what social classes owe to each other

8/2/2019 What Social Classes Owe to Each Other

1/167

WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES

O W E TO E A C H O T H E R

R PWILLIAM G R A H A M SUMNER

PROFEBBOR OF POLITICAL AND BOCIAL earmcx LY YALX OLLWL

N E W YORR AND L O N W KH A R P E R h B R O T H E R SP U B L I S H E R S


2/167

COPVRIOHT. 1883 BY HARPER LL BROTHERSCOPVRIBHT. 1911. BY JEANNIE W SUYNER

PRINTED IN THE UN I TE0 STATE5 OF A Y E l l C A


3/167


4/167


5/167

WHAT SOC IAL CLASSESOWE TO EACH OTHER.

INTRODUCTION.WE are told every day that great social

problems stand before ut3 and demand a solu-tion, and we are assailed by oracles, threats,and warnings in reference to those probIems.There is a SChOOl of writers who are playingquite a rdle as the heralds of the coming dutyand the coming woe. They as~ume to peakfor a large, but vague and undefined, constitcuency, who set he task, exact a fulfilment,and threatenpunishmentor default. Thetask or problem is not s p e c i i i d y defined.Part of the task which devolves on those whoare subject to the duty is to define the prob-l e m . They are told only that~omething isthe matter: that it behooves them to find outwhat it is, and how to correct it, and then to


6/167

8 WHAT SOCIAL CLASSE6work out the cure. All this is more or lesstrnculently set forth.After reading and listening to a great dealof this so r t of assertion I find that the que+tion forms itself with more and more &tinct-ness in my mind : Who are those who a88meto put hard questions to other people and todemand a solution of them ? How did theyacquire the rigbt to demand that others shouldsolve their world-problems for them? Whoare they who are held to consider and solveall questions, and how did they fall under thisduty ?So far as I can h d ut what the classes arewho are reepectively endowed with the rightaand duties of ping and solvi-ng social proble m, they are as follows : Those who arebound to solve the problems are the rich,comfortable, prosperous, v i r tuoq reepectable,educated, and healthy; those whose right itis to set the problemare thoee who havebeenless fortunate or lees successful in the strugglefor existence. The problem itself aeem tobe, How shall the latter be made aa oomfort-able as theformer!To solve this problem,and make us all equally well off, is assumed tobe the dutyof the former class; he penalty, if


7/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 9they failof this, is to be bloodshed and destruc-tion. If they cannot make everybody elsewell off as themselves, they are to be broughtdown to the same misery a8 others.

During the last ten years I have read agreat many books and articles, especially byGerman writers, in which an attempthas beenmade to set up theState aa an entity havingconscience, power, and will sublimated abovehuman limitations, and as constituting a tute-lary genius over us all. I have never beenable to find in history or experience anythingto fit this concept. I once lived in Germanyfor two years, but I certainly saw nothing ofit there then. Whether the State which Bis-marck is moulding will fit the notion is at beata matter of faith and hope. My notion of theState has dwindled with growing experienceof life. As an abstraction, the State is to meonly All-of-us. I n practice-that is, when itexercises will or adopts a line of action-it isonly a little group of men chosen in a veryhaphazard way by the majority of UE o per-form certain services for all of us. The m&jority do not go about their selection veryrationally, and they are almost alwayB dissppointed by the results of their own operation.


8/167

10 WHAT GOCIAL CLABBEBHence (the State, instead of offering resour-ce8 of wisdom, right reason, and pure moralsen= beyond what the average of us po88e~6,generally offers much less of all thow things.Furthermore, it often urnsout n practicethat he State is not even the known andaccredited servants of the State,but, as hasbeenwell said, is only some obscure clerk,hidden in the recesses of a Government bu-reau, nto whoee power the chance has fallenfor the moment to pull one of the stops whichcontrol the Government machine. In formerdays it often happened that he State waaa barber, a fiddler, or a badwoman. In ourday it often happens that the State is alittle functionary on whom a big functionaxyis forced to depend.

