Comments on: How to Rise in the World: Advice on Hustling from Andrew Carnegie

By: Manuel Berazaluce

Manuel Berazaluce — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:02:41 +0000

This is pure business and manliness wisdom. The action of not only waiting for orders but acting under given circumstances is now called “stepping up”, which is exactly what Carnegie meant.

He confirmed what I always thought: Following orders and doing everything for your boss will certainly give you stability and possibly a raise in your job. You´ll become so useful to your boss that you´ll become the last person that he wants to promote.

Great article.

By: Niklaus Bouzine

Niklaus Bouzine — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:23:38 +0000

A totally captivating read. The path which I’ve chosen is to wait for orders, and that is what is holding me back according to Carnegie. Tomorrow at work I will no longer wait rather do everything I can do.

By: Socrates

Socrates — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:40:16 +0000

I feel like the first bit of your reasoning is extremely problematic. First it assumes that there were better conditions to work in, and in that time period there really weren’t. Next you assume that safety provisions are only available through technology, well escape exits and doors that weren’t locked would have saved many people in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Also the multitude of strikes in this period shows that people were not happy with the conditions they worked in, they did not believe the wages were fair, as seen by strikes (note this has to be on a more case by case basis, but I still feel it offers a good insight to the general mood of the time). Strikes were also being brutally repressed (not all) by hired vigilantes and thugs. Really we can take your argument and apply it to say prostitutes they are free to chose their line of work, but to do so would be glossing over the whole host of reasons and situations that force many women against their will into that line of work. Or how about we just tell a drug addict to stop doing drugs? I mean they all have the same individual freedom like the worker’s to say no, but like the worker’s they can’t. Dr. Gabor Mate’s “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts” can shed some light on drug addictions and how certain social policies will push them farther into addiction instead of stopping it. In the same way the policies of the 19th c. gave worker’s the option to either starve to death or work in appalling conditions were there is the constant threat of injury and death.

Returning to your point about technology, in the textile industry they would make small children run in between the machines collecting the cotton and fabric while the machines were running. This was extremely dangerous but it was cheaper than to stop the machines. At this point technology plays no role into this, it clearly illustrates the value these people place in making money and in another human life. And they view human life as cheap and easily replaceable. Also, you cannot really argue that they did not know any better since for 1800 years there was Christianity that at its core favoured the poor and all human life. Albeit, this was warped around from day one of passing it down.

By: Zack

Zack — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:54:23 +0000

Going back to the statements about cost cutting and labor practices, what could he have done better? There was little technology that aided in safety, the plants were dirty, hot and the equipment was dangerous. We also have to realize that these workers were free individuals who made a conscious decision that the wage they earned was worth the risk they took by working for Carnegie. If their opportunity cost was minimized by working in the factory versus other opportunities, why blame it on Carnegie when they didn’t have to be there? Carnegie paid a market price for labor, if the conditions were really that bad, they could go elsewhere. What I don’t like about Carnegie was that he was a pathological liar. The book Tycoons called him by far the most narcissistic of all the robber barons as well as the most dishonest. He often read “love letters” from his employees publicly claiming they came from random employees when he or people close to him had actually written them. It also has been said that his wife was the one who was behind his charity work, not him. He had no desire to do it according to family members and those around him. That being said, one can learn a lot from him. His problem wasn’t that he was a bad businessman, but rather that he was a pitiful man in how he conducted himself publicly. The book The Tycoons said that he was the worst kind of pathological liar, one who lied to himself and was so good at it, he actually believed lies he told himself.

By: Socrates

Socrates — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:13:16 +0000

@Kade Comment 17

First of all both men were brutal, one was brutal for the sake of brutality, the other was for the sake of money and either one does not inspire, except that Carnegie does because we value the rags to riches myth central to American identity. As to Hitler other than being a raving lunatic whose ramblings about nationalism and strength came at a crucial moment in German and Global history (aftermath of the First World War, Hyperinflation, Great Depression, and a persistent political deadlock in Germany) so as to touch upon a sensitive nerve of a people that only 15 years prior were a Great Power.

Furthermore, nothing really about Hitler makes him great unless if you are referring to scale of his crimes, as he was a piss poor strategist (his determination and poor planning led to Stalingrad and the annihilation of the 6th Army). As for his leadership abilities they are questionable at best, without the his personal advisors he would have been nothing and already he did not have the best eye for them. He was nothing more than small man thinking he was a mastermind.

By: Zack

Zack — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:20:34 +0000

Of all the Robber Barons, Carnegie was by far the worst in terms of manipulating the public, and in terms of manipulating those around him. That being said, he did a lot of good, and he wasn’t all bad. Without him, there would have been no American steel industry. The principles in this article were very good, and I enjoyed reading it. I would love to see another one that focused on John D. Rockefeller. He was by far the most savvy of the robber barons and for the most part, he was a very honest businessman and a good person. However, anytime you have a wealth of business knowledge the likes of Andrew Carnegie, you would be foolish not to listen to what he had to say.

By: Mr. X

Mr. X — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:23:18 +0000

Andrew Carnegie was a man of his time. It is all well and good to sermonize 19th century attitudes in the 21st century. The object of this article is to examine and celebrate his rising from abject poverty to a very wealthy man. That in itself is inspirational.

I seriously doubt that any any one of us reading AoM are perfect either, and when we are looked back on in the 22nd century, there will be plenty of armchair critics analyzing the the horrors of 21st century attitudes.

By: Dane S.

Dane S. — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:15:19 +0000

“…that it was better to ask for forgiveness than permission.”

Now THAT is something worth remembering! This was quite a motivating read; can’t expect to have life given to you on a silver platter.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:45:07 +0000

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=609

These men that are purported as “great” also thought the same of themselves and invented a pseudo science to support it. Eugenics is still a huge part of our global zeitgeist and is more dangerous than ever as it has been mainstreamed. i.e. most reality tv. I recomend Henry Makow as a more cutting edge exploration of culture and, as you say “manliness”

By: Diocletian

Diocletian — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:09:38 +0000

@Jeff,

Oh, really ?

Carnegie exercised the virtues of focused hard work, productive ambitiousness, thrift, and generosity, to name just a few essential ones.

Which virtues can YOU honestly claim, Jeff ?