gospel of wealth

1"The Gospel of Wealth" (1889)1Andrew CarnegieThe problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, that the ties of brotherhoodmay still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human lifehave not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former daysthere was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief andthose of his retainers. The Indians are to-day where civilized man then was. When visiting theSioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief. It was like the others in external appearance, andeven within the difference was trifling between it and those of the poorest of his braves. Thecontrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-daymeasures the change which has come with civilization. This change, however, is not to bedeplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential, for the progress of the racethat the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts,and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better thisgreat irregularity than universal squalor. Without wealth there can be no Mæcenas. The "good oldtimes" were not good old times. Neither master nor servant was as well situated then as to-day. Arelapse to old conditions would be disastrous to both—not the least so to him who serves—andwould sweep away civilization with it. But whether the change be for good or ill, it is upon us,beyond our power to alter, and, therefore, to be accepted and made the best of. It is a waste oftime to criticize The price which society pays for the law of competition, like the price it pays for cheapcomforts and luxuries, is also great; but the advantages of this law are also greater still than itscost—for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development, which bringsimproved conditions in its train. But, whether the law be benign or not, we must say of it, as wesay of the change in the conditions of men to which we have referred: It is here; we cannot evadeit; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law may be sometimes hard for theindividual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves,great inequality of environment; the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in thehands of a few; and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, butessential to the future progress of the race. Having accepted these, it follows that there must begreat scope for the exercise of special ability in the merchant and in the manufacturer who has toconduct affairs upon a great scale. That this talent for organization and management is rare amongmen is proved by the fact that it invariably secures enormous rewards for its possessor, no matterwhere or under what laws or conditions. The experienced in affairs always rate the MAN whoseservices can be obtained as a partner as not only the first consideration, but such as render thequestion of his capital scarcely worth considering: for able men soon create capital; in the handsof those without the special talent required, capital soon takes wings. Such men become interestedin firms or corporations using millions; and, estimating only simple interest to be made upon thecapital invested, it is inevitable that their income must exceed their expenditure and that they

1 Andrew Carnegie, "The Gospel of Wealth," from M. Kammen, ed., Contested Values (New York: St. Martin'sPress, 1995), 45-50.

2must, therefore, 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 uponits capital soon becomes bankrupt. It must either go forward or fall behind; to stand still isimpossible. It is a condition essential to its successful operation that it should be thus farprofitable, and even that, in addition to interest on capital, it should make profit. It is a law, ascertain as any of the others named, that men possessed of this peculiar talent for affairs, under thefree play of economic forces must, of necessity, soon be in receipt of more revenue than can bejudiciously expended upon themselves; and this law is as beneficial for the race as We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race arepromoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as theyexist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then arises,—and if theforegoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal,—What is the propermode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it intothe hands of the few? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It willbe 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 is not wealth, but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire, and which itis for the best interests of society should be are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can be left to thefamilies of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can beadministered by its possessors during their lives. Under the first and second modes most of thewealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn considereach of these modes. The first is the most injudicious. In monarchical countries, the estates andthe greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may begratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend unimpaired to succeedinggenerations. The condition of this class in Europe to-day teaches the failure of such It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shallcast them adrift in poverty. If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idlelives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the sentiment that they are in aposition 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 ofmillionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services to thecommunity. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare. It isnot the exception, however, but the rule, that men must regard; and, looking at the usual result ofenormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, "I would as soonleave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar," and admit to himself that it is not the welfare ofthe children, but family pride, which inspires these to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said thatthis is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is deadbefore he becomes of much good in the world. Knowledge of the results of legacies bequeathed isnot calculated to inspire the brightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished bythem. The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor arethey few in which his real wishes are thwarted. In many cases the bequests are so used as tobecome only monuments of his folly. It is well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less