I cannot w e he sense of spending time toread and write observations, such a~ I find inthe writingsof many men of great attainmentsand of great influence, of which the followingmight be a general type : If the statesmencould attain to the requisite knowledge andwisdom, it is conceivable that the State mightperform important reguhtive functions in theproduction and distribution of wealth, againstwhich no positive and sweeping theoretical


9/167

O W E TO EAOH OTHEE. 11objection could be made from the side of eco-nomic science; but statesmen never can ac-quire he requisite knowledgeand wisdom.-To me this Beems a mere waste of words.The inadequacy of theState t o regulativet ak e is agreed upon, a8 a matter of fact, byall. Why, then, bring State regulation intothe discussion simply in order to throw it outa g a i n ? The whole subjectought o be dis-cnssed and settled aside from the hypothesisof State regulation.

The little group of public servanta who, asI have said, constitute the State, when theState determines on anythmg, could notdomuch for themselves or anybody else by theirown force. If hey doanything, hey muatdispose of men, as in an army, or of capital,as in a treasury. But the army, or police, orp 8 & miu tw , is more or less All-of-us, andthe capital in the treasury is the product ofthe labor and saving of All-of-us. Therefore,when the State meam power-to-do i t meansAll-of-us, a8 brute force or as industrial force.

If anybody is to benefit from the action ofthe Gtste it muat be Some-of-us. If, then, thequestion i aiaed, What ought the State todo for labor, for trade, for manufactures, for


10/167

l a WHAT SOCIAL CLAS6E6the poor, for the learned professions 1 etc., etc.-that is, for a class or an interest-it is reallythe question, What ought All-of-us to do forSome-of-us But Some-of-us are included inAll-of-ns, and, so far as they get the benefitof their own efforts, it is the same a8 if theyworked for themselves, and they may be can-celled out of All-of-us. Then he questionwhich remaim is,What ought Some-of-ns todo for Others-of-us? or, What do social class-e8 owe to each other ?I now p r o p to try to find out whether

there is any class in society which lies underthe duty and burden of fighting the battles oflife for any other class, or of solving socialproblems for the satisfaction of any otherclass;also,whether there is any c h s whichhas the right to formulate demands on '' soci-ety "-that is, on other classes; also, whetherthere is anything but a fallacy and a supreti-tion in the notion that '' he State" owes any-thing to anybody except peace, order, and theguarantees of rights.

I have in view, throughout the discmasion,the economic,social,and pol it id c w t a n c z e swhich exist in the United States.


11/167

OWE TO E ACH OTHEB. 13

I.ON A NEW PHILOSOPRY: THAT POVERTY ISTHE BEST POLICY.IT s commonly asserted that there are in

the United States no clasees, and any allmionto classes is resented. On the other hand, weconstantly read and hear discussions of socialtopics in which the existence of social classesis assumed as a simple fact. The poor,the weak, the laborers, are expressionswhich are wed a8 if they had exact and well-understood definition. Discussions are made tobear upon the assumed rights, wrongs, and misfortunes of certain social Cla8SeS; and all publicspeaking and writing consists,in a large meas-ure, of the discussion of general plans formeeting the wishes of classes of people whohave notbeen able to satisfy their own d e .These clwes are sometimes discontented, andsometimes not. sometimes they do not knowthatanything is amiss with hem until thefriends of humanity come to themwith


12/167

14 W H A T EOCIAL CLAEEEE

offers of aid. Sometimes they are discon-tentedand envious. They do not take theirachievements aa a fair measure of their rights.They donot blame themselves or their parentsfor heir lot, comparedwith that of otherpeople. Sometimes hey claim that they haveright to everythingf which they feelhe needfor their happiness on earth. To make suchaclaim against God or Nature would, of c o r n ,be only to say that we claim a right to live onearth if we can. But God and Nature haveordained the cbances and conditions of lifeon earth once for all. The case cannot be r eopened. We cannot get a revbion of the lawsof human life. We are absolutely &ut up tothe need and duty, if we would learn how tolive happily, of investigating the l a m of Nat-ure, and deducing the rules of right living inthe world aa it is. These are very wearisomeand commonplace tasks. They consist in la-bor and self-denial repeated over and overagain in learning and doing. When the peo-ple whose claims we are considering are toldto apply themselves to these taska they becomeirritated and feel lmost insnlted. They formn-late their claim rights agaimt society-thatie,againstmme other men. In their view they


13/167

OWE TO FACH OTHER. 15have a right, not only t o p r m e happiness,but to get it ; and if they fail to get it, theythink they have a claim t o the aid of other men-that is, to the labor and self-denial of othermen-to get it fo r them.They find oratorsand poets who tell them that they have griev-ances, so long aa they have unsatisfied desires.Now, if there aregroups of people who havea claim t o other peoples labor and selfdenid,and if there are other people whose labor andself-denial are liable to be claimed by the firstgroups, then there certainly are lasses, andclasses of the oldest and most vicious type.For a man who can command another mans

