made upon the capital invested, it is inevitable that their income must exceed their expenditures, and that they must accumulate wealth. Nor is there any middle ground which such men can occupy, because the great manufacturing or commercial concern which does not earn at least interest upon its capital soon becomes bankrupt. It must either go forward or fall behind: to stand still is impossible. It is a condition essential for its successful operation that it should be thus far profitable, and even that, in addition to interest on capital, it should make profit. It is a law, as certain as any of the others named, that men possessed of this peculiar talent for affair, under the free play of economic forces, must, of necessity, soon be in receipt of more revenue than can be judiciously expended upon themselves; and this law is as beneficial for the race as the others.

We might even go so far as to take another instance, that of Mr. Tilden's bequest of five millions of dollars for a free library in the city of New York, but in referring to this one cannot help saying involuntarily, how much better if Mr. Tilden had devoted the last years of his own life to the proper administration of this immense sum; in which case neither legal contest nor any other cause of delay could have interferedwith his aims. But let us assume that Mr. Tilden's millions finally become the means of giving to this city a noble public library, where the treasures of the world contained in books will be open to all forever, without money and without price. Considering the good of that part of the race which congregates in and around Manhattan Island, would its permanent benefit have been better promoted had these millions been allowed to circulate in small sums through the hands of the masses? Even the most strenuous advocate of Communism must entertain a doubt upon this subject. Most of those who think will probably entertain no doubt whatever.

The best uses to which surplus wealth can be put have already been indicated. These who, would administer wisely must, indeed, be wise, for one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown in to the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure. A well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him as he was coming to visit the house of his friend. 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. This man professed to be a disciple of Herbert Spencer; yet the quarter-dollar given that night will probably work more injury than all the money which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity will do good. He only gratified his own feelings, saved himself from annoyance,—and this was probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life, for in all respects he is most worthy.

Unequally or unjustly, perhaps, as these laws sometimes operate, and imperfect as they appear to the Idealist, they are, nevertheless, like the highest type of man, the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished.

[Todd Cheng · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick read from 1889 on a heathy governance principle of wealth in late life. Not in this book, but at the time the richest human in the world, who comparatively was giving 5 billion dollars to universities, libraries, arts, and churches had a philosophy that you spend the first third of your life learning as much as you can, the second third earning as much as you can, and the last third giving it all away - was kicking off the last third of his life. Like Warren Buffet now, he was in that last third and thirty years before he died published his wealth governance plan. I followed this web as I read his autobiography and ‘Winners Take All’. I was interested in this ‘Gospel of Wealth’ narrative as I understand is as catalyst to following leaders of wealth.

[Craig Bolton]

Gospel of Wealth (Little Books of Wisdom (Applewood)) by Andrew Carnegie (1998)

[Tony Garay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short essay about what wealth creators should be doing with their skills in wealth accumulation. Written a century ago yet very insightful to today's world.

[Rob Pucci · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent read, whether you agree with all of its ideas or not. More folks should read this book, and then see if their world view changes.

[Jeff Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thoughtful book that everyone should read, but few will understand the message.

[Luis Bedolla · Rating 4 out of 5]

A century has passed since Carnegie wrote this, and his contribution still fits in the modern times.

[Matthew Tessnear · Rating 4 out of 5]

Carnegie’s assertions have incredibly enduring relevance more than a century later.

[Cole · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I ever get wealthy, this book is a blueprint of what I think is the correct way to help with money.

Basic lesson - give a man a fish or teach him to fish.

[Mihai Cosareanu · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't learn anything useful out of it. It was repetitive and annoying to read. Wouldn't recommend.

[Colette · Rating 1 out of 5]

very privileged dumb guy say very privileged dumb guy stuff

[Andy Chang · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic!

[Ke · Rating 4 out of 5]

RIP Andrew Carnegie, you would have loved tax write-offs.

Docking one star for the audacity.

[Jason Cao · Rating 3 out of 5]

Andrew Carnegie’s central thesis — that the rich should spend their wealth on charity — is commendable. His vision of charity, stating that “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise” is admirable as well. However, he makes various dubious claims throughout the paper that cast doubt on his philosophy.

First, he claims that inequality is an unfortunate but necessary byproduct to industrialization. Inequality, however, existed just as strongly in the pre-industrial feudal societies of nobles and serfs. Those forms of inequality were far more endemic given that they were ingrained in law and traditional hierarchies. The Industrial Revolution is what abolished these feudal hierarchies. In fact, the defining feature of capitalism is what Mises described as “mass production of goods destined for consumption by the masses.”

Most importantly, Carnegie had a highly paternalistic view of society which misinterprets the nature of capitalism. While claiming to support individualism, he uses phrases like the advancement or progress of the race, a highly collectivist mindset that brings connotations of eugenics. That mindset is undoubtedly wrong. The defining feature of capitalism is the respect for the rights and the progress of individuals, not the veneration of the vague concept of the common good over individual liberties.

Overall, while I agree with Carnegie’s main point, I disagree fundamentally with his paternalistic attitude to those of lower socioeconomic status. Ingenuity and progress in a capitalist system comes not out of the generosity of high minded wealthy individuals like him, but from the ambition and determination of all of us as individuals. We are capable of pursuing our separate interests without forceful intervention from those who believe that they are superior than us and can act in our interests better than we can.

[Conor · Rating 3 out of 5]

By today’s standards Andrew Carnegie would be a multi-billionaire, but 1889 he wrote the eloquent essay “The Gospel of Wealth” to publicly explain the purpose of his many millions and why he should get to keep them.

In the news today his points are still being repeated! That the best way to help poor people is by giving them a job as a so-called “ladder out of poverty”, that’s Carnegie. That wealth is created by CEOs and executives, the people at the top, and not baristas and warehouse workers, the people at the bottom, also Carnegie. That socialists are lazy and resentful of rich people because of their success. Carnegie. That giving money directly to the poor will hurt them and make them dependent on handouts. Still more Carnegie.

Only looking at the dollars, his views make a certain amount of sense. The more money he made, the more money he could give away; and he made it appear (and must believe) that this is a deep kindness. However, there’s sand in this engine, he alone decides what the public good is. Carnegie keeps all the power.

He didn’t ask people of New York if they wanted a concert hall, he decided they did and built it for them. This isn’t an “agent for his poorer brethren” as he describes himself, because an agent can be fired by the person who employs them. It would be more accurate to describe him as a benevolent dictator.

So I don’t care if you call it the Gates Foundation or the Patagonia Purpose Trust. I don’t want presents from billionaires. I want them to pay their taxes and have us—the people—decide how it is spent.