Analysis Of Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel Of Wealth

The main problem encountered by the Gilded Age era was the administration of wealth, at least according to Andrew Carnegie. In his piece, “The Gospel of Wealth,” he proposed a solution for the abuse of wealth, and assigned duties to the rich in regards to how they should handle the responsibilities brought on by excessive wealth. However, he also addressed the concerns of the working class. He stressed the welfares of individualism and argued that it was: contemporary and innovative, enabled the affordability of luxuries to all classes, and thus ensured that money controlled by a few people would be more effective for the prosperity of the economy than it would to equally distribute national wealth amongst citizens. Carnegie intended to clarify the reasons why the newly industrialized economy and the new administration of wealth were ultimately for the benefit and harmony of both rich and poor.

Furthermore, Carnegie explains that strict individualism is contemporary and innovative.

He does so by belittling non-capitalistic societies such as Native American societies and former United States industrialists, and deeming their ideologies antiquated. Since at this time period, Native Americans were considered to be an inferior race, it was appropriate for Carnegie to use them as an example of what they Americans should not become. He tells of how Native Americans are today where they were then, and how just now Native Americans are under economic systems in which the rich and poor share similar lifestyles. Extrapolating further, he tells of his observations upon visiting an Indian village. “The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day measures the change which had come with civilization” He describes how the cottages of the Native American leaders were in no better location nor ornamented any differently than those of the poor in the Indian

village.
Essentially, why would they follow a similar socioeconomic system to that of these lower-class people?
Also, he speaks of progress and how they’re moving forward by internalizing capitalistic ideals. Formerly, industrialist workers were similar to the Native Americans in that they lived not much differently from their employers. He stresses that, although both the worker and employer were equal then, neither had a voice in politics, so they were both at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Therefore, the capitalistic system opened doors for everyone because although society was stratified, it was a permeable hierarchy in which anyone could climb the ladder of success to go from rags to riches. Besides the price of this equality was a high price for conventional goods. “But the inevitable result of such a mode of manufacture was crude articles at high prices.” Lowering of prices with the help of the industrial revolution made luxuries affordable to all.
Additionally, a capitalist system benefitted even the poor. Since the overabundance of goods made them cheaper, the poor could afford the things that were once luxuries. “To-day the world obtains commodities of excellent quality at prices which even the generation preceding this would have deemed incredible.” Although, the laissez-faire system allowed business the exploitation of unskilled workers, subsequently allowing long hour work days and low wages for their service. In order to maximize their profits, factories hired desperate immigrant workers in need for jobs who would be willing to mass produce their goods at a low cost. These cheap laborers were “mostly poor refugees from famine, economic dislocation, and political conflict, these immigrants provided cheap labor for city-based factories, manufactories, and outwork shops, at a propitious moment for industrial entrepreneurs seeking to lower production costs.”
Despite the poor living conditions of the poor, Carnegie insisted that the prosperity of the nation encompassed the prosperity of all, for they were all in a better position than they would have been then. “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.” Thus, this socioeconomic system was more beneficial for all.
Lastly, he argues that having a small amount of people in charge of a large portion of the national wealth would be more effective than dividing the money equally amongst citizens. “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.” He assigns the wealthy the responsibility of administrating their surplus wealth for the benefit of the mass of the people. Hence, he advocates the gospel of wealth in which he assigns duties to the rich in order to use their money to make society better as a whole. In summary, he states that at death, the rich shall not leave their entire wealth up for inheritance to their children. Nor shall he leave his wealth to be seized by public service. Instead, he shall spend his money wisely for the benefit of the people. These regulations upon the rich would ensure for the justification of capitalism. Since according to Carnegie, if the rich did not comply with these rules, and chose to live an ostentatious life using their wealth for their selfish needs, the public would become aware of their mismanagement of wealth and would not be remembered as noblemen. He also reasoned that the inequality of the distribution of wealth would benefit all because these businessmen were skilled in managing money. If distributed by the rules of egalitarianism, people would waste the money for simple pleasures and the money wouldn’t be spent wisely.