,labor and self - denial for the support of hisown existence is a privileged person of thehighest species conceivable on earth. Princesand paupers meet on this plane, and no othermen are on it at all. On theother hand, aman whose labor and self-denial may be di-verted from his maintenance to that of someother man is not a free man, and approachesmore or leas toward the position of a slave.Therefore we shall find that, in all the notionswhich we are to discum, this elementary con-tradiction, that there are classes and that thereare not c l w , will produce repeated confn-


14/167

16 WHAT socIu CLALBBEBsion and absurdity. We shall find that, in omefforts to eliminate the old vices of class gov-ernment, we are impeded and defeated by newproducts of the worst class theory. We shallfind that a l l the schemes for producing equal-ity and obliterating the organization of societyproduce a new dserentiation based on theworst possible distinction-the right to claimand the duty to give one mans effort for an-other mans satisfaction. We shall find thatevery effort to realize equality necessitates as a c a c e of liberty.It is very popular to pose as a friend of

humanity, or a 6 L friend of the working clam+ea. The character, however, is quite exoticin the United States. It is borrowed fromEngland, where some men, otherwise of smallmount, have assumed it with great L B U ~and advantage. Anything which has a chari-table sound and a kind-hearted tone general-ly pwes without investigation, became it isdisagreeable tod t. Sermons, essays, andorations w u m e a conventional standpointwith regard to the poor, the weak, etc. ; andit is allowed to pass a8 an unquestioned doc-trine n regard to social classes thattherich ought to l care for the poor f that


15/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEB. 17Churches especially ought to collect capitalfrom the rich and spend it for the poor; thatparishes ought to be clusters of institutions bymeam of which one socialclass should per-form its duties to another; and that clergy-men, economists, and social philosophers havea technical and professional duty o deviseschemes for helping the poor. The preach-ing inEngland used all to be done to the poor-that they ought to be contented with theirlot and respectful to their betters. Now, thegreatest part of the preaching in America con-sists in injlluctions to those who have takencare of themselves to perform their msumedduty to take care of others. Whatever maybe ones private sentiments, the fearof appear-ing cold and hard-hearted causes these conven-tional theories of social duty and these as-sumptions of social fact to pass unchallenged.

Let UB notice some distinctions which are ofprime importance to a correct consideration ofthe tmbject which we intend to treat.

Certain ills belong to the hardships of hn-man life. They are natural. They are part ofthe struggle with Nature for existence. Wecannot blame our fellow-men for our share ofthese. My lreighbor and I are both s t r ug -

2


16/167

18 WHAT 8OCTAL CLA6EE8gling to free ourselves from these ilk. Thefact that m y neighbor has succeeded in thisstruggle better than I constitutes no grievancefor me. Certain other ills are due to the mal-ice of men, and to the imperfections or errorsof civil institutions. These ills are an objectof agitation, and a subject of discussion. Theformer class of ilk is to be met only by manlyeffort and energy ; the latter may be correct-ed by associatedeffort. The former class ofills is constantly grouped and generalized, andmade the object of social schemes. We shallwe, a8 we go on, what that means. The aec-ond class of ills may fall on certain social c l mes, and reform will take the form of interfer-ence by other classes in favor of that one.The k t act is, no doubt, the reason why peo-ple have been led, not noticing distinctions, tobelieve that the =me method was applicableto the other class of ills. The distinction heremade between the ills which belong to thestruggle or existence and those which aredue to the faults of human institutions is ofprime importance.It wil l also be important, in order to clearup our ideas about the notions which are infashion, to note the relation of the economic


17/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 19to the political significance of assumed dutiesof one class to another. That is to my, wemay discuss the question whetherone clamowe8 duties to another -by reference to theeconomiceffectswhich will be produced onthe classes and society; or we may discmathe political expediency of formulatingandenforcing rightsand duties respectively be-tween the parties. In the ormer ca8e wemight mume that the givers of aid were will-ing to give it, andwe might discuss the benefitor mischief of their activity. In he othercasewe must msume that some at least of thosewho were forced t o give aid did so unwilling-ly. Here, then, there would be a queation ofrights. The question whether voluntary char-ity is mkhievous or not is one thing ; thequestion whether legislation which forces oneman to aid another is right and wise, as wellas economicallybeneficial, isquite anotherquestion. Great confusion andonsequenterror is produced by allowing these two q u wtions to become entangled in the discussion.Especiallywe shall need to notice the attemptsto apply legislative methods of reform to theills which belong to the order of Nature.

