Analysis Of Andrew Carneige's The Gospel Of Wealth

Andrew carneige was a poor scottish immigrant who came to America at a young age. During the nineteenth century Carnegie helped build America's steel company. Which help a poor scottish immigrant turn into the riches man of america. Growing up being poor Carneige understood the struggle of making ends meet and it influenced his viewpoints on wealth in America. Retiring at the age of sixty-six Carneige had a lot of wealth , he decided he would become a philanthropist, someone who gave away money for good causes. In contrast, there was William Sumner who had a different take on the wealth and classes of America. Sumner grew up in America , on the East Coast and he saw things different than Andrew Carnegie. Sumner believed that the rich had

a right to their wealth. Sumner was a supporter of the theories of Social Darwinism and was a strong proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. He portrayed the rich as a class misunderstood ambitions and intentions would benefit everyone. Nevertheless, both Carnegie and Sumner had different viewpoints on the redistubution of wealth in America.
Sumner’s stance on inequality differs from that of Andrew Carnegie, who believed it was the responsibility of the rich to distribute their excess wealth for the good of society. When Carnegie sold his steel business he gave his collected fortune away to cultural, educational and scientific institutions for "the improvement of mankind." Carnegie's family was poor, him becoming a philanthropist was his way of giving back to non privileged people. That was his way of distributing wealth to good causes. Growing up in an era without free public education, he gave money to towns and cities to build more than 2,000 public libraries. He also gave $125 million to a foundation called the Carnegie Corporation to aid colleges and other Schools.
Sumner believed in social Darwinism survival of the fittest nature will eliminate the weaker people and the best will survive. So the poor people at the bottom would die off because they don't posses the resources to survive while the rich would remain strong because they have the necessary resources to maintain. “Social Darwinists like Sumner argued that social existence was a competitive struggle among individuals possessing different natural capacities and traits.” Economic competition is one aspect of this struggle, and so a policy of strict laissez-faire is necessary in order to ensure the fitness of the individuals who constitute the society. It's like playing a game , whoever makes the rules of the game of course they are going to know how to win. Sumner is arguing that interferences with laissez-faire giving charity to the weaker class to survive is messing with evolution. The weaker population can now compete with the stronger population and should not be this way. Social evolution as the outcome of competition among individuals, it prevents the weaker class for competing with the upper class.
Traditional the state existed to serve specific purposes for them. Sumner, responding to early pressure for social reform by the state, reaffirms this. All the state owes anybody is “peace, order, and the guarantees of rights” (342). As he later makes clear, “rights” refers chiefly to property rights and to a very limited notion of equal opportunity. In order to give to “classes of people who have not been able to satisfy their own desires . . . [and who] do not take their achievements as a fair measure of their [property] rights” (343
Sumner believes the The one duty of “Every man and woman” is “to take care of his or her own self” (351) Once they master fulling the private duty they are completing and fulfilling their social duty as well. In addition, perhaps they can take care of their family as well. So this whole notion of “share the wealth” that Carnegie is taking up , is not going to work . The wealth a person accumulates over his lifetime, first, is to take care himself and then be used to take care of their family not share and take care of others family. Sumner continues with saying, the state, will not interfere with the accumulation of wealth because wealth come for self labor and secure advantages. With the state inferring men would strive so hard to accumulate it if it did not secure a lifestyle with higher advantages.
Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” offers an understanding into his philanthropic philosophy that defines his legacy.

Known for his contributions he devotes his earnings to making America a better place for all to live. However, he is very strict on how these contributions should be made. He believes all disruption should be made when the millionaire is alive. That after the millionaires death his contribution does nothing to benefit the society. “The miser millionaire who hoards his wealth does less injury to society than the careless millionaire who squanders his unwisely, even if he does so under cover of the mantle of sacred charity,” (p. 32) In some degree I agree with him. What does it say when contribution is made after someone death? Personally, it says that the cause wasn't important enough and now that the millionaires dead, they try to make it seem like they care and still keep their name on the radar by donating to society. Carnegie saw wealth as something that a person had to work for, and as a constant battle to maintain. Carnegie came from a poor family and worked hard to achieve his wealth.I began to learn what poverty meant," Andrew would later write. "It was burnt into my heart then that my father had to beg for work. And then and there came the resolve that I would cure that when I got to be a man." Also he said that he felt that he was given an opportunity when he was young and felt it was his duty to give others the means to be successful as well. This is important to Carnegie as someone who does come from struggling background; he doesn’t want to see the inequalities that are created in America due to a number of many factors. He wants to see society as a whole

progress.
I do believe like Carnegie that if you are successful it is because of your own hard work, and maintaining your way of life is a constant struggle, just as sumner said nobody would work so hard if it did not pay off. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is societies place to support the ones who refuse to support themselves. it has to do with a person's morality that wants to help out less fortunate people. If you are able, you should help with providing opportunities to the less fortunate so that they can help themselves.
Notably, I found myself having concern in Carnegie’s insistence over the matter of the amount of wealth redistribution.Carnegie himself acknowledges several times the fact that nine hundred and fifty of every thousand dollars spent on charity is wasted and unwisely spent several times, calling many recipients of charity the “the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy” (pg 26) Then he continues on saying people who does give away money like himself is a lesser person and “cannot held in graceful remembrance” (pg 21). Not everybody wants to give away money they worked so hard for. Some will give a small portion but they like the power that wealth brings them giving away they view themselves as a lesser person because they have no more money. Carnegie fails to say how much wealth is proper for a wealthy individual to return to society, but it could be argued he believes all of a man’s accumulated wealth should be returned. Despite the fact , he gave so much money away to help improve less fortunate people. However, i'm pretty sure he did not give every dime away to helping people , it can be argued he gave a very generous amount away but not all. In addition, what if the philanthropist had family? How would their family survive if they were expecting the money from their family member? It would cause great conflict if all the money was donated to helping the poor and nothing left for the loved ones.
More so Carnegie believed in the power of the individual to create his own destiny through hard work. He rejected the idea of leaving money for his family, he felt that if you give too much to your children it will make them dependant on this money and unwilling to work for themselves.
Both sumner and carneigie had different views on the redisturbution of wealth, neberthless both were right. I always talked about if I got rich I would do things different from the way other celebrities do it. They waste so much money on the luxury of living , a mansions with 8 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. Theres people out her who dont have a place to sleep at night but they had all this unessscarry room that can make a difference to someone elese less fornate. What carneigie did he didnt just give all his money away he gave away towards a good cause. He gave money to build schools and libraries to help uplift the poor. Sumner on the other hand, says why help them when they dont help themselves. Let nature takes its course and elimante the weaker people.