Andrew Carnegie wrote “The Gospel of Wealth” in June 1889. Carnegie begins his treatise by identifying what he sees as the most significant problem of modern-day times: “the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship” (1).

Carnegie mentions that, in the past, “there was little difference” (1) between the living situations of a leader of a community and those of the members of the community. To prove his point, Carnegie writes about a memory of “visiting the Sioux” (1); during this visit, he noticed that the residence of the chief looked “just like the others in external appearance” (1). Carnegie compares the living situations of the Sioux with the difference between “the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day” (1) to demonstrate the changes in American society that have taken place over the years. These changes are not negative, but “essential for the progress of the [human] race” (2). After all, Carnegie points out, “the ‘good old times’ were not good old times” (2) and besides, “whether the change be for good or ill, it is upon us, beyond our power to alter” (2).

According to Carnegie, the explanation for the change can be found in “the manufacture of product” (3), which requires a very different process now than before, when “[t]he master and apprentice worked side by side, the latter living with the master, and therefore subject to the same conditions” (3). Now that products can be manufactured more quickly and easily thanks to industrialization, “[t]he poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford” (4). The price society pays for this change is steep: because the employee and the employer no longer work together, and, in fact, because “[a]ll intercourse between them is at an end” (5), friction between the two often results.

Similar to the price society pays for cheaper goods is the “price which society pays for the law of competition” (6). Despite the costly nature of competition, “while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department” (6). At least, the most talented people “soon create capital” (6), and some of these people “become interested in firms or corporations using millions” (6); they soon accumulate wealth, as it is essential that “successful operation[…]should be thus far profitable” (6).

Carnegie points out that objectors to this capitalist system, such as “the Socialist or Anarchist who seeks to overturn present conditions” (7), compromise civilization as a whole when they challenge “the right of the laborer to his hundred dollars in the savings bank and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions” (7). The individualism that movements like communism seek to destroy is “what is practicable now” (7). More importantly, the “destruction of the highest existing type of man” (7) means the destruction of “the highest results of human experience, the soil in which society so far has produced the best fruit” (7). With this assertion in mind, Carnegie is certain that “the only question with which we have to deal” (8) is this one: “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?” (8).

Carnegie specifies three ways excess wealth can be put to use. The first concerns the case of inheritance, when the wealth is left to surviving family members, which Carnegie considers to be “the most injudicious” (9). He uses the examples of European traditions of inheritance that fail “to maintain the status of an hereditary class” (9) to support his argument, believing the practice to be a form of “misguided affection” (9) towards one’s children. There is a possibility that “millionaires’ sons unspoiled by wealth” (10) will do good with the money they have not earned, but sadly, such sons “are rare” (10). Besides, if a wealthy man is honest with himself, he will “admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies” (10).

The second way wealth can be spent is by “leaving wealth at death for public uses” (11), which is only useful “provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world” (11). Carnegie believes that these attempts at performing “posthumous good” (11) can often be thwarted and “become only monuments of his folly” (11). Even worse perhaps, “[m]en 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” (11).

Carnegie observes that the heavy taxes levied on large inheritances in both the United States and in Britain “is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutory change in public opinion” (12). These taxes are proof of the state’s “condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life” (12). In fact, “nations should go much further in this direction” and “such taxes should be graduated” until the “millionaire’s hoard” becomes the property of the state (13). This approach “would work powerfully to induce the rich man to the administration of wealth during his life” (13), which is the most beneficial option for society.

Only one of Carnegie’s identified three ways of using excess wealth is acceptable to him, and “in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of rich and poor” (14). Carnegie promises “an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense the property of the many” (14). His solution is far superior to the distribution of the money “in small quantities among the people, which would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite” (15). The solution Carnegie proposes is best exemplified by Mr. Cooper’s personally-funded Cooper Institute and by “Mr. Tilden’s bequest of five millions of dollars for a free library” (16). Though it would have been better had Mr. Tilden “devoted the last years of his own life to the proper administration of this immense sum” (16), in order to avoid interference from other interested parties, the benefit of the library to the people is more than if the “millions been allowed to circulate in small sums through the hands of the masses” (16).

Because rich men are more fortunate than most others, they should be grateful for their opportunities to “organize benefactions from which the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives” (17). By living by the example of Christ, “laboring for the good of our fellows” (17), such men will fulfill “the duty of the man of Wealth” (18). Living unpretentiously and providing for his dependents are essential, but the rich man must also “consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds” (18), revenues that must “produce the most beneficial results for the community” (18). In this way, the man of wealth becomes “agent and trustee for his poorer brethren” (18), serving them with “his superior wisdom […] doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves” (18).

Though the process of deciding on appropriate amounts of money to leave family members is challenging, wealthy men can apply “[t]he rule in regard to good taste in the dress of men or women,” as “[w]hatever makes one conspicuous offends the canon” (19). When putting surplus wealth to use or when determining how much to bequeath to heirs, avoiding the appearance of extravagance is crucial.

Research foundations like the Cooper Institute and the prospect of a public library are both examples of “the best uses to which surplus wealth can be put” (20). After all, Carnegie believes that “one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity” (20), which only “encourage[s] the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy” (20). This kind of spending he compares to the act of throwing money into the sea. To reinforce this point, Carnegie describes the selfishness of a writer who gave a man on the street money, though “[the writer] had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly” (20). This writer “only gratified his own feelings, [and] saved himself from annoyance” (20) when he gave the man money, a decision that Carnegie describes as “probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life” (20).

When giving money to charity, “the main consideration would be to help those who will help themselves” (21). Carnegie is certain that no one benefits from indiscriminate assistance; in fact, those who are “worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance” (21). Carnegie goes on to define the true social reformer as someone who is careful “not to aid the unworthy” (21) and thereby rewards vice.

Rich men can follow the example of such tycoons as “Peter Cooper, Enoch Pratt of Baltimore, Mr. Pratt of Brooklyn, Senator Stamford and others” (22), all of whom understand that their most useful contributions to society take the form of “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” (22).

This solution solves “the problem of Rich and Poor” (23), allowing individualism to flourish while the millionaires use their money wisely, “administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself” (23). Carnegie predicts that “the man who dies leaving behind many millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’” (23). With this prediction, Carnegie concludes his treatise, calling his piece “the true Gospel concerning Wealth” (24) that will “bring Peace on earth, among men Good-Will” (24).