There is no possible definition of a poor


18/167

20 WEAT SOCIAL CLAEEEEman. A pauper is a person who cannot earnhis living; whose producing powers have fall-en positively below his necessary consumption ;who cannot, therefore, pay his way. Ahuman society needs the active cooperationand productive energy of every person in it.A man who is present aa a consumer, yet whodoes not contribute either by land, labor, orcapital to the work of society, is a burden.On no sound political theoryoughtsuch apemn to share in the political power of theState. He drops out of the ranks of work-era and producers. Society must eupport him.It accepts the burden, but he must be cancel-l e d from the ranks of the rulers likewise. Somuch for the pauper. Abouthim no moreneed be said. But he is not the poor man.The poor man is an elastic term, underwhichmy number of social fallaciee may be hidden.

Neither is there any possible dehition of he weak. Some are weak in one way, andsome in another; and those who are weak inone sense are strong in another. In general,however, it may be said that those whom hu-manitarians and philanthropists call the weakare he ones through whom the productiveand conservative forces of society are wasted


19/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEE. 21They constantly neutralize and destroy thefinest efforts of the wise and industrious, andare a dead- weight on the society in all ib6trUggles to realize any better t h q p . Wheth-er thepeople who meanno harm, but are weakin the essential powers necessary to the per-formance of ones duties in life, or those whoare malicious and vicious,do the more mis-chief, is a question not easy to answer.

Under thenames of the poor and the weak,the negligent, shiftless, inefficient,silly, andimprudent are fastened upon the industriousand prudent as a responsibility and a duty.On the oneside, the termsareextended tocover the idle, intemperate, and vicious, who,by the combination, gain credit which theydo not deserve, and which they could not getif they stood alone. On the other hand, theterms are extended to include wagereceiversof the humblest rank, who are degraded bythe combination. The reader who desires tognard himself against fdaciee should alwaysscrutinize the terms poor and weak aswed, BO as to see which or how many of theseclasses they are made to cover.

The humanitarians, philanthropktts, and re-formem, looking at the facts of life a~ they


20/167

22 WHAT 6OCIA.L CLASBEBpresent themselves, find enough which is sadandunpromising in the condition of manymembers of society. They see wealth andpoverty side by side. They note great in-equality of social position and social chances.They eagerly set about the attempt to accountfor what they me, and to devise schemes forremedyingwhat they donot like. In theireagerness to recommend the less fortunateclasses to pity and consideration they forgeta l l about the ights of other classes; theygloss over all the faults of the classes in quwtion, and they exaggerate their misfortunesand their virtues. They invent new theoriesof property, distorting rights and perpetratinginjustice, as any one is sure to dowho setsabout the re- adjustment of social relationswith the interests of one group distinctly be-fore his mind, and the interests of all othergroups hrown into he background. WhenI have read certain of them discussions I havethought that it must be quite disreputable tobe respectable, quite dishonest to own proper-ty, quite unjnst togo ones own way and earnones own living, and that the only really ad-mirable person was the good-for-nothing, Theman who by his o m effort raises himself


21/167

O W E TO EACH OTHEE. 23above poverty appears, in these discussions, tobe of no account. The man who has donenothing to raise himself above poverty findsthat the social doctors flock about him, bring-ing the capital which they have collected fromthe other class, and promising him the aid of theState to givehim what the other had to workfor. In all these schemes and projects theorganized intervention of society through theState is either planned or hoped for, and theState is thus made to become the protector andguardian of certain classes. The agents whoare to direct the State action are, of coume,the reformers and philanthropists. Theirschemes, therefore, may always be reduced tothis type-that A and B decide what C shalldo for D. It will be interesting to inquire, ata later period of our discussion, who C is, andwhat the effect is upon him of all these m-rangements. In all the discussions attentionis concentrated on A and B, the noble socialreformers, and on D, the poor man. I callC the Forgotten Man, because I have neverseen that any notice w a ~aken of him in anyof the discussions. When we have disposedof A,B, and D we can better appreciate the


