Am I my brother’s keeper?

“… the man of wealth thus becoming the sole 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.”

The above is taken from an essay entitled The Gospel of Wealth.

That must be a pinko - probably sporting a beard, wearing Hawaii chappals and definitely toting a jhola with Marxist pamphlets ready to be distributed – saying such things.

Well, if you thought that, you thought wrong. It was said by someone who in today’s parlance would be situated much to the right of even Fabian socialists, much less rabid Marxists.

It was written by Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), a “massively successful businessman,” who “gave away his fortune to socially beneficial projects.” Now, what Carnegie said on death taxes “might surprise modern billionaires.” Therefore, we have a conundrum on our hands: Was Andrew Carnegie a closet pinko or a closet neo-liberal (after all, he made his money by providing “iron and steel to the railways.”). He has not yet been outed and in this short post I would be unable to do. Yet, without even knowing who he really was, we can discuss the logic of his positions vis-à-vis wealth.

Carnegie distinguishes fortunes from competence. He says no to the former but endorses the latter, when it comes to bequeathing and inheritance. He defines – and we are free to agree or disagree with his definitions –competence as, “[M]oderate sums saved over many years of efforts, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families.” He adds, “[Competence] should be the aim of all to acquire.”

What is truly arresting in this essay is Carnegie says that capitalism is good.

“The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the labourer with us today measures the change which has come with civilization… [to be] welcomed as highly beneficial… It is … essential for the progress of the race.”

His probing question is this:

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? 

The question acknowledges the truism, “Wealth begets wealth.” Talking about bequeathing wealth, his ideas must surprise at least some of us.

“Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients.”

Is that not a misanthropist talking? He is bequeathing more to wives and daughters than to sons. At first look, that may appear right up the alley of modern day feminists. But look deeper and you would see that Carnegie wants wives and daughters confined to the kitchen and not be burdened with wealth creation, the task solely for sons! As you know the price of cereals, sugar, vegetables etc. are going through the roof and hence more money to the women folks. That was the Devil’s Advocate in me talking, and you are invited to take it with a pinch of salt. The idea he endorses is easy money never finds comfortable quarters. That should make Antila very uncomfortable; for the money that went into it, if you get what I mean. Mukesh Ambani is very comfortably ensconced in it, I am sure.

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion.... Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest… By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

Did that, coming from a superrich industrialist raise your eyebrows? It did mine. Perhaps Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg took their idea of “Giving Pledge” from this essay. It is not the so-called death taxes administered by the state that would be the agency for doing good to society. But, says Carnegie, these taxes “would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of [his] wealth during his life,” likely to be towards good of the society:

“[T]he true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor-a reign of harmony.”

Carnegie has much to say about the kind of giving he advocates, in the process defining philanthropy:

“[T]he 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.”

Many are cynical about what Andrew Carnegie said and did. It has been said that, looking at the ever-widening gap between the very rich – people like himself – and the hoi polloi, Carnegie thought he would score a few brownie points with the latter. That very well could have been. But, why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Cain seems to have asked God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Andrew Carnegie, speaking for himself, seems to have given a clear answer, “Yes!”

Raghuram Ekambaram

References

1.    The Gospel of Wealth, 1889, Andrew Carnegie (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.asp)