Editor’s note: In her just released book, “A New Era of Philanthropy,” Dimple Abichandani, a philanthropy leader and adviser, imagines herself as a podcast host interviewing Andrew Carnegie, often hailed as the father of modern philanthropy. Carnegie’s answers are taken directly from his 1889 essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” which lays out the philanthropic responsibilities of the era’s new self-made rich.
The two discuss why the field is moving away from his vision. As Abichandani told the Chronicle, “We are in the early years of the new era of philanthropy — and in the coming weeks and months, it will be tested. We will face choices: between preservation and transformation, self-protection and solidarity, cowardice and courage.”
On Philanthropy’s Rosetta Stone
DA: Welcome to the New Era of Philanthropy podcast, where we reimagine how wealth can be transformed into a more just and sustainable future. I’m your host, Dimple Abichandani. Today, we’re talking to Andrew Carnegie. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us, Andrew.
First, a confession. I worked in philanthropy for almost two decades before I read “The Gospel of Wealth.” When I finally did, I felt like I had stumbled onto the Rosetta Stone of the philanthropic sector. I knew that we needed to have this conversation.
You might be interested to learn that “The Gospel of Wealth” still finds its way to millionaires, and now billionaires, often given to them by wealth and philanthropic advisers. Warren Buffet gifted your essays to a young Bill Gates.
You begin the essay by grounding us in the rapid changes occurring in your times. Today we find ourselves, again, in another moment of tumult and transition, in the early years of a new era of philanthropy.
Andrew, what inspired you to write “The Gospel of Wealth?”
ANDREW CARNEGIE: The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship.
DA: So, you were longing for a harmonious relationship between the rich and the poor, and you hoped that philanthropy could inspire that. I also long to live in a society with deeper cohesiveness, harmony, and care, a society in which people have what they need to thrive. Since you wrote “The Gospel of Wealth,” philanthropy has grown dramatically, with close to 120,000 foundations in the United States today and many more private donors and donors outside of formal institutions.
And yet, that harmony you desired remains elusive. Today we’ve got deep polarization, fractured civic relationships, and accelerated inequality. As for philanthropy, I’m sorry to tell you that its intended beneficiaries often experience it as a tool for power and control rather than harmony and care.
Tell me more about the central question you’re trying to answer in “The Gospel of Wealth.”
AC: What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? It is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution.
On Inequality
DA: Of course I want to hear more about this “true solution,” but wow, I’m stuck on your description of capitalism as the laws of civilization. In your essay you acknowledge that the same economic system that allowed you and a handful of your contemporaries to amass unheard-of fortunes inflicted incredible harm and struggle to the lives of the majority. And yet, you passionately argue that this system is best, saying: “We accept and welcome therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment; the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few; and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race.”
I’ve got to tell you, Andrew, almost 140 years later, the crisis of inequality has only deepened. The rules of our economy benefit the wealthiest, driving extreme concentration of wealth. Between 2020 and 2023, the richest five men in the world doubled their fortunes. During that same time, almost five billion people globally have become poorer.
Moreover, the capitalism you celebrate is, and always has been, racialized. U.S. Federal Reserve data finds that “the typical white family has eight times the wealth of the typical Black family, and five times the wealth of the typical Hispanic family.”
In this new era of philanthropy, our starting point radically departs from yours: We aim to transform the systems of how wealth and power are administered so that they can be shared more equitably.
But please, go on. You were talking about the “true solution” you see to the problem of too much wealth in the hands of the few? I am eager to hear more about this vision for philanthropy.
AC: We shall have an ideal state in which 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.
On the “Common Good”
DA: OK, the idea that philanthropy should be used as a vehicle for moving excess money to become the “property of many” sounds great. I love that you are talking about the “common good.” On this podcast we are big fans of the common good.
But there are red flags. You are using the words “small sums” to refer to wages. You are saying that it is better for people that their wages be small and that the wealthy tend to their needs through philanthropy. This is a troubling statement that exposes a truth — that excess wealth is often the result of exploitation and extraction. In your example, it was the failure to pay living wages. Where this is the case, philanthropy is a false story, a decoy, a distraction from the true solutions that will bring about justice.
I’m also hearing lots of assumptions about the role of a donor.
AC: The man of wealth ... is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community — the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.
On Funders’ “Superior Wisdom”
DA: Hmm. The “superior wisdom” of this man of wealth — why does this sound so familiar?
Ah, this is where the idea of “funders know best” came from! Your vision of donors “administering wealth” for the community better than it could or would have done for itself became the blueprint for generations of philanthropic culture and practice.
So let me catch you up, Andrew. While your idea about donors’ “superior wisdom” still infuses too many philanthropic cultures, this “billionaires know best” approach doesn’t make sense in our times, especially because the billionaires have played a central role in creating the challenges we face.
Today, we understand that those closest to the challenges have the deepest understanding of the needed solutions. We understand that when philanthropy assumes this mantle of superiority, not only are we not achieving our goals, but we are likely causing harm. That’s why more of us are embracing what we call participatory and trust-based approaches to philanthropy that move resources, decision-making, and power back to communities.
OK, Andrew, let’s end our conversation with the most important topic: purpose. Tell me how you thought about philanthropy’s purpose in your times.
AC: Our duty is with what is practicable now; with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably or possibly accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of good fruit under existing circumstances.
On Gilded Philanthropy
DA: This question of purpose is at the heart of where philanthropy’s past and future must part.
You are describing a gilded philanthropy that leaves harmful systems in place and tries to do a little good around the edges. Today, a growing community of funders understands philanthropy’s mandate as uprooting and transforming unjust systems.
Bending the universal tree of humanity “a little” reminds me of a debate at the family foundation I led. The founding donor penned a wise letter about his “hopes that through this medium (the foundation) some good would be done for humanity.” Later in the letter, he refers to his hope for the “most good.”
Foundations that take a “some good” approach do what’s legally required of them, spending 5 percent of their endowments, filing the required tax disclosures, and so on. A “most good” approach raises the bar and inspires funders to think about all the ways that they can meet the moment, transform conditions, and transform themselves in the process.
Another way we think about purpose is to ask who should benefit the most from philanthropy. Too often, philanthropy’s benefits go to the philanthropists. Philanthropy is seen as an identity, a hobby, a way to avoid taxes, a business strategy, or a way to keep family connections going through future generations. In this new era, we are imagining a philanthropy in which philanthropists are not the key beneficiaries.
Andrew, as we grapple with this legacy of philanthropy’s first 140 years, I hope you understand why we’ve landed where we are today and the urgency of updating our purpose. Here is what I’ve taken away from our conversation: The philanthropy we’ve known — that you envisioned — was never about changing the systems that create and fuel inequality. I leave our conversation understanding that we must leave your blueprint in the past and build a new one for this era.
###
Excerpted and adapted from “A New Era of Philanthropy: Ten Practices to Transform Wealth into a More Just and Sustainable Future” by Dimple Abichandan, published by North Atlantic Books, copyright © 2025. Reprinted by permission of publisher.