22/167

case of C, and I think that we shall find thathe deserves our attention, for the worth of hischaracter and the magnitude of his unmeritedburdens. Here it may s&ce to observe that,on the theories of the social philosophens towhom I have referred, we should get a newmaxim of judicions l i v i n g : Poverty is thebest policy. If you get wealth, you will haveto B U P P O ~other people; if you do not getwealth, it will be the duty of other people to

No doubt one chief muon for the unclearand contradictory theories of clase relationelies in the fact that our society, largely con-trolled in all its organization by one set ofdoctrines, still contains snrviv& of old socialtheories which are otally incornistent withthe former. In the MiddleAges men wereunited by cuetorn and prescription into =so-ciatiom, d,uilds, andcommunities ofvariom kinds. These ties endured as long aalifehted. Consequently society WBB depend-ent, throughout all ib details, on statns, andthe tie, or bond, was sentimentaL In our mod-em state, and in the United States more thananywhere else, the social structure is based on

SUPPOI%YOU.


23/167

OW E TO EACH OTHER. 25contract, and status is of the least importance.Contract, however, is rational--en rational-istic. It is also realistic, cold, and matter-of-fact, A contract relation is based on a suffi-cient reason, not on custom or prescription.It is not permanent. It endures only so longas the reason for it endures. In a state basedon contract sentiment is out of place in anypublic or common &airs. It is relegated tothe sphere of private and personal relatiom,where it depends not at all on class types, buton personal acquaintance and personal esti-mates. The sentimentalists among US alwaysseize upon the survivals of the old order.They want to save them and restore them.

' Much of the loose thinking also which trou-bles us in our socialdiscussions arises fromthe fact that men do not distinguish the e kmenta of status and of contract which may befound in our society.

Whether social philosophers think it de-sirable or not, it is out of the question t o goback t o status or to the sentimental relationswhich once united baron and retainer, masterand wrvant, teacher and pupil, comrade andcomrade. That we have lost wme grim and


24/167

26 WHAT BOCIAL CIABEE6elegance is undeniable. That ife once heldmorepoetryand romance is true enough.But it Beema impossible that any one who hasstudied the matter should doubt that we havegained immeamrably,and that our farthergains lie in going forward, not in going back-ward. The feudal ties can never be restored.Lf they could be restored they would bringback personal caprice, favorithm, sycophancy,and intrigue. A society based on contract isa society of free and independent men, whoform ties without favor or obligation, and co-operate without cringing or intrigue. A 80-ciety based on contract, therefore, gives theutmost room and chance for individual de-velopment,and for all the self-reliance anddignity of a free man. That a society offree men, ceoperating under contract, is byfar the strongest society which hm ever yetexisted ; that no such society has ever yetdeveloped the full measure. of strength ofwhich it is capable; and that the only socialimprovements which are now conceivable liein the direction of more complete realizationof a society of free men united by contract,are points which cannot be controverted


25/167

O W E TO EACH OTHER. 27It foUom, however, that one man, in a freestate, cannot claimhelprom, and cannotbe charged to give help to,nother. Tounderstand the fu l l meaning of this mer-tion it will beworthwhile to see what afree democracy ia.


26/167

28 WHAT amur , CLAME~

LT.W A T A FREE MAN IS A SOVEREIGN, BUTTHAT A SOVEREIGN CANNOT TAKE I TIPS.

A FREE man, a free country, iberty, andequality are t e r n of constant use among m.They are employed a8 watchwords as soonmy social questions come into discussion. Itis right hat hey should be so used. Theyought to contain the broadest convictions andmost positive faiths of the nation, and so theyought to be available for the decision of quea-tions of detail.

I n order, however, that they may be so em-ployed s u m f u l l y and correctly it is essentialthat the terms hould be correctly defined, andthat their popular UER should conform to cor-rect definitions. No doubt it is generally be-lieved that the terms are easily understood,and present no dilXculty. Probably the popular notion is, that liberty means doing a~ oneha8 a mind to, and that it is a metaphysicalor sentimental good. A little observation


27/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 29shows that here is no such thing n hisworld as doing as one has a mind to. Thereis no man, from the tramp up to the Presi-dent,thePope, or the Czar, who can do BBhe has a mind to. There never has been anyman, from the primitive barbarian up o aHumboldt or a Darwin, who could do as hehad a mind to. The Bohemian who deter-mines to realize some so r t of liberty of thiskind accomplishes his purpose only by sacri-ficing most of the rights and turning his backon most of the duties of a civilized man, whilefilching as much as he can of the advantagesof living na civilized state. Moreover, lib-erty is not a metaphysical or sentimental thingat all. It is positive, practical, and actual. Itis produced and maintained by law and insti-tutions, and is, therefore, concrete and histor-ical. Sometimes we s p e a k distinctively ofcivil liberty ; but if there be any libertyother than civil liberty- hat is, liberty un-der law -it is a mere fiction of the school-men, which they may be left to discuss.

