Analysis Of The Poem ' The Gospel Of Wealth '

In the Gospel of Wealth Carnegie discussed how wealthy men help the poor and working class with charity. Since the wealthy get to choose where the money goes to it helps the poor more than it would by being given to them. The money went to programs and services the poor needed rather than being given to the poor that would spend it on unneeded resources. The superior education and understanding of the industrialists and wealthy helped the poor and working class more because with charity they could choose what programs would get the funding needed to help the poor.

The Age of Enlightenment brought forth some of history’s greatest philosophers who introduced and provided the arguments for contemporary thought and social systems in continued use today. Although historians consider the ideas of natural rights and separation of powers in democracies of the highest order of importance, the economic theories developed by the leading thinkers of the era pervade daily life in all societies. The idea of wealth is timeless, but philosopher Voltaire and economist Adam Smith wrote opposing theories on the true value of wealth and how society should allocate its wealth and resources. Voltaire’s satire Candide, or Optimism features El Dorado, a socialist utopia where the inhabitants treat precious metals and stones as dirt and provide for the general welfare of their city, while Smith’s The Wealth of Nations discusses macroscopic economies and how these economies interact to maximize production and encourage human advancement. Both arguments make use of ethical, moral, and social ideas, but only work perfectly in a utopian setting. By comparing and contrasting the arguments presented in each of these texts, one establishes an understanding of how economies and societies operating on either capitalism or socialism alone compare to those that incorporate elements of both ideologies.

He discusses all that is wrong with the wealthy individuals and how they are spoiled. He makes his argument by revealing how wealth is disposed of, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can all be left to the families of the descendants; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administrated during their lives by its possessors” (3). The author is Andrew Carnegie and intended audience is the general public but more specifically are those of wealth and make them conscious of how surplus wealth is disposed of. This is a primary source and reveals that even though this was how the world was a decade ago, it is quite similar and not much has

The Gospel of Wealth is primarily about the dispersion of wealth and the responsibilities of those who have it. Carnegie thinks that inheritance is detrimental to society because it does not do any good for the

As civilization has evolved, economic inequality has existed since the feudal era and has made its place in modern society. It is a dilemma that examines the gap between the low wealth of the middle-class worker and the profitable earnings of the monopolizing upper-class business owner. It is a socio- economic issue that can best explored through the lens of the conflict theory; thoroughly explaining as to how the wealth gap came to exist and the consequences of such an economic state on the interaction between the middle-class worker and the wealthy businessman.

Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” and Samuel Gompers’ letter to Judge Peter Grosscup offer different opinions concerning the course that people of different economic standings should take in regards to power and social stature. However, both works mean to steer society in what seems to be opposite directions. Carnegie focuses more on how the wealthy in the society should take the seemingly philanthropic approach whereas Gompers’ offers a more organizational and structured point of view.

According to Carnegie, the responsibility of those who receive charity from the wealthy is to give the money only to those who deserve it. In 1889 Carnegie wrote an essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” in which he argued against what he called “indiscriminate almsgiving.” He began with the statement that there is a valid and significant difference among worthy and non-worthy poor. Some people, Carnegie argued, are poor through no accountability of their own: sometimes situations puts one in an undesirable position, making it hard to advance despite one’s best determinations.

Supposedly, both the individuals with ascribed statuses with hereditary wealth and the poor and homeless have equal chances to become successful although, Orestes Bronwnson in The Laboring Classes, pointed out that this is not true. “Do the young man inheriting ten thousand pounds and the one whose inheritance is merely the gutter, start even?” (219). As a result, the harsh separation of the rich and the poor, where capitalism thrives and,” the division of the community into two classes, one which owns the funds…the other provides the labor” (216). The inhumane apprehension of a capitalist society that keeps its workers “in a permanent system, [has] given preference to the slave system” (214) says a lot about the evils of capitalism corresponding with the false American Dream. An outcome of capitalism is the frustrating rivalry between the poor. “There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining the country. The competition is maddening”

