"The Gospel of Wealth" (1889)1
Andrew Carnegie
英语直播课
The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and tho of his retainers. The Indians are to-day 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 tho of the poorest of his braves. The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day measures the change which has come with civilization. This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, esntial, for the progress of the race that the hous 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. Without wealth there can be no Mæcenas. The "good old times" were not good old times. Neither master nor rvant was as well situated then as to-day. A relap to old conditions would be disastrous to both—not the least so to him
motherhood
who rves—and would sweep away civilization with it. But whether the change be for good or ill, it is upon us, beyond our power to alter, and, therefore, to be accepted and made the best of. It is a waste of time to criticize
The price which society pays for the law of competition, like the price it pays for cheap comforts and luxuries, is also great; but the advantages of this law are also greater still than its cost—for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train. But, whether the law be benign or not, we must say of it, as we say of the change in the conditions of men to which we have referred: It is here; we cannot evade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, becau it insures the survival of the fittest in every department. We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourlves, great inequality of environment; the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few; and the law of competition between the, as being not only beneficial, but esntial to the future progress of the race. Having accepted the, it follows that there must be great scope for the exerci of special ability in the merchant and in the manufacturer who has to conduct affairs upon a great scale. That this talent for organization and management is rare among men is proved by the fact that it invariabl
y cures enormous rewards for its posssor, no matter where or under what laws or conditions. The experienced in affairs always rate the MAN who rvices can be obtained as a partner as not only the first consideration, but such as render the question of his capital scarcely worth considering: for able men soon create capital; in the hands of tho without the special talent required, capital soon takes wings. Such men become interested in firms or corporations using millions; and, estimating only simple interest to be made upon the capital invested, it is inevitable that their income must exceed their expenditure and that they
1 Andrew Carnegie, "The Gospel of Wealth," from M. Kammen, ed., Contested Values (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), 45-50.
must, therefore, accumulate wealth. Nor is there any middle ground which such men can occupy, becau the great manufacturing or commercial concern which does not earn at least interest upon its capital soon becomes bankrupt. It must either go forward or fall behind; to stand still is impossible. It is a condition esntial to its successful operation that it should be thus far profitable, and even that, in addition to interest on capital, it should make profit. It is a law, as certain as any of the others named, that men possd of this peculiar talent for affairs, under the free play of economic forces must, of necessity, soon be in receipt of more revenue than can be judiciously expe
nded upon themlves; and this law is as beneficial for the race as
We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then aris,—and if the foregoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal,—What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This is not wealth, but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire, and which it is for the best interests of society should be acquired.
There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be dispod of. It can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purpos; or, finally, it can be administered by its posssors during their lives. Under the first and cond modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each of the modes. The first is the most injudicious. 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 unimpaired to succeeding generations. The condition of this class in Europe to-day teaches the failure of such hopes
It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. If any man has en fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the ntiment that they are in a position to labor for public ends without reference to pecuniary considerations, then, of cour, the duty of the parent is to e that such are provided for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great rvices to the community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare. It is not the exception, however, but the rule, that men must regard; and, looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, "I would as soon leave to my son a cur as the almighty dollar," and admit to himlf that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires the legacies.
As to the cond mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public us, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before he beco
mes of much good in the world. Knowledge of the results of legacies bequeathed is not calculated to inspire the brightest hopes of much posthumous good being accomplished by them. The cas 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. In many cas the bequests are so ud as to become only monuments of his folly. It is well to remember that it requires the exerci of not less落伍的英文
ability than that which acquires it, to u wealth so as to be really beneficial to the community. Besides this, it may fairly be said that no man is to be extolled for doing what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by the community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all had they been able to take it with them. The memories of such cannot be held in grateful remembrance, for there is no grace in their gifts. It is not to be wondered at that such bequests em so generally to lack
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 pres
卡尔加里大学ent most inten Individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleas. Under its sway we shall have an ideal State, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best n, the property of the many, becau 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 distributed in small sums to the people themlves. Even the poorest can be made to e this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purpos, from which the mass reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among themlves in trifling amounts through the cour of many years.
If we consider the results which flow from the Cooper Institute, for instance, to the best portion of the race in New York not possd of means, and compare the with tho which would have ensued for the good of the mass from an equal sum distributed by Mr. Cooper in his lifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest form of distribution, being for work done and not for charity, we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement of the race which lie embedded in the prent law of the accumulation of wealth. Much of this sum, if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best u, that of adding to the comforts of the home, would
have yielded results for the race, as a race, at all comparable to tho which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute from generation to generation. Let the advocate of violent or radical change ponder well
This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: To t an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of tho 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 trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their rvice his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themlves.
We are met here with the difficulty of determining what are moderate sums to leave to members of the family; what is modest, unostentatious living; what is the test of extravagance. There must be different standards for different conditions. The answer is that it is as impossible to name exact amounts or actions as it is to define good manners, good taste, or the rules of propriety; but, nevertheless, the are verities, well known, although indefinable. Public ntiment is quick to know
yam
and to feel what offends the. So in the ca of wealth. The rule in regard to
curriculum vitaegood taste in dress of men or women applies here. Whatever makes one conspicuous offends the canon. If any family be chiefly known for display, for extravagance in home, table, or equipage, for enormous sums ostentatiously spent in any form upon itlf—if the be its chief distinctions, we have no difficulty in estimating its nature or culture. So likewi in regard to the u or abu of its surplus wealth, or to generous, free-handed cooperation in good public us, or to unabated efforts to accumulate and hoard to the last, or whether they administer or bequeath. The verdict rests with the best and most enlightened public ntiment. The community will surely judge, and its judgments will not often be wrong.
The best us to which surplus wealth can be put have already been indicated. Tho who would administer wily must, indeed, be wi; for one of the rious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the a than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that nine hundred and fifty dollars is unwily spent—so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it hopes to mitigate or cure. A well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a
man who approached him as he was coming to visit the hou of his friend. He knew nothing of the habits of this beggar, knew not the u that would be made of this money, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly. This man profesd to be a disciple of Herbert Spencer; yet the quarter-dollar given that night will probably work more injury than all the money will do good which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity. He only gratified his own feelings, saved himlf from annoyance—and this was probably one of the most lfish and very worst actions of his life, for in all respects he is most worthy.
In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help tho who will help themlves; to provide part of the means by which tho who desire to improve may do so; to give tho who desire to ri the aids by which they may ri; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race is improved by almsgiving. Tho worthy of assistance, except in rare cas, ldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do, except in ca of accident or sudden change. Every one has, of cour, cas of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and the he will not overlook. But the amount which can be wily 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 anxiou
fearful是什么意思s 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.
考博英语真题
网店培训The rich man is thus almost restricted to following the examples of Peter Cooper, Enoch Pratt of Baltimore, Mr. Pratt of Brooklyn, Senator Stanford, and others, who know that the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can ri—free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste; and public institutions of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people; in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good.
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意大利语词典
trustee of the poor, entrusted for a ason with a great part of the incread wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itlf. The best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race in which it is clearly en that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest
men into who hands it flows, save by using it year by year for the general good. This day already dawns. Men may die without incurring the pity of their fellows, still sharers in great business enterpris from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn, and which is left chiefly at death for public us; yet the day is not far distant when the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was free to him to administer during life, will pass away "unwept, unhonored, and unsung," no matter to what us he leaves the dross which he cannot take with him. Of such as the the public verdict will then be: "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
Such, in my opinion is the true gospel concerning wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the rich and the poor, and to bring "Peace on earth, among men good will.