Even aa I write, however, I find in a lead-ing review the following dehition of liberty :Civil liberty is he result of the restraint ex-ercieed by the sovereign people on the more


28/167

30 WHAT socm CLAB~EBpowerful individuals and e k e s of the corn-mnnity, preventing them from availing themselves of the excess of their power to the det-riment of the other chses. This definitionlays the foundation for the result which it isapparently desired to reach, that a govern-ment by the people can in no w e become apaternal government, since its law-makers areits mandatories and servants carrying out itswill,and not its fathers or its masters. Herewe have the most mischievous fallacy underthe general topic which I am discussing dis-tinctly formulated. In the dehition of lib-erty itwill be noticed that liberty is construedaa the act of the sovereign people againstsomebody who must, of course, be merenti-ated from the sovereign people. Wheneverpeople is used in this sew for anythingless than the total population, man, woman,child, and baby, and whenever the great dog-ma8 which contain the word people are con-strned under the limited dehition of (peeple, there is always fallacy.History is only a tiresome repetition of onestory. Persons and el- have sought to win

possession of the power of the State in orderto live 1uxurious1,y out of the earnings of


29/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 31others. Autocracies, aristocracies,heocra-cies, and all other organizations for holdingpolitical power, have exhibited only the aameline of action. It is the extreme of politicalerror to that if political power is onlytaken away from generals, nobles, priests, mil-lionnaires, and scholars, and given to artisamand peasants, these latter may be trusted todo only right and justice, and never to abusethe power ; that they will repress a l l excess inothers, and commit none themselves. Theywill commit abuse, if they can and dare, j u t asothers have done. The reason for the excesmof the old governing classes lies in the vicesand passions of human nature-cupidity, lust,vindictiveness, ambition, and vanity. Thesevices axe coniined to no nation, class, or age.They appear in the church, the academy, theworkshop, and the hovel, as well as in thearmy or the palace. They have appeared inautocracies, aristocracies, theocracies, democ-racies, and ochlocracies, all alike. The onlythmg which has ever restrained these vices ofhuman nature in those who had political pow-er is law sustained by impersonal institutions.If political power be given to the massee whohave not hitherto had it, nothing will stop


30/167

32 W R A T BOCIAL CLd86E8themfrom abusing it but laws and inetitn-tions. To say that a popular government can-not be paternal is to give it a charter that itC&TI do no wrong. The trouble is that a dem-ocratic government is in greater danger thanany other of becoming paternal, for it is sureof itaelf, and ready to undertake anything, andita power is excessive and pitilees against dis-sentients.

What history shows is, that rights are eafeonly when guaranteed against all arbitrarypower, and a l l class and personal interest.Around an autocrat there has grown up anoligarchy of priestsand soldiers. In time aclam of nobles has been developed, who havebroken into the oligarchy and made an aris-tocracy. Later the d e m 8 , r i s i n g into inde-pendent development, has assumed power andmade a democracy. Then the mob of a capi-tal city hibs overwhelmed the democracy inan ochlocracy. Then heidol of the p e ~ple, or the military savior of society, orboth in one, has made himeelf autocrat, andthe same old vicious round has recommenced.Where in all this is liberty i There has beenno liberty at all, savewhere a state has knownhow to break out, once for all, from this deln-


31/167

O W E TO U C H OTHER. 33sive round ; o set barriers to se&hness, cupid-ity, envy, and lust, in d lmes, from highestto lowest, by laws and institutions ; nd to cre-ate great organs of civil life which can elimi-nate, as fa r aa possible, arbitrary and personalelements from the adjustment of interestsand the definition of rights. Liberty is an af-fair of laws and institutions which bringrights and duties into equilibrium. It is notat all an &air of selecting the proper classto rule.

