The Gospel of Wealth

The Gospel of Wealth

Introduction

In today’s community, wealth is distributed unequally and there is a large gap between the rich and the poor. It is as if the rich continue getting richer while the poor continue getting poorer. The spirit of communism has been suppressed by individualism where individuals only work for their personal interests. Andrew Carnegie in the “Gospel of Wealth” discussed various methods which the rich can use to dispose their surplus wealth. one is to leave the wealth to either the family descendants or the public and the other one is to use it to uplift the less fortunate in the society. He stressed on the importance of giving back to the society as the only useful way of one’s surplus wealth

Only a few in the society have wealth with the majority being poor. The owners of the wealth are immortal and they have to leave their wealth; there are different methods of doing this. The first is to leave the wealth as inheritance to one’s children. Andrew however sees this as misguided affection since most people leave the wealth in order to ensure that their legacy lives on (8). He states that “Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection?” (9). This method does not always work because there are many incidents where the heirs squander all the property left to them and the legacy of the owner of the wealth dies as soon as the wealth relinquishes. Another form is disposing surplus wealth is leaving it to the public. However, this method however is not effective because such wealth would have been more useful if the owner was alive (Andrew 11).

Such wealth is often squandered by the trustees because the owner did not lay specific plans for the wealth. it is as if they left it only because they could not take it with them when they died. Andrew states that “The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are thwarted.” (10). Those two forms of disposing surplus wealth are discouraged by Andrew because they are of little or no use to the society. The form of wealth disposal encouraged by Andrew is giving back to the society. He clearly states that “Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense the property of the many…can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves” (12). The gap between the rich and the poor is closed by this method because the wealth is used for the benefits of many. This can be in form of wages for work done rather than charity (Andrew 13). It is a form of evolved communism where one works for the good of his/her colleagues and helping those who want to be helped rather than aimless charity.

The argument of Andrew Carnegie regarding the proper way of disposing surplus wealth is effective. Hoarded wealth is of no use and it has little impact when left to the society. The most productive way is for the owner of the wealth to take part in the administering the wealth. this however should not be done as aimless charity since such charity often does more harm than good. Such mode of distribution should be in such a way that it helps only those who want to help v(Andrew 16). It is likened to giving a ladder to those who lack the opportunity and those who have the will and the energy are the ones who will climb the ladder. He claims that, “In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all.” (17). When opportunities to learn from the masters are availed to the less fortunate, the industrious fellows will use the opportunity and gain wisdom while the lazy ones will continue to wallow in poverty.

I agree with the opinion of Carnegie regarding surplus wealth. If the wealthy are to uplift the poor, the gap between the two classes would not be that wide. However, this is not to encourage laziness because the poor are not entitled to charity from the rich and this is clear when Andrew discourages aimless charity. He states that, “…for in alms-giving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue” (17). Rather, it is giving means to those who desire to rise from poverty so that they may fulfill their dreams (Andrew 17). The opportunities are not handed to them on a silver platter because they have to prove they are worth the assistance and guidance through the journey. This also helps in molding strong-willed people who value the virtue of hard work and generosity. It is pointless to leave enormous wealth only to be squandered by trustees in the name of helping the community.

Conclusion

The Gospel of wealth means that there is a way of reconciling the poor and the rich. The wealthy should shun the methods of disposing surplus wealth that are valueless to the community. They should rather embrace participative distribution where they make strategic plans that will ensure the society benefits from their wealth. Society on the other hand should be willing and ready to make use of the opportunities. Aimless charity will only create dependency which will in turn escalate poverty so the society should strive to reach their potential with assistance and guidance from the rich rather than receiving regular cash hand-outs.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Carnegie, Andrew. “The gospel of wealth.” Garden City(2013).