Amanpreet Atwal

HIST 1700 017

Documents Analysis Assignment #1

Andrew Carnegie was a Scottish born who lived during the years of

1835-1919. In his The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie explains his philosophy

of the distribution of wealth. Carnegie provided three specific modes of

distribution, however they fail to function in reality because they dont all

address the problem of poverty equally.

The first of Carnegies modes states that wealth can be left to the

families of the descendants. In monarchical countries, the estates and the

greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the

parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to

descend to succeeding generations unimpaired (Carnegie, pg. 464,

paragraph 3). I think this is a mode that is really common because usually

parents or guardians will always pass down their wealth either to their

children or to their whole family. This mode fails because how are you

helping the poor if the whole money goes to your family? Imagine if you and

your family are part of the elite or high class society. Just like their

father/guardian/head of family passed on his wealth to his kids and family,

even his kids and family would pass it on to their kids and family and the

cycle continues. Throughout this cycle, the poor are definitely not benefiting

so this mode is a big fail in providing a good solution to poverty.

As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses,

it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a
Amanpreet Atwal

HIST 1700 017

man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good to

the world (Carnegie, pg. 464, paragraph 4). In other words, you didnt want

to help the poor while you were alive and so since there was no one else to

dispose your money to, you decided to give it for public uses after your

death. That proves this mode as a failure because if you didnt care to help

people out while you were alive, theres no point of you helping them after

your dead because no one will recognize you for it. Also, who knows whether

this wealth is going towards the poor or towards rich companies that will

eventually help the poor. Good human beings are people that help others

out while they are alive because they want to see the good effects of their

help. They, like themselves, are happy to see others prosper.

The last mode is administering wealth during its life by its possessors.

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, because

administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the

hands of the few, 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 (Carnegie, pg. 465, paragraph 1). This mode is also a fail

because even if money is being distributed, its not being distributed equally.

Even in the description of this mode, it states, but in this we have the true

antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation

of the rich and the poor a reign of harmony...etc. (Carnegie, pg. 464,
Amanpreet Atwal

HIST 1700 017

paragraph 6). Who knows whether more of this money is going towards the

rich or towards the poor? Are the poor getting the bigger share of this wealth

or not? I doubt it, so in my opinion, even this mode like the last two are not

good solutions to poverty.

Carnegie provided three specific modes of distribution, however they

fail to function in reality because they dont all address the problem of

poverty equally. In the first mode, the wealth goes to the family so how

would that help the poor? In the second mode, money goes toward public

uses after the owner of that money has died. Even with this mode, we dont

know for what specific public uses this money is going towards and whether

or not those public uses specifically help the poor not. In the last mode,

wealth is distributed but unequally. We wouldnt know whether the vast

majority of the money goes to the poor, or whether the rich get the bigger

share. In my opinion, these three modes were a big fail overall and they

dont provide a good solution towards poverty.