The notion of a free state is entirely mod-ern. It hae been developed with the development of the middle class, and with the growthof a commercial and industrial civilization.Horror at human slavery is not a century oldaa a common sentiment in a civilized stateThe idea of the ree man, as we understandit, b the product of a revolt against medisvaland feudal ideas; and our notion of equality,when it is true and practical, can be explainedonly by that revolt. It WBB in England thatthe modern idea foundbirth. It has beenetrengthened by the industrial and commer-cia l development of that country. I t hasbeen inherited by all the English-speaking .natiom, who have made liberty real becaw

3


32/167

34 WHAT SOCIAL CLA66EEthey have inherited it, not BS a notion, but aaa body of institutions. It has been borrowedand imitated by the military and police statesof the European continent so fast as they havefelt the iduence of the expanding industrialcivilization;but they have realized it only im-perfectly, because they have no body of localinstitutions or traditions, and it remains forthem as yet too much a matter of " declara-tions " and pronunciamentos.

The notion of civil liberty which we haveinherited is that of a status createdfor the in-diwidud by lanos cvnd i m t i t u t k s , the f l e c tof which is that each mm & gzcaranteed thew e of a72 hh own pow ers m d w ' v e l y for hi.^m!n welfare. It is not at all amatter ofelections, or universal sufrage, or democracy.All institutions are to be tested by the degreeto which they guarantee liberty. It is not tobeadmitted for a moment that liberty is ameans to social ends, and that it may be im-paired for major considerations. Any onewho BO argues has lost the bearing and relaction of all the facte and factors in a f ree state.A human being has a life to live, a career torun. H e is a centre of powers to work, andof c a p i t i s to suffer. What his p o w m may


33/167

OW E TO EACH OTHEB. 35be-whether they can carry him far or not;what his chances may be, whether wide orrestricted ;what his fortune may be, whetherto suffer much or little-are questions of hispersonal destiny which he must work out andendure a6 he can ; but for all that concern thebearing of the society and its institutions uponthat man, and upon the sum of happiness towhich he can attain during his life on earth,the product of all history and all philosophyup to this time s summed up in the doctrine,that he should be left free to do the most forhimself that he can, and should be guaranteedthe exclusive enjoyment of all that he does.If the society-that is to say, in plain terms,if his fellow -men,either individually, bygroups, or in a mass-impinge upon himotherwise than to surround him with neutralconditions of security, they mmt do so underthe strictest responsibility to justify them-selves. Jealousyndrejudice against a l lsuch interferences are high political virtuesin a free man. It is not at all the functionof the State to make men happy. They mustmake themselves happy in their own way,and at their own risk. The functions of theState lie entirely in the conditions or chances


34/167

36 WHAT SOCIAL CLASSEBunder which the pursuit of happiness is car-ried on, so f a r a~ those conditions or chanceecan be affected by civil organization. Hence,liberty for labor and security for earnings arethe ends for which civil institutions exist,not means which may beemployed for ul-terior ends.Now, the cardinal doctrine of any soundpolitical system is, thatights nddutiesshould be in equilibrium. A monarchicalor aristocratic system is not immoral, if therighta and duties of persons and classes arein equilibrium, although the rights and dutiesof Merent persons and classes are unequal.An immoral political system is created when-ever thereare privileged classes"that is, class-es whohave arrogated to themselves rightawhile hrowing hedutiesupon others. Ina democracy a l l have equal political rights.That is the fundamental political principle.A democracy, then, becomes immoral, if allhavenot equal political duties. This is m-questionably the doctrine which needs to bereiterated and inculcated beyond all 0th- ifthe democracy is to be made sound and per-manent. Our orators and writers never speakof it, and do not Beem often to know anything


35/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEB. 37about i t; but he real danger of democracyis, that the classes which have the power un-der it will assume all the rights and reject allthe dutiee-that is, that they will use the po-litical power t o plunder those-who-have. De-mocracy, in order to be true to itself, and todevelop into a sound working system, mustoppose the same cold resistance to any claimsfor favor on the ground of poverty, a8 on theground of birth and rank. I t can no moreadmit to public discussion, as within the rangeof possible action, any schemes for eoddlingand helping wage-receivers than it could en-tertain schemes for restricting political powerto wage-payers. It mustput down schemesfor making he rich pay for whatever hepoor want, just as it tramples on the oldtheories that only the rich are fit to regulatesociety. One needs but to watch our period-ical literature to see the danger that democ-racy will be construed as a system of favor-ing a new privileged class of the many andthe poor.Holding in mind, now, the notions of liber-ty and democracy 86 we have defined them,we we that it is not altogether a matter offmfaronade when the American citizen calls


