Fake generosity

In 1901, when J.P. Morgan purchased Andrew Carnegie’s steel company for $480 million, he said, “Congratulations, Mr. Carnegie, you are now the richest man in the world.” Retiring from business, Carnegie published an essay called The Gospel of Wealth. It is considered by many today a foundational document in the field of philanthropy.

When you read it, however, Carnegie made his case about why the capitalists bring value and his solution to the rise in wealth inequality. In it, Carnegie promotes ideas that still live today, including:

That hard work and perseverance lead to wealth. (Carnegie believed that he was self-made.)

That it is the wealthy’s responsibility to spread wealth through charity. It was up to the rich’s discretion how much and who deserved it.

This charitable giving had to create economic mobility opportunities. Carnegie didn’t believe in a nanny state, but instead, to receive something, you needed to give something.

Finally, his language, from the divinity, sacredness, duty, and responsibility around wealth, changes the lens of how we view our culture.

To his credit, Carnegie did preach progressive taxes for the rich and for the rich to live more modestly with their fortunes. But the essay ultimately demonstrates the disconnect the powerful had become at the turn of the 20th century, as demonstrated by the Monopoly experiments. No one is arguing if Carnegie worked hard, but did he work harder than the forger or the assembly workers making the steel? Why does wealth put you in a class above others—make your voice more important? Why does he decide who deserves his charity and who doesn’t? Which causes support, and which gets left in the cold? Why do we call it generosity or charity if you give something while expecting something in return?