Andrew Carnegie, Social Darwinism : DEFINING PROGRESS as INEQUALITY

Life of Andrew Carnegie, who became the wealthiest man in the world, represents the transition that was made in 19^th century, for Euro-Americans, from thinking of equality and independence as hallmarks of progress, to Social Darwinism, which suggested that equality and independence would prevent progress.

Background: Carnegie came from working class roots in Scotland, and inherited an uneasiness with focus on wealth and constant accumulation

Andrew Carnegie, age 33, in 1868, Diary:

• made plans to "cast aside business forever";
• pledged to himself to limit his income to the annual maximum of $50,000.

Wrote in Diary:

"The amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry. There is no idol more debasing than the worship of money…To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery."

• Carnegie’s misgivings were due to his class background—had come from low income, father was weaver (textile artisan) in Scotland who had become impoverished from displacement
• Carnegie’s misgivings about his accumulation of wealth were because he knew he had been given distinct advantages by contacts, tips in the stock market, speculation, using government contracts
• He didn’t "earn" the money through hard work, and this clashed with his working class ideas and traditions that only those who produced goods were entitled to rewards from those goods. In working class ethos, those who didn’t work (those who did not produce the goods) were "parasites" of society
• Carnegie continued to struggle with this, even continued to see himself as "working-man’s friend" because he thought that power over others was somehow against democratic principles of the U.S.

Newly articulated Ideology of Social Darwinism allowed Carnegie to overcome these feelings.

• Carnegie met Herbert Spencer in 1888; Spencer the leading proponent of the "social Darwinist" ideology. This ideology used the science of evolution and the idea of survival of the fittest and applied it to human relationships. It was used to justified great wealth, and the dominance of one group of people over another—against the idea of equality-- argued equality was harmful to people (see textbook for more on social Darwinism)

Spencer:

"Millionaires are a product of natural selection..It is because they are thus selected that wealth--both in their own and that entrusted to them—aggregates under their hands…They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society for certain work. They get high wages and live in luxury but the bargain is a good one for society."

By 1889, Carnegie had begun to make the transition in his famous tract, "Wealth" .. ( North American Review, June 1889) which is excerpted below_

Questions to consider while reading this document: What is Carnegie’s vision of progress? Are these ideas relevant to the present? What do you think of Carnegie’s views?

"The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, with in the past few hundred years. In the former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food and environment of the chief and those of this retainers. The Indians are today where civilized man then was. When visiting the Sioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief. It was like the others in external appearance, and even within the difference was trifling between it and those of the poorest of his braves. The contrast between the palace o f the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us today measures the change which ahs come with civilization. This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. . . It is a waste of time to criticize the inevitable. . . "

Carnegie argued that the poor were better off materially under the new system of civilization, because they had more material goods than in the days of equality.

"The price we pay for this salutary change is, no doubt, great. We assemble thousands of operatives in the factory, and in the mine, of whom the employer can know little or nothing… Rigid castes are formed… 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. . There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; 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—another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. 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. Even the poorest can be made to see this and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.. .

Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life; narrow our horizon; our best work most imperfect; but rich men should be thankful for one inestimable boon. They have it in their power during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives. The highest life is probably to be reached, not by such imitation of the life of Christ as Count Tolstoi gives us but, while animated by Christ’s spirit, by recognizing the changed conditions of this age and adopting modes of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions under which we live; still laboring for the good of our fellows, which was the essence of his life and teaching, but laboring in a different manner.

This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: first, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves. . . .

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 rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do, except in cases of accident or sudden change. Everyone has, of course, cases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and these he will not overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. 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 almsgiving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue. . . .

Thus is the problem of rich and poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself. The best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it is clearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good