I’ll tell you who did this below. First read part his rather unusual letter:
“I have transferred to you as trustees $231 million in bonds, the revenue of which is to be administered by you to hasten the abolition of international war, the foulest blot upon our civilization. Although we no longer eat our fellow men nor torture prisoners, nor sack cities killing their inhabitants, we still kill each other in war like barbarians. Only wild beasts are excusable for doing that in this, the Twenty First Century of the Christian era, for the crime of war is inherent, since it decides not in favor of the right, but always of the strong. The nation is criminal which refuses arbitration and drives its adversary to a tribunal which knows nothing of righteous judgment. . . .
“I hope the trustees will begin by pressing forward upon this line, testing it thoroughly and doubting not.
“The judge who presides over a cause in which he is interested dies in infamy if discovered. The citizen who constitutes himself a judge in his own cause as against his fellow-citizen, and presumes to attack him, is a law-breaker and as such disgraced. So should a nation be held as disgraced which insists upon sitting in judgment in its own cause in case of an international dispute. . . .
“Lines of future action cannot be wisely laid down. Many may have to be tried, and having full confidence in my trustees, I leave them the widest discretion as to the measures and policy they shall from time to time adopt, only premising that the one end they shall keep unceasingly in view until it is attained is the speedy abolition of international war between so-called civilized nations.
“When civilized nations enter into such treaties as named, and war is discarded as disgraceful to civilized men, as personal war (duelling) and man selling and buying (slavery) have been discarded . . . the trustees will please then consider what is the next most degrading remaining evil or evils whose banishment — or what new elevating element or elements if introduced or fostered, or both combined — would most advance the progress, elevation and happiness of humanity, and so on from century to century without end, my Trustees of each age shall determine how they can best aid humanity in its upward march to higher and higher stages of development unceasingly. . . .”
You may have guessed the trick here. I’ve edited this letter slightly. I’ve changed the century. I’ve omitted references to President Taft. I’ve rewritten “man” as “humanity.” This letter is 102 years old, having been written by Andrew Carnegie in 1910. I changed his $10 million into $231 million to keep up with inflation. Little did he know that we would bring back torture and the sacking of cities. Little did he imagine that we would find corrupt judges perfectly acceptable. And — to our credit, this time — little did he imagine that we would come to question the distinction between civilized and barbarian nations, and the hypocrisy that would propose the banning of war among white people.
But most of all, little did Carnegie imagine that we would give up. His Endowment for Peace, and many other groups, some of them even more generously funded, pushed for peace right up through the Second World War. In 1928, in fact, they created what Carnegie was after, a treaty among the wealthy nations of the world banning war. It’s still on the books and on the U.S. State Department’s website. War has been illegal since 1928. That story is told here: http://davidswanson.org/outlawry
But by 1942 and up through today the movement to rid us of our greatest evil has been radically diminished. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace still exists, although as a peace activist I’ve never had any contact with it, and its website makes clear that it has added all sorts of other projects to its agenda prior to, rather than after, abolishing war.
Could a one percenter invest in a serious peace movement now, before it’s too late? Of course they could. They dump vastly greater sums into election campaigns every couple of years, with the outcome guaranteed to be this war-supporting candidate or that war-supporting candidate.
We’ve lost the will to peace, and — equally fundamentally — we’ve lost the capacity to shame our robber barons into giving a little bit back.



8 Comments




Nice propaganda there. You can be sure that if Carnegie did it, it wasn’t really for peace. It may have been a nice little empty gesture to distract people from real peace strivings.
I’m guessing George Soros would be the most likely candidate to fill Carnegie’s shoes.
“You can be sure that if Carnegie did it, it wasn’t really for peace.”
Right, this was really a figleaf hiding a secret agenda which involved building public libraries and recognizing those who risked their lives to save others. Don’t be fooled!
:o)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Hero_Fund
I watched the PBS documentary on the history of the environmental movement on Sunday. Richard Nixon sounds like friggin’ Rachael Carson next to this lot.
Dan Ellsberg talks about “civic courage” as opposed to “military courage” — the courage to do the right thing for the community even if it goes against the tide of public opinion, rather than the courage to put a bullet through someone’s head on the battlefield. It’s in short supply.
I’m not holding my breath on the 1% riding to the rescue with their checkbooks. If there’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s that the rich won’t fund the economic revolution against themselves.
And I’m not even sure it’s desirable. The challenge that the 99% must meet is to fund fair and equitable social institutions in a way that a) is sustainable and b) has incentives to fight for the rights of the working class.
Kevin Drum is certainly not someone I share a lot of political ideology with, but his article on the rise of corporatism being a function of the fall of the labor unions and their ability to fund a national party is a must-read. For better or worse, the source of funding for labor unions (dues from worker’s paychecks) gave them an intrinsic incentive to fight for the rights of working people. If they became too corrupt or sold out their “donors” (so to speak), their membership rolls — and their revenues — dwindled.
We should be able to figure this out in an age of rapid online communication and broad-based finance mechanisms. Because that’s when the balance of power will shift. As much as I believe in campaign finance reform, money — like water — will always find a way to seep in and peddle its influence. And until there’s a countervailing force, in a capitalist system there will never be enough rich sugar daddies to run to the rescue.
Why in the world should I be sure of that?? And it was not empty. It accomplished a great deal.
I’m not with Ralph Nader on appealing to the 1%ers as our only hope. Of course we can fix this ourselves. If we try. It might even help us to see how it was done in the 20s and 30s even though they had some 1%er help.
Great piece David.
As Jane mentioned the 1% aren’t gonna rescue us. The system works for them. The 1% are also our elected officials which has us screwed.
Don’t know what the answers are. Perhaps there is no one silver bullet solution.
Possibly a good course of action would be to proactively align the 1% against other 1%ers. Their interests are not always aligned, and should be exploited to the fullest, and aggressively so.
The most obvious example would be SOPA. That bill’s passage looked imminent, despite the outrage from those of us concerned with freedom of speech and an open internet. It helped to have the deep-pocketed tech industry (including Google), who could give a crap about the 1st Amendment, but had their own selfish (profit-impacting) motivations for destroying it. Once their lobbyists piled on Congress, even Paul Ryan quickly turned against the bill.
Most of corporate America (outside the health care cartel) could vastly increase their profits from a single payer health care system. Single Payer groups who have conducted studies documenting these cost benefits should be lobbying the auto industry and the tech industry, etc (those who routinely outsource jobs and operations to bring down labor costs), not the Washington whores who, in the end, will only do whatever the 1% tells them anyways.