Carnegie and George: Different Viewpoints on Technological and Social Progress and Different Visions of the Future
Andrew Carnegie and Henry George present different viewpoints ontechnological and social progress and different visions of the future. Bothmen agree that the advancements made in the manufacturing industry and thesubsequent surge in capitalism have had many noticeably positive effects onhumanity as a whole. Lifestyles have improved due to the use of "labor-saving inventions," as George notes (512). "Sheep killed in Australia eatenfresh in England and the order given by the London banker in the afternoonexecuted in San Francisco in the morning of the same day," are a fewexamples of how technology has revolutionized life over the past fewcenturies. Carnegie is likewise optimistic about the immediate effects oftechnological innovation. Both authors agree that great social andpolitical changes have resulted directly from innovations in science andtechnology. Moreover, both Carnegie and George concur that not all thechanges have benefited all people. In fact, Carnegie states of factoryculture: "rigid Castes are formed, and, as usual, mutual ignorance breedsmutual distrust," (452). George agrees, noting that "amid the greatestaccumulation of wealth, men die of starvation," (515). Conflict between the
Instead, men of means should create, free colleges, libraries,museums, and parks that the masses can enjoy. "Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulationof wealth by those who have the ability and energy to produce it," (454). Charity only results insquandering money, for the small amounts that each person receives would beused to indulge momentary pleasures and would provide nothing of lastingvalue. In fact, Carnegie equallydisagrees with inherited wealth, noting that hereditary money is"injudicious" and does far more harm than good. George calls for the elimination of propertyownership. Making all property common would not only be impossible in this day andage; it would not necessarily eliminate the root causes of poverty orgreed. Both men actually agree on this point, but they offer differentsolutions to poverty. Communism or socialism would represent a step backward in human evolution,according to Carnegie. Carnegie's vision is far more optimistic and in many ways morerealistic than George's. He concedes that there are serious problems with the currentstate of affairs but that modern life significantly surpasses life at anyother time in the past. The best solution to poverty,according to Carnegie, is for the wealthy to spend money on things "fromwhich the masses of their fellows will derive lasting advantage," (457). The pursuit of wealth and profit is a positive force, according toCarnegie. In this way, large sums of capital canbe accumulated by the men and women who have the ability and desire tomanage money, and the poor can enjoy the benefits of a modern societythrough shared public works like parks, museums, and libraries. Competition and capitalism are "essentially for the future progress of therace," (453). Likewise, Carnegiedisagrees with bequeathing one's money to the community after one's death:there is "no grace in their gifts," (456).
Common topics in this essay:
Progress Poverty,
Carnegie Instead,
Likewise Carnegie,
Carnegie George,
George's Disagreeing,
Henry George,
San Francisco,
England London,
rich poor,
land ownership,
according carnegie,
poor enjoy,
452 george,
accumulation wealth,
social political,
public services,
wealth poverty,
life past,
|
Acceptance Essays
