Andrew Carnegie was not only an outstanding industrialist, but also a great philanthropist. In the excerpt from page 105, Carnegie is stating that an end to Individualism would result in a revolution not an evolution because it is changing human nature itself, and there would be no way to know if it would even be a change for the better. This excerpt was one trying to convey a communist utopia; a policy of working for the better of each other, not just for the individual alone.
This concept of ending Individualism and beginning one class of people, is one that arises with each leader (especially communist) trying to change a society during this period of history. I don't believe, however, that Andrew Carnegie was trying to become a leader or begin a revolution. He was strictly stating his opinions on wealth and in turn giving that wealth away. Carnegie was a man of many contradictions. He was the wealthiest human being of all time, and he was convinced of the value of poverty in developing character.
In Carnegie's later life, I believe he had realized his selfishness with his wealth and felt the need to give it away. In the excerpt, I feel he was assessing his own situation of wealth and was trying to encourage the rest of mankind to not live the type of life he had experienced. He stated, "it is a nobler ideal that man should labor, not for himself alone, but in and for a brotherhood of his fellows, and share with them all in common
" I sense that the reason he made this statement was to encourage mankind to give away their wealth and not hold it for their own possession. Carnegie felt that society should work together instead of individually.
In many ways I agree with his statement, but I don't feel that this is a feasible concept. Individualism is something I wouldn't want taken away from me because I wouldn't be able to have that constant desire to better myself. In some ways, Individualism is effective and in many ways...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document