In 1889 Andrew Carnegie recognized the divide in industrialized America between the rich and the poor, a divide he deemed natural in any economy yet not preferable. Consequently, Carnegie recommended to the wealthy of America a strategy, one that would endeavor to render the gap between the rich and poor smaller, therefore more manageable and beneficial to the state and its people. This strategy proffered the ideal that the wealthy in any society should perpetually be engaged in spending their wealth to the benefit of the society as a whole, as Carnegie viewed the wise men of the wealthy most fit to administrate wealth for the betterment of the masses, which would more times than not waste its wealth away on non-necessities deeming them unfit.
…show more content…
While holding true to the established Darwinian axioms, Carnegie offers a view that the enlightened rich in any society should never leave their money to their children but in small amounts and should never leave their money to be used after their death, but instead should seek to administer almost the totality of their wealth in service to the public good, the public good being the building of libraries, the opening of museums, the donation of money to charities, or anything that generally improves the welfare of the masses. Essentially, the enlightened upper class would lead the common people into better habits, an easier lifestyle, and a more friendly and economically healthy society, making the life of the poor much less bleak and their attitude towards the rich and work more amiable, while making the lives of the rich more purposed. Of course, this strategy only works if the grand majority, perhaps the entire population, of wealthy men take it wholeheartedly upon themselves to serve the public with the totality of their wealth during their lifetime. This is not pragmatic. The nature of man is to hold on desperately to wealth, and even though he is sometimes overcome with notions to use his wealth to serve others he is never overcome with the desire to give away all of his wealth. It is even less feasible to believe that every moneyed man …show more content…
Perhaps he craves for the delight of others and therefore is seen as a champion against egotism, nevertheless he is an egoist. It is man’s nature to seek his own rewards, compensators, and explantation. In this line of reasoning, on that merits considerable thought and the one Carnegie most commonly assumed, it is easy to see that it is implausible that the rich class of any society would ever completely adhere to a design which necessitated their giving of most of their wealth. Not only would it be difficult for the wealthy to achieve homogeneity of intent, it would be impossible for each man individually to day by day give his wealth to a purpose transcending personal reward, compensator, or explanation, and it is for this reason that Carnegie’s plan could never be fully realized as he envisioned it. In spite of this lack of complete efficacy in creating a society devoid of strong hatreds between the rich and the poor and polarized living conditions, the harmonic society, Carnegie’s plan comes into its own validity as an ideal, the green light the rich of every society must have in the back of their minds to reach for. When Carnegie’s plan is thus, then in any age there will result change, probably improvement, the creation of facilities enabling the poor to enrich themselves, of a healthier economy more given to allowing the “fit” to rise. Carnegie’s ideal is certainly scarred by its socially Darwinian underpinnings, yet where
While holding true to the established Darwinian axioms, Carnegie offers a view that the enlightened rich in any society should never leave their money to their children but in small amounts and should never leave their money to be used after their death, but instead should seek to administer almost the totality of their wealth in service to the public good, the public good being the building of libraries, the opening of museums, the donation of money to charities, or anything that generally improves the welfare of the masses. Essentially, the enlightened upper class would lead the common people into better habits, an easier lifestyle, and a more friendly and economically healthy society, making the life of the poor much less bleak and their attitude towards the rich and work more amiable, while making the lives of the rich more purposed. Of course, this strategy only works if the grand majority, perhaps the entire population, of wealthy men take it wholeheartedly upon themselves to serve the public with the totality of their wealth during their lifetime. This is not pragmatic. The nature of man is to hold on desperately to wealth, and even though he is sometimes overcome with notions to use his wealth to serve others he is never overcome with the desire to give away all of his wealth. It is even less feasible to believe that every moneyed man …show more content…
Perhaps he craves for the delight of others and therefore is seen as a champion against egotism, nevertheless he is an egoist. It is man’s nature to seek his own rewards, compensators, and explantation. In this line of reasoning, on that merits considerable thought and the one Carnegie most commonly assumed, it is easy to see that it is implausible that the rich class of any society would ever completely adhere to a design which necessitated their giving of most of their wealth. Not only would it be difficult for the wealthy to achieve homogeneity of intent, it would be impossible for each man individually to day by day give his wealth to a purpose transcending personal reward, compensator, or explanation, and it is for this reason that Carnegie’s plan could never be fully realized as he envisioned it. In spite of this lack of complete efficacy in creating a society devoid of strong hatreds between the rich and the poor and polarized living conditions, the harmonic society, Carnegie’s plan comes into its own validity as an ideal, the green light the rich of every society must have in the back of their minds to reach for. When Carnegie’s plan is thus, then in any age there will result change, probably improvement, the creation of facilities enabling the poor to enrich themselves, of a healthier economy more given to allowing the “fit” to rise. Carnegie’s ideal is certainly scarred by its socially Darwinian underpinnings, yet where