In the 20th century it was a time in which you could attain wealth quickly manufacturing without having capital to start off with. He believes the advantage of becoming wealthy does not lay within starting out with wealth, but with having the knowledge of what people need. His ideals derive from the certainty that opportunity is in the hands of human needs. Conwell expands on how prospects of money is in near reach of many, however, they are just unaware of it. He gives many examples of people and their experiences with wealth and poverty. Conwell spoke of many people moving to find wealth, when there was many opportunity for wealth within the city that they had lived. However, they did not know of those opportunities; again, referencing that wealth is in close connection with knowledge. Conwell concludes his speech with describing his definition of greatness. Greatness defined by Conwell is accomplishing things of significant purposes, as well as working, no matter what career, and becoming something better than where you started. He reminds the audience that they can become successful starting from where they are and being who they are, and that these circumstances don’t matter when it comes to being

“Nature is rich; but everywhere man, the heir of nature, is poor.” Lloyd begins his work by complaining about how the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor; however, as the essay progresses, one can see the accuracy of his views. He references the creation of Adam and Eve, stating that, “Never since time began have all the sons and daughters of men been all warm, and filled, and all shod and roofed.” It’s been true throughout history that because of monopolies that a very small percentage of men control a majority of land and resources. Lloyd states that individuals holding a majority of resources and land believe that that there is a scarcity; that there is not enough. And in order to survive, in order to be happy, in order to be prosperous, they must contain and constrain. Men must hold on to any and everything they can get their hands on. The minority has an opposing viewpoint. It feels that there is an abundance of resources, but because of unequal distribution, there is never enough to go around: “There is too much iron, too much lumber, too much flour―for this or that syndicate. The majority have never been able to buy enough of anything; but this minority have too much of everything to sell.” Lloyd concludes by expressing that we have become a “mutual deglutition.” He states that we have advanced too quickly and implicates that we are beginning to reverse

During the Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy business tycoon, monopolized the steel industry, manifested a steel company that drove America’s industry further into success, and eventually he became a billionaire in the late 19th century. With such a high abundance of wealth, it would be easy to spend it on one’s selfish desires, however, Carnegie showcased his true colors by expressing his adoration for the arts by partaking in charitable acts of donating money to local libraries, education, and scientific research. Through his opportunity to have ownership of billions of dollars, Carnegie built a leadership role as one of the only dedicated philanthropists during the time of the Gilded Age where many men, including Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan, had an abundance of wealth, but lacked any participation of philanthropist acts. As a result, Carnegie further showcased how owning so much money can exhibit one not succumbed to greed through his book, “The Gospel of Wealth,” where he describes how those who own large expanses of wealth have the responsibility of giving back to the community in ways such as philanthropy. Through the ownership of an over surplus of money and the understanding of the importance of charitable acts, Andrew Carnegie was able to develop

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

Carnegie was a wealthy man himself, but he practiced exactly what he preached. He notices how American society has revolutionized and created the divide between the rich and the poor as it changed. Carnegie compares the American past equality to the equality experienced among the Sioux Indians. Carnegie does not disapprove of the change, but recognizes it as “highly beneficial” (Foner 29). According to Carnegie, the evidence of the changing society is present in the “contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer” (Foner 29). Although Carnegie recognizes the divided between rich and poor, he does not see it as a bad thing, nor does he believe that people should stop obtaining wealth. Carnegie believes that the wealthy should use their money to provide for good instead of “hoarding great sums all their lives” (Foner 29). Carnegie approves of the implementation

Nonetheless, the third mode is which Carnegie beckons as the start of a great evolutional growth in the distribution of wealth amongst classes. Carnegie believes that the rich must supply the poor with not money directly to their pockets, which would coax temptations. Rather, the rich must supply the less fortunate with the means to grow as people, to heighten ambitions, and raise the level of class. This is done through, for example, the construction of a public library. Carnegie, in fact, tells a tale of Mr. Tilden. Mr. Tilden, a wealthy man, builds a large public library in New York City. This distributes more than a couple quarters could ever, the ability for any man to enhance his learning and opportunities for free.