The Gospel of Wealth

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO CARNEGIE
********************************************************************************


Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth" (1889)
History of the American Working Classes
******************************************************************************
Andrew Carnegie's 1889 essay, "Wealth, " argued for a broad social and cultural role for fellow
industrialists. It later became famous under the name, "The Gospel of Wealth."




We accept and welcome... 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.

Objections to the foundations upon which society is based are not in order because the
condition of the race is better with these than it has been with any others which have been tried. of
the effect of any new substitutes proposed, we cannot be sure. 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. One who studies this
subject will soon be brought face to face with the conclusion that upon the sacredness of property
civilization itself depends - the right of the laborer to his $100 in the savings bank, and equally the
legal right of the millionaire to his millions.

To those who propose to substitute Communism for this intense individualism the answer,
therefore, is: The race has tried that. All progress from that barbarous day to the present time has
resulted from its displacement. Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of
wealth by those who have the ability and energy that produce it. But even if we admit for a
moment that it might be better for the race to discard its present foundation, individualism - that it
is a nobler ideal that man should labor, not for himself alone but in and for a brotherhood of his
fellows and share with them all in common, realizing Swedenborg's idea of heaven, where, as he
says, the angels derive their happiness, not from laboring for self but for each other - even admit
all this, and a sufficient answer is: This is not evolution, but revolution.

It necessitates the changing of human nature itself - a work of aeons, even if it were good to
change it, which we cannot know. It is not practicable in our day or in our age. Even if desirable
theoretically, it belongs to another and long-succeeding sociological stratum. Our duty is with
what is practicable now; with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to
waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably or possibly accomplish is
to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of
good fruit under existing circumstances.

We might as well urge the destruction of the highest existing type of man because he failed to
reach our ideal as to favor the destruction of individualism, private property, the law of
accumulation of wealth, and the law of competition; for these are the highest results of human
experience, the soil in which society so far has produced the best fruit. 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.

We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are
promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they
exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then arises - and, if the
foregoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal - 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? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be
understood that fortunes are here spoken of not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the
returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This is
not wealth but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire.

There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of It can be left to the
families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be
administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the
wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider
each of these modes.

The first is the most injudicious. In monarchical countries, the estates and the greatest portion
of the wealth are left to the first son that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought
that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this
class in Europe today teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions. The successors have become
impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land. Even in Great Britain the
strict law of entail has been found inadequate to maintain the status of an hereditary class. Its soil
is rapidly passing into the hands of the stranger. Under republican institutions the division of
property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful
men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from
affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well
for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing
for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if
any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums
bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will
soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such
bequests are an improper use of their means. It is not suggested that men who have failed to
educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. lf any man has seen fit to
rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in
them the sentiment that they are in a position to labor for public ends without reference to
pecuniary considerations, then, of course, the duty of the parent is to see that such are provided
for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich,
still perform great services in the community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as,
unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the exception but the rule that men must regard, and,
looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must
shortly say, “would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar," and admit to himself
that it is not the welfare of the children but family pride which inspires these enormous legacies.

As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is
only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before
it becomes of much good in the world. Knowledge of the results of legacies bequeathed is not
calculated to inspire the brightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished. The
cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few
in which his real wishes are thwarted. In many cases the bequests are so used as to become only
monuments of his folly.

It is well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less ability than that which acquired
the wealth to use it so as to be really beneficial to the community. Besides this, it may fairly be
said that no man is to be extolled for doing what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by
the community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who leave vast sums in this way may
fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all had they been able to take it with them.
The memories of such cannot be held in grateful remembrance, for there is no grace in their gifts.
It is not to be wondered at that such bequests seem so generally to lack the blessing.
The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering
indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The state of Pennsylvania now
takes subject to some exceptions--one -tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget
presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death duties; and, most
significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. of all forms of taxation, this seems the
wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public
ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form
of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the
state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set
bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the
agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon
moderate sums to dependents and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until, of the
millionaire's hoard as of Shylock's, at least
- - - The other half
Comes to the privy coffer of the state.

This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of
wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by
far most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of
enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to
leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention, and,
indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from their
fortunes.

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.

Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life; narrow our horizon; our best work most
imperfect; but rich men should be thankful for one inestimable boon. 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 dignity their own lives. The highest life is probably
to be reached, not by such imitation of the life of Christ as Count Tolstoi gives us but, while
animated by Christ's spirit, by recognizing the changed conditions of this age and adopting modes
of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions under which we live; still laboring for
the good of our fellows, which was the essence of his life and teaching, but laboring in a different
manner.

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 sum 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....

In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves;
to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who
desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither the
individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare
cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do, except in cases of
accident or sudden change. Everyone has, of course, cases of individuals brought to his own
knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and these he will not overlook. But
the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his
lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. He is the only true reformer who is
as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy, and, perhaps, even
more so, for in almsgiving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving
virtue....

Thus is the problem of rich and poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left flee;
the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee
for the poor; entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community,
but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself. The
best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it is clearly seen
that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into
whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good.

This day already dawns. But a little while, and although, without incurring the pity of their
fellows, men may die sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or
has not been withdrawn, and is left chiefly at death for public uses, yet the man who dies leaving
behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away
“unwept, unhonored, and unsung," no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot
take with him. of such as these the public verdict will then be: ~~The man who dies thus rich dies
disgraced."

Such, in my opinion, is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some
day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring “Peace on earth, among men
goodwill."