Was reading about Andrew Carnegie and his essay on
Wealth. Really impressed not so much by the magnitude of his philanthropy but more so by the depth and substance of his philosophy. There were however one or two points in his thinking that I'm not so sure I'd agree.
....we shall have an ideal state, in which the 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. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts.
If we consider what results flow from the Cooper Institute, for instance, to the best portion of the race in New York not possessed of means, and compare these with those which would have arisen for the good of the masses from an equal sum distributed by Mr. Cooper in his lifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest form of distribution, being for work done and not for charity, we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement of the race which lie embedded in the present law of the accumulation of wealth. Much of this sum if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use,that of adding to the comforts of the home, would have yielded results for the race, as a race, at all comparable to those which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute from generation to generation. Let the advocate of violent or radical change ponder well this thought.
The best uses to which surplus wealth can be put have already been indicated. These who,would administer wisely must, indeed, be wise, for one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown in to the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure. A well-known writer of philosophic books admitted the other day that he had given a quarter of a dollar to a man who approached him as he was coming to visit the house of his friend. He knew nothing of the habits of this beggar; knew not the use that would be made of this money, although he had every reason to suspect that it would be spent improperly. This man professed to be a disciple of Herbert Spencer; yet the quarter-dollar given that night will probably work more injury than all the money which its thoughtless donor will ever be able to give in true charity will do good. He only gratified his own feelings, saved him- self from annoyance,-- and this was probably one of the most selfish and very worst actions of his life, for in all respects he is most worthy.
In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all. Neither the individual nor the race is improved by alms-giving. Those worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do, except in cases of accident or sudden change. Every one has, of course, cases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good, and these he will not overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given by the individual for individuals is necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected with each. He is the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the unworthy as he is to aid the worthy, and, perhaps, even more so, for in alms-giving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue.
The rich man is thus almost restricted to following the examples of Peter Cooper, Enoch Pratt of Baltimore, Mr. Pratt of Brooklyn, Senator Stanford, and others, who know that the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise--parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste, and public institutions of various kinds, which will improve the general condition of the people ;--in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting good. -
On the one hand, everything is soundly logical and I understand it, but at the same time, I can't help feeling that such a cogent, logical argument of efficiency can only be the result of a deficiency of love on the part of it's supporter; when you love someone enough, when the thought of their suffering is an intolerable circumstance for you to bear, you
do waste your money ineffciently because even though it may objectively be a waste of money, to the object of your love it's meaningful nonetheless. At that very moment, in so doing, you've accomplished something far greater than the utilitarian efficacies of philanthropy-- you've demonstrated that the strength of bond and commitment between the two of you is
such that it even defies the logic of efficiency.
The child begging their parents for an ice cream or the beggar for a pack of cigarettes so he can engage in some form of temporary escapism; these are things that you give to- not because they yield the greatest ROI (Return On Investment)- but because you love... and dare I say, the more frivolous and wasteful the request, the
more it allows for the demonstration of your love and commitment to the other, and in so doing contributes to the world one of the most "productive" things of all- connection, relationship, unity. [אחד=אהבה= 13]
(Note: All this is predicated on your conscious intentions, your כוונה, were you to give simply as a form of avoiding annoyance as Carnegie mentions then of course that's not something worthy of practicing)
Moshe Rabbeinu turning down an offer of a "bigger,better nation", not because it's the more
prudent choice, but because he loves the nation that he has, and that love is what
instantiates the logic of an illogical choice. It's this nuance that I think is missing in Carnegie's analysis of philanthropic activity.
See תענית כג ב regarding the "inefficient" preference of more direct and closer giving [מקרבא הנייתיה]
ומאי טעמא קדים סלוק ענני מהך זויתא דהוות קיימא דביתהו דמר לעננא דידיה משום דאיתתא שכיחא בביתא ויהבא ריפתא לעניי ומקרבא הנייתה [ואנא יהיבנא] זוזא ולא מקרבא הנייתיה
