Carlyle and Mammonism

   My reading of Carlyle left me with a sense that he was a bit of an elitist (hopefully I am right in this assumption because my understanding of his writing is based upon this idea). He seems to say that the reason Laissez-Faire will not work for Europe is not the fact that a "Let it be" government is not effective, but rather because the lower class is incapable of functioning and surviving without the help of the government. Carlyle claims that there is a type of reliance between the Lower Class and the Upper Class, that the "captain" and "soldier" relationship creates a working kinship between the two classes. While I agree that there should be some sort of relationship or bond between the two classes, I do not think that the hierarchy that he describes was what was needed. As seen in Gaskell's novel, there was a lack of sympathy for the suffering of the lower class. This separation, the "captain" "soldier" relationship, is exactly what takes away from the human suffering that the working class was experiencing. Carlyle points out that a benefit to the more "hands on" type of government allowed for the Poor Law to be passed, but as we have seen in Engels, it was not meant to better the situation of the poor, rather to just keep them alive long enough to continue working.
   It is interesting that Carlyle sites Mammonism as a part of the downfall of Industry because that seems like an honest and true account of what was going on. However, he compares this Mammonism to the vulgarity of the "Chactaw", and then links the image of the Chactaw to that of the lower class. Instead of realizing that the greed of the upper class is what was destroying the working class Carlyle says it is the greed of the lower class that is their downfall. He says that these men are capable of moving up in society, and from that hope comes their Mammonism. As proof of otherwise though we see in Gaskell and Engles that this time of upward mobility was highly unlikely, if not impossible. The reality was that the dream of success in the city led to an endless cycle of work and starvation that few were ever able to escape from.
      While I think that Carlyle hits a a few key points, he is unable to see the true situation because he is too far removed from it. He is an elitist that is not forced to work to survive, he has no idea how hard Industrial living really was. Gaskell and Engels have shown some of the hard, disgusting, and heartbreaking realities that the working class was forced to endure. What I can say is that the last thing they would have needed was a "captain" to give them orders and purpose, and instead could have just used the kindness of the upperclass to help feed their empty bellies.