Andrew Carnegie and Jesus A recent essay from Reader Supported News (6/13/12), by a retired Baptist minister named Rev. Howard Bess, was titled “Jesus, the Radical Economist.” In the essay, Rev. Bess' first paragraph was “Jesus made his reputation as a Jewish economist, one with very strong opinions about wealth and property, about the relationship between the rich and the poor.” “From early childhood he must have understood that he was seen as a brash, pushy kid from a small town in Northern Palestine, an area without religious leadership and an unemployment rate well over 50%.” “...he is presented in the Gospel of Luke as being a precocious 12-year-old boy absorbed in debating religious leaders about the meaning of the Torah.” Bess says that Jesus was fully aware of the passage in Leviticus (credited to Moses, but undoubtedly written after the exile in Babylon in the Sixth Century) that mandated a Jubilee Year, every 49 years (seven time seven), during which all debts were to be forgiven, all slaves manumitted (freed) and all land returned to its original owners. Most scholars believe that a similar mandate had been periodically issued for hundreds if not thousands of years in the various civilizations that occupied the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, because that long history had taught the priests and rulers that wealth inevitably gravitates toward a smaller and smaller group of “elites,” eventually making the entire society economically dysfunctional. Only a severe and total redistribution could resolve that imbalance. Quoting Bess again, “Hundreds of years later, however, when Jesus lived and taught, the combination of Roman rule, compliant fat-cats and religious elites made the observance of Jubilee impossible.” Though everybody knew about it, everyone but Jesus had given up on it. Bess then quotes from Luke recounting a visit of Jesus to a synagogue, where he read the following passage from the book of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. God has sent me to bring good news to the poor. God has sent me to proclaim release of captives and liberty to the oppressed. This is the acceptable year of the Lord.” It would seem that later scribes had chosen to eliminate the word “Jubilee” from that passage. Bess then says: “Everyone in his hearing understood what he [Jesus] was saying: Israelites had gone too long without a Year of Jubilee. It was time for the wealthy to turn loose what they had accumulated. It was time for the poor to receive their full stewardship.” But the poor knew that their oppressors (including the ruling Rabbis!) considered the Year of the Jubilee as “impractical.” Bess says that one of the reasons Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem before he turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple was “to mock the rich, who favored horses.” What was true then is true now. “The evils of greed and mindless ownership are with us in ever growing magnitude. Resulting inequities and injustice surround us.” Where, you may well ask, does Andrew Carnegie enter this discussion? Through the back door, to be sure, but there are a number of strange parallels between the foregoing and Carnegie's “Gospel of Wealth,” written in 1898, and subsequently published in many languages around the world. It would not surprise me to learn that many of today's most successful Capitalists have read it as well. First, though, we have to look at Carnegie's main inspiration, which was the decidedly secular “religion” of Evolution, as propounded by Herbert Spencer, infamous (to many of us) as the Godfather of Social Darwinism. Spencer seized on the writings of Darwin (much to Darwin's disgust!) to develop an elaborate theory of human evolution, which held that all of human history (and pre-history) was just a process of increasing complexity that would eventually lead to a “perfect” society. What made him especially popular with Carnegie and other Robber Barons in the emerging Industrial Revolution, was the idea that this increasing complexity always created a class of “superior humans” whose wealth was prima facie evidence of their superiority. One particularly egregious example of Spencer's moral depravity is quoted in David Nasaw's biography of Carnegie, in the context of one of Carnegie's repeated battles with his workers. Spencer: “It seems hard that a laborer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life and death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be of the highest beneficence.” [my emph.] That phrase, “the highest beneficence” occurs repeatedly in Carnegie's “Gospel of Wealth” and many of his other writings. In addition to “justifying” economic inequality, it also served to “justify” the merciless exploitation of workers by Carnegie and his fellow Robber Barons. The inexorable “progress” of human evolution required whatever means were deemed necessary to maximize the wealth of these “superior” humans who were in charge. Of course, Carnegie was a mass of almost incomprehensible contradictions. Well read, compassionate (towards those in his social circle), extremely intelligent, personable to those whose support he valued, a passionate advocate of American democracy (as he saw it) and of universal suffrage in Great Britain, where he spent much of his later life, all the while denouncing the rigid class system there. But, whenever workers' demands got in the way of profits, he was rigidly ruthless. They could not be allowed to impede the accumulation of wealth by Spencer's “superior” people. In “The Gospel of Wealth” and later writings, Carnegie differed from Spencer in a very important manner. Much like the Old Testament Prophets (quoted above), Carnegie believed that wealth was not really the private property of those who accumulated, but was held in trust by them, solely so that they could re-distribute it in their lifetime, to public institutions of their choice. We all know that he was especially enamored of libraries, many of which around the world continue to carry his name. He also endowed music halls, schools, and many other public institutions. Mind you, that wealth was not held in trust for the Lord! He and Spencer were adamantly secular, often critical of Western Religion, though Carnegie was intrigued by the Buddha and some Eastern Philosophies. No, the “trust” was to serve Spencer's idea of the “highest beneficence,” the eventual perfect society toward which the chosen few were leading us. Carnegie wrote: “This then is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer....in the manner which in his judgement is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community.” Can you say, “Bill Gates?” My own question is: who appointed these materialist accumulators to decide what is “most beneficial to the community?” Nawas wrote: “Carnegie reserved his greatest scorn not for his ideological and political opponents, but for the men of his own class,” who failed to follow his advise. “He began by assailing those who left [quoting Carnegie] 'great fortunes to their children. If this is done from affection is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred on legatees, the thoughtful man [i.e. Carnegie!] must shortly say, “I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar,” and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride which inspires these legacies.' To prevent the bestowal of vain and foolish legacies, Carnegie advocated the steepest possible inheritance taxes. 'By taxing estates heavily at death, the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.'” Words to live by, eh? If only.... Meanwhile, back in the real world debt is smothering us. Private debt, public debt, bad debt, usurious debt, all despoiling our future. Across the millennia, Jesus and the Old Testament Prophets are calling us, demanding that we declare a universal, world-wide Jubilee Year. Imagine the collective sigh of relief, the surge of positive energy, the promise of a brighter future for all mankind. But my sigh is one of resignation, because I have been trying for many years to get anyone, anyone to join me in this Holy cause. Everyone just looks away, no doubt pitying my foolish idealism, returning to their work and their families, like the poor of Jesus' time, taking “on the understanding of life that their oppressors presented and taught.”