3ability than that which acquires it, to use wealth so as to be really beneficial to the s this, it may fairly be said that no man is to be extolled for doing what he cannot helpdoing, nor is he to be thanked by the community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Menwho leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all hadthey been able to take it with them. The memories of such cannot be held in gratefulremembrance, for there is no grace in their gifts. It is not to be wondered at that such bequestsseem so generally to lack There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the trueantidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and thepoor—a reign of harmony, another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the Communist inrequiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of ourcivilization. It is founded upon the present most intense Individualism, and the race is prepared toput it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal State, inwhich 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 thefew, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if distributed insmall sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree thatgreat sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from whichthe masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered amongthemselves in trifling amounts through the course of many we consider the results which flow from the Cooper Institute, for instance, to the bestportion of the race in New York not possessed of means, and compare these with those whichwould have ensued for the good of the masses from an equal sum distributed by Mr. Cooper in hislifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest form of distribution, being for work done andnot for charity, we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement of the racewhich lie embedded in the present law of the accumulation of wealth. Much of this sum, ifdistributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence ofappetite, 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, atall comparable to those which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute fromgeneration to generation. Let the advocate of violent or radical change ponder well This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: To set an example of modest,unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimatewants of those dependent upon him; and, after doing so, to consider all surplus revenues whichcome to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as amatter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to producethe most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trusteeand agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, andability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for are met here with the difficulty of determining what are moderate sums to leave tomembers of the family; what is modest, unostentatious living; what is the test of must be different standards for different conditions. The answer is that it is as impossible toname exact amounts or actions as it is to define good manners, good taste, or the rules ofpropriety; but, nevertheless, these are verities, well known, although indefinable. Public sentimentis quick to know and to feel what offends these. So in the case of wealth. The rule in regard to

4good taste in dress of men or women applies here. Whatever makes one conspicuous offends thecanon. If any family be chiefly known for display, for extravagance in home, table, or equipage,for enormous sums ostentatiously spent in any form upon itself—if these be its chief distinctions,we have no difficulty in estimating its nature or culture. So likewise in regard to the use or abuseof its surplus wealth, or to generous, free-handed cooperation in good public uses, or to unabatedefforts to accumulate and hoard to the last, or whether they administer or bequeath. The verdictrests with the best and most enlightened public sentiment. The community will surely judge, andits judgments will not often be best uses to which surplus wealth can be put have already been indicated. Those whowould administer wisely must, indeed, be wise; for one of the serious obstacles to theimprovement of our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind that the millions ofthe rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, theunworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that ninehundred and fifty dollars is unwisely spent—so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which ithopes to mitigate or cure. A well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day thathe had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him as he was coming to visit thehouse of his friend. He knew nothing of the habits of this beggar, knew not the use that would bemade of this money, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent man professed to be a disciple of Herbert Spencer; yet the quarter-dollar given that night willprobably work more injury than all the money will do good which its thoughtless donor will everbe able to give in true charity. 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 respectshe is most bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will helpthemselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; togive those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to doall. 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 case of accident or sudden change. Every one has, of course, cases of individualsbrought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and these he willnot overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals isnecessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. He is theonly true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid theworthy, and, perhaps, even more so, for in almsgiving more injury is probably done by rewardingvice than by relieving rich man is thus almost restricted to following the examples of Peter Cooper, EnochPratt of Baltimore, Mr. Pratt of Brooklyn, Senator Stanford, and others, who know that the bestmeans of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiringcan rise—free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body andmind; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste; and public institutions ofvarious kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people; in this manner returningtheir surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them is the problem of rich and poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be leftfree, the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a

5trustee of the poor, entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of thecommunity, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done foritself. The best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it isclearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful andearnest men into whose hands it flows, save by using it year by year for the general good. Thisday already dawns. Men may die without incurring the pity of their fellows, still sharers in greatbusiness enterprises from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn, and which isleft chiefly at death for public uses; yet the day is not far distant when the man who dies leavingbehind him millions of available wealth, which was free to him to administer during life, will passaway "unwept, unhonored, and unsung," no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which hecannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: "The man who dies thusrich dies disgraced."Such, in my opinion is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destinedsome day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring "Peace on earth, among mengood will.