Wealth, Andrew Carnegie

In reading "Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie I found that while he seems dead-set in knowing what it is he wants for America in terms of breeding economic prosperity, there is a certain degree of irony in the methods by which he wishes to execute said ideas. Carnegie, one of the richest men in American history, and, according to the progressive movement, one of the more notorious Robber Barons, was very steadfast in his belief that Social Darwinism and laissez-faire economics were exactly what the doctor prescribed for the survival of our country as whole. He exemplifies this, much like other wealthy aristocrats of his time, in saying that, "It is...essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should [have] all that is highest and best...rather than that none should be so." However the irony of it all is that, whether he acknowledges this or not, his solutions to ensuring that the rich stay rich, are rather progressive in nature as they don't necessary encourage leaving the poor to be poor. Carnegie doesn't want for the government to provide equal opportunity to all the current competing businesses, but he doesn't seem to believe it fair not to give the unsuccessful businessman a chance to better himself and try again through the aid of the successful businessman. "This is not evolution, but revolution," says Carnegie, "the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor...in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good." By encouraging his fellow millionaires to donate charitably not through mismanaged handing out of cash, but by investing in community improvement and arts improvement programs, while still alive rather than in their wills, he is essentially combating the fire of progressive regulation of business unknowingly with the fire of those same progressive ideals. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that this was unbeknownst to him as he was a brilliant businessman and this could just be him knowing exactly what it would take to find a peaceful harmony between the two ideals, but either way I did get a sense of irony out of it all.