Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of leadership
Role Of Leadership To Society
Defining the role of leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of leadership
Andrew Carnegie was not only an outstanding industrialist, but also a great philanthropist. In the excerpt from page 105, Carnegie is stating that an end to Individualism would result in a revolution not an evolution because it is changing human nature itself, and there would be no way to know if it would even be a change for the better. This excerpt was one trying to convey a communist utopia; a policy of working for the better of each other, not just for the individual alone.
This concept of ending Individualism and beginning one class of people, is one that arises with each leader (especially communist) trying to change a society during this period of history. I don’t believe, however, that Andrew Carnegie was trying to become a leader or begin a revolution. He was strictly stating his opinions on wealth and in turn giving that wealth away. Carnegie was a man of many contradictions. He was the wealthiest human being of all time, and he was convinced of the value of poverty in developing character.
In Carnegie’s later life, I believe he had realized his selfishness with his wealth and felt the need to give it away. In the excerpt, I feel he was assessing his own situation of wealth and was trying to encourage the rest of mankind to not live the type of life he had experienced. He stated, “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…” I sense that the reason he made this statement was to encourage mankind to give away their wealth and not hold it for their own possession. Carnegie felt that society should work together instead of individually.
In many ways I agree with his statement, but I don’t feel that this is a feasible concept. Individualism is something I wouldn’t want taken away from me because I wouldn’t be able to have that constant desire to better myself.
Carnegie understands the flaws with the law of competition, stating that their is often friction between the rich and the poor. He acknowledges that the law may be hard for individuals, but in the long run it will benefit the race. He continues that the competition of industrial and commercial are more than beneficial but will allow progress of society. He suggests that the wealthy can use their wisdom and experience and help set an example for those without guidance. Carnegie endorses the wealthy allow their surplus of wealth to be given to improve their community. He states that the riches passing through the hands of a few can be more beneficial than if the wealth distributed and was given directly to the
Andrew Carnegie, the monopolist of the steel industry, was one of the worst of the Robber Barons. Like the others, he was full of contradictions and tried to bring peace to the world, but only caused conflicts and took away the jobs of many factory workers. Carnegie Steel, his company, was a main supplier of steel to the railroad industry. Working together, Carnegie and Vanderbilt had created an industrial machine so powerful, that nothing stood in its path. This is much similar to how Microsoft has monopolized the computer software
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
Even though these men attempted to build a stable foundation for America to grow on, their negative aspects dramatically outweighed the positive. Even though Andrew Carnegie donated his fortunes to charity, he only acquired the money through unjustifiable actions. As these industrialists continued to monopolize companies through illegal actions, plutocracy- government controlled by the wealthy, took control of the Constitution. Sequentially, they used their power to prevent controls by state legislatures. These circumstances effect the way one
Also, they both understand the importance of the competition of man and how it affects wealth and poverty. The reasoning that can attribute to their similarities and differences is their profession. Carnegie is a renowned industrialist known for his steel industry. Being an industrialist he understands the importance of contribution to society which is why he propagates the significance of the wealthy helping the poor. On the other hand, Sumner was a “professor of political economy at Yale University” (textbook, 488), and his profession correlates to why he advocates the idea that social darwinism can positively affect a capitalist
Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller: Captains of industry, or robber barons? True, Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller may have been the most influential businessmen of the 19th century, but was the way they conducted business proper? To fully answer this question, we must look at the following: First understand how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller changed the market of their industries. Second, look at the similarities and differences in how both men achieved dominance.
This idea of Social Darwinism gave the robber barons of society the justification for their hostile behavior towards their workers. Andrew Carnegie tried to make the gospel of wealth by arguing that the duty of someone with power and a lot of money was to put advancement into the society such as libraries. John D. Rockefeller also used this idea and gave away some of his wealth to education as well. However, many socialists, promoting fair distribution of wealth, tried to write books, which were very popular and best sellers at the time to address the social development issue of the economy. The factory workers had no opportunity to gain the independence and advancement of their social class.
...interpretations of their assumption of millions of dollars. Due to their appropriation of godlike fortunes, and numerous contributions to American society, they simultaneously displayed qualities of both aforementioned labels. Therefore, whether it be Vanderbilt’s greed, Rockefeller’s philanthropy, or Carnegie’s social Darwinist world view, such men were, quite unarguably, concurrently forces of immense good and evil: building up the modern American economy, through monopolistic trusts and exploitative measures, all the while developing unprecedented affluence. Simply, the captains of late 19th century industry were neither wholly “robber barons” or “industrial statesmen”, but rather both, as they proved to be indifferent to their “lesser man” in their quests for profit, while also helping to organize industry and ultimately, greatly improve modern American society.
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland in 1835. His father, Will, was a weaver and a follower of Chartism, a popular movement of the British working class that called for the masses to vote and to run for Parliament in order to help improve conditions for workers. The exposure to such political beliefs and his family's poverty made a lasting impression on young Andrew and played a significant role in his life after his family immigrated to the United States in 1848. Andrew Carnegie amassed wealth in the steel industry after immigrating from Scotland as a boy. He came from a poor family and had little formal education.
Carnegie did not believe in spending his money on frivolous things, instead he gave most of his fortune back to special projects that helped the public, such as libraries, schools and recreation. Carnegie believes that industries have helped both the rich and the poor. He supports Social Darwinism. The talented and smart businessmen rose to the top. He acknowledges the large gap between the rich and the poor and offers a solution. In Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, he states, “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” (25). He believes the rich should not spend money foolishly or pass it down to their sons, but they should put it back into society. They should provide supervised opportunities for the poor to improve themselves. The rich man should know “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise- free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind” (Carnegie p. 28). Also, Carnegie does not agree they should turn to Communism to redistribute wealth. Individuals should have the right to their earnings. Corporations should be allowed to act as it please with little to no government
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…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’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
Andrew Carnegie stated that the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth and his opinion precisely reflects the real situation. Because it can be observed throughout history of human beings that usually majority was in such poverty, which barely enables them to survive. Carnegie was one of the richest men in the world of his times and maybe he knew as a successful businessman what the actual problem in distribution of wealth is. He has proposed possible solution of beneficial wealth distribution for this problem and it actually might work in his times. However, economy has changed compared with Carnegie’s times and it has become more global as lots of technological innovations were implemented. Robert Reich described current global economy in his work titled “Why the rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer” where Carnegie’s solution may not properly work. The Carnegie’s solution may not properly work taking into account the obstacles such as increase of competition, permanent work in business and ageing population. Nevertheless, this means that only possibility of success of solution decreases, therefore it is not sensible to infer that the solution will not work at all.
In “Approaching Abjection,” Kristeva addresses many key elements that create the abject condition. An important key element is that the abject is “neither subject nor object” as it is not a physical thing that can be seen, touched, etc.
Better communication will help in carrying the information to specific individual based on the organization needs and this would make employees feel that their opinions are appreciated along with the...