In the Gospel according to Andrew Carnegie he offers a solution to humanity's problem of rich and poor. He considers capitalism humanity’s natural form of being and the natural capitalistic concentration of business in the hands of the few through competition essential to the advancement of the human race. He says that any successful person in any industry will inevitably accumulate wealth beyond their family’s need for comfortable subsistence. He says that there are three ways surplus wealth can be disposed of: It can be given to family(current and future), it can be given after death for public purposes after death, and it can be administered during the lives of its possessors. Giving wealth to family is observed to cause more harm than good and causes unhappy lives and the wealth is often squandered. He considers for the best interest of the members of the families and of the state this is an improper use of wealth. Waiting until after death to do any good in the world often fails due to foundations put in place to manage the wealth alter the objective of the donor and become “only monuments of his folly.” No one is to be extolled nor thanked by the community to which they leave their wealth because they sacrificed nothing and are thought that they would have left nothing at all if they had been able to take it with them. Therefore the only way to resolve the issue of rich and poor is for wealth to be distributed within the donors life. They are able to administer their wealth in ways that they see fit and for the common good. He says that this will be an ideal state where the surplus of the few become the property of the many and this will be a potent force for the elevation of the race. Only if the millionaire considered his surplus wealth not his but as a trust fund that he administers for the common good. Through this method of distributing wealth the problem of rich and poor will be resolved and humanity will be advanced.
I really want to agree with Carnegie’s Gospel and think that in a perfect capitalistic world this is a great idea for human advancement. But I have some issues with his understanding of humanity. We see in the cases of the .0001% the richest of the rich, billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg acting upon Carnegie’s ideas by giving almost the entirety of their wealth. But in the regular 1% this is not the case. They are content spending the wealth extravagantly and giving it to their families and people close to them rather than will all of humanity. Another issue that I have that presented itself in Carnegie’s lifetime is that in order to acquire wealth it often comes at a cost to others. Trade unionists protested Carnegies gift of a library saying that it had been built with the blood and sweat of a thousand workers. Other famous philanthropists like the Rockefellers implemented strike breakers and their workers lived very difficult lives. Modern wealthy like the .com billionaires are able to make their money by harming less people but products are still made in foreign countries where the quality of life is inadequate by American standards.
Some modern wealthy people do live by Carnegie’s ideology. One such person is Chuck Feeney who made billions from Duty Free Shoppers Group, duty free stores around the globe. He gave away all of his money to start The Atlantic Charity one of the largest philanthropies in the world. He actively takes part in distributing his wealth globally to causes he sees as just. https://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/insights/insights-books/giving-while-living#watch_video feel free to watch their video that describes him and his decision to start his foundation as well as the work that they have done.
I agree strongly with your criticism of Carnegie's ideology. In a perfect world where every rich person was altruistic and cared about their social duty, Carnegie's model would work fine. But in that world, where everyone cared about the greater good rather than their own self-interests, I think we wouldn't have the systematic inequality that causes a lot of current social problems in the first place. Like you mentioned, many of these wealthy philanthropists gained their wealth through exploiting the working people who they also sought to help with their philanthropy. Carnegie acknowledges that all of his, and other wealthy peoples' excess income is squandered if spent on their own selfish wants anyway, so why not simply end this excess by compensating their workers fairly for their labor? Then the workers wouldn't need to rely on social programs created by philanthropy to get by.
ReplyDeleteAlso, your point about most 1 per-centers not following Carnegie's model of giving is accurate. According to this source-- https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-percent-of-income-donated-to-charity/, those earning between $200,000 and $5,000,000 donate 2.4-3.2% of their incomes to charity, a far cry from what Carnegie would consider "all surplus wealth". A potential solution to this would be to force them to contribute more to the public benefit by greatly increasing taxes on the rich, like to the 91% tax rates imposed on the highest levels of income by JFK. However, this "solution" would likely greatly decrease the amount of money given to private charities, who, while similar to the government in their public-focused goals, serve a different role in society. The question of how to distribute wealth is challenging, but important to answer. While Carnegie's solution is a start, I think we need an answer that better balances individual freedom with social responsibility.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Morgan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interesting post. I too, have some problems with Carnegy’s perception of wealth and philanthropy.
Warren Buffet’s son Peter had quite the critical view on current philanthropy: “As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering”—feeling better about extreme wealth by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity. But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else is further locked into a system that will not allow the true flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful and fulfilled life.” I believe one has to be careful at this point to not construct a sweeping generalization about the motivations of individuals who, have found themselves with great fortunes and decide to use it in a philanthropic way but I do think Peter Buffett raises a fair point.
Personally, I don’t really know what to think about the big givers of today. I don’t expect them to give away their entire fortune up to the point where the actually do live a “normal” (on a financial scale) life. But it does annoy me that at times, these people that give so much are portrayed as incredibly benevolent and selfless. Sure, the sums that the richest of the rich give are incredibly high but compared to their overall fortune, they are still only tiny. We applaud the givers of our generations and give them medals and glory but we rarely hold them accountable for being part and contributor of a system that allows this inequality of wealth. The New Yorker writes that, “The Philanthropy 50 list suggests that rich donors spend less on causes having to do directly with poverty alleviation than on other areas.”
To end with Peter Buffett: “Money should be spent trying out concepts that shatter current structures and systems that have turned much of the world into one vast market. Is progress really Wi-Fi on every street corner? No. It’s when no 13-year-old girl on the planet gets sold for sex. But as long as most folks are patting themselves on the back for charitable acts, we’ve got a perpetual poverty machine.”
https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/was-carnegie-right-about-philanthropy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html