Andrew Carnegie was one of the original robber barons of the post-industrial revolution era; he even surpassed John D. Rockefeller as the richest American for a few years after selling Carnegie Steel. His legacy is not one of a robber baron though, but of a leading philanthropist who did much good for American society. In his June 1889 essay "The Gospel of Wealth" he explained why millionaires and billionaires should aspire to donate their surplus wealth to the common good.
source: YouTube
The billionaires of today also try their hardest to paint an image of themselves as generous individuals, caring for the greater good of the community that has allowed them to become so insanely rich and powerful. They live by the guidelines set by Andrew Carnegie who gave away some $350 million (roughly $5.5 billion in 2021). Carnegie did genuinely call for the members of his class to "give back", and yes, he did support progressive taxation as well as estate tax (or rather "death tax" as detractors like to call it in order give it a negative connotation), but we should understand his reasons for doing so. It wasn't out of the goodness of his heart. In fact it's hard to believe that any billionaire donates to the common good out of the goodness of their heart, simply by knowing the means by which individuals become so insanely rich in the first place.
Obscenely rich people do not become obscenely rich by accident. Their riches are the product of a system and a culture that demands from all participants a strict adherence to plainly laid out class roles. That's why the first half of Carnegie's document is spent on justifying the huge wealth disparities of his day, the age of the robber barons:
Under the law of competition, the employer of thousands is forced into the strictest economies, among which the rates paid to labor figure prominently, and often there is friction between the employer and the employed, between capital and labor, between rich and poor. Human society loses homogeneity.
source: Carnegie Corporation of New York
Like all proponents of capitalism, Carnegie justifies the society's loss of homogeneity by claiming that it is solely responsible for lifting the human race as a whole. How often have we heard "but capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any preceding system"? And as all defenders of capitalism, Carnegie contrasts riches for the few with poverty for all; "It is well, nay, essential for the progress of the race, that 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 this great irregularity than universal squalor". He states that the millionaires of his day, and the billionaires of today, have a right to their positions of extreme wealth because they are just better, wiser, more diligent and hard working than the rest. And he cautions against "alms-giving", for that would put money into the hands of the unworthy.
Although Carnegy was in favor of estate tax, which is taxation of wealth after death, he was a strong advocate of giving away surplus wealth during one's lifetime voluntarily. Perhaps his most famous quote is "the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced"; why wait until you're dead? Why build an image of a selfish hoarder of wealth only for the state to forcefully take a portion of your riches to redistribute to the community? Is it not better for the wise men who become the deserving owners of billions to use their wisdom to distribute their surplus wealth to deserving causes?
He is the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy, and, perhaps, even more so, for in alms-giving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue.
source: Carnegie Corporation of New York
And let's not forget Carnegie's stance on the political power bequeathed by his class. He lamented the days when societies were more equal: "There was, substantially social equality, and even political equality, for those engaged in industrial pursuits had then little or no political voice in the State." Carnegie clearly felt, as do our modern capitalists, that the wise deserving men should have more of a say in the policies pursued by the government. The political equality of "one person, one vote" clearly does a disservice to the superior intellect and industriousness concentrated in his class of "Great Men". As it says on the website of the Carnegie corporation of New York, "Andrew Carnegie's essay 'The Gospel of Wealth' is considered a foundational document in the field of philanthropy", but I would classify it as a foundational document in the field of justifying capitalism's gross injustices.
In fact, the opening sentence of "The Gospel of Wealth" explains exactly the true intention of this "philanthropy strategy": "The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship". The obscenely rich have to donate some of their wealth in order to maintain and save the system that made them so obscenely rich. Philanthropy as a means to fend off the pitchforks. He wasn't really that concerned with lifting up the masses, much more with his right to individually decide who or what is worthy of his millions. As an industrialist the easiest way by far to create more equality would be to raise the wages of his employees. He explains that away by claiming that society as a whole would be far better served by large donations, in the form of libraries, concert halls and museums, than by gradually spreading the wealth over years and years. It's beneficial to read, and take to heart this article: "Andrew Carnegie Claimed to Support Unions, But Then Destroyed Them in His Steel Empire".
And a bloody crackdown on workers at one of Carnegie’s major steel mills during the infamous 1892 Homestead Strike, revealed how far he would go to keep unions down.
source: History.com
Carnegie was in favor of unions in print only. And he's a philanthropist in print only, just like almost all his millionaire and billionaire successors. The very first quote I've given in this post reveals his true stance on unions and the wages a man of his social stature pays to his employees; he "is forced into the strictest economies" and he followed the simple business philosophy of "watch the costs, and the profits will take care of themselves". The myth of the good, philanthropist billionaire is just that: a myth. They will never do or say anything that threatens the socioeconomic reality of the Gilded Age which persists today. Please watch the below linked video; it was the inspiration for this post on Carnegie's essay and it shows exactly how this philosophy is still sold and bought today...
Why There's No Such Thing as a Good Billionaire
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | Alternative Reality |
|---|---|
| Crisis Of Masculinity? | Mainstream Lamestream |
| White Lives Matter | Optimus Crime |
| Fake Generosity | No Money, No Problems |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.