The Gospel of Wealth was focused on the life of the individual. There were many different views on how the government and economic system should be formed to provide a fair playing field for everyone to benefit from. The views provided by the men of the time varied with each different essay. Some felt that the system should be formed to help the individual make something of himself, while others felt that the system should provide opportunities for all. In this essay I will contrast the ideas of Andrew Carnegie and Edward Bellamy as well as explain my own views of the Gospel of Wealth.
             Andrew Carnegie felt that the desire for luxury and the fear of poverty was a good motivator in becoming successful. Carnegie stated that if you feared going hungry that you would work that much harder to provide for yourself. Those who were not able to accumulate wealth were not in "the survival of the fittest" sense worthy. It should be the desire of all men to save moderate sums of money "which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families"(Carnegie 454). To Carnegie it is not only natural but also desirable to have distinction between the social classes. Those in a lower social class have motivation to accumulate wealth and the desire for luxury provides fuel for that motivation.
             Edward Bellamy had completely different views than Carnegie on how the social system should be designed. Bellamy feels that fear of poverty and the desires for luxury are barbaric motives because in a truly great society the only motivation needed would that of honor. Your labor is what will bring you and your family honor. If all the people in society were given the same amount of income the only way to achieve personal distinction would be hard work. There is no fear of hunger because the entire focus of the government is to protect its citizens from poverty. There is no competition in business because the...