36/167

38 WHAT a o c uL CLASSEShimself a sovereign. A member of a freedemocracy is, in a senae, a sovereign. He hasno superior. He has reached his sovereignty,however, by a process of reduction and divis-ion of powerwhich leaves him no inferior.It is very grand to call ones self a sovereign,but it is greatly to the purpose to notice thatthe political responsibilities of the free manhave been intensified and aggregated just inproportion as political rights havebeen r educednd divided. Many monarchs havebeen incapable of sovereignty and unfit for it.Placed in exalted situations, and inheritors ofgrand opportunities, they have exhibited onlytheir own imbecility and vice. The -onwu, ecause they thought only of the gratifi-cation of their own vanity, and not at a l l oftheir duty. The free man who steps forwardto claim his inheritance and endowment as afree and equal member of a great civil bodymust understand that his duties and responsi-bilities are measured to him by the same s d eas his rights and his powers. He wants to besubject to no man. He wapts to be equal t ohis fellows, as all sovereigns are equal. Sobe i t ; but he cannot escape the deductionthat he can call no man to his aid. The other


37/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEB. 39sovereigns will not respecthis independenceif he becomes dependent, and they cannot r espect his equality if he sues fo r favors. Thefree man in a free democracy, when he cutoff all the ties which might pull him down,severed also all the ties by which he mighthavemade others pull him up. He musttake all the consequences of his new status.He is, in a certain sen~e, n isolated man.The family tie does not bring to him dGgracefor the misdeeds of his relatives, aa it oncewould have done, but neither does it furnishhim with hesupport which it once wouldhave given. The relations of men are openand free,but they are also loose. A free manin a free democracy derogata from his rankif he takes a favor for which he does notrender an equivalent.A free man in a f r e e democracy has noduty whatever toward other men of the samerank and standing, except respect, courtesy,and good-will. W e cannot say that there areno c h , hen we axe speaking politically,and then say that there are claeees, when weare tellmg A what it is his duty to do for B.In a free state every man ie held and expect-e d t o t a k e c a r e o f h i m s e l f a n d h i s f d y , t o


38/167

.PO WEAT BOCIAL CLASSES

make no trouble for his neighbor, and to con-tribute his full share to public interests andcommon necessities. If he fails in hishethrows burdens on others. He does not there-by acquire rights @air& the others. On thecontrary, he only accumulates obligations to-ward them; and if he is allowed to make h~deficiencies a ground of new claims, he passesover into the position of a privileged or pet-ted person- mancipated from duties, en-dowed with ~la ims . This is the inevitableresult of combining democratic political the-ories withhumanitarian social theories. Itwould be aside from my present pnrpose toshow, but it is worth noticing in paasing, thatone mdt of such inconsistency muet surelybe to undermine democracy, to increase thepower of wealth in the democracy, and tohasten the subjection of democracy to plutoc-m y ; for a man who accepta any share whichhe has not earned in mother DUIIE capitalcannot be an independent citizen.It ie often a5rmed that the educated andwealthy have an obligation to those who have

lees education and property, jnst because thelatter have political equality with the former,and oracles and warnings areuttered about


39/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 41what will happen if the uneducated classeswho have the sufh-age are not imtrnctedatthe care and expense of the other classes. Inthis view of the matter universal s&rage ienot a measure for s tkwmgth+ the State bybringing to its support the aid and dectionof all c l m e ~ , ut it is a new burden, and, infact, a peril. Those who favor it represent ita~ a ped. Thisdoctrine s politically im-moral and vicious. When a community es-tablishes universal suffrage, it is as if it saidto eachnew-comer, or to each young man:We give you every chance that any one elsehas. Now come along with us; take care ofyourself, and contribute your share to the bur-dens which we all have to bear in order to sup-port social institutions. Certainly, liberty,and universal suffrage, and democracy are notpledges of w e nd protection, but they m ywith them the exaction of individual respon-sibility. TheState gives equal rights andequal chances jmt because it does not meanto give mything else. It sets each man onhis feet, and gives him leave to run, just be-c a w it does not mean to carry him. Havingobtained his chances, he must take upon him-self the responsibility for his own s n m r


40/167

42 WHAT SOCIALLABSEBfailure. It is a puremisfortune to the com-munity, and one which will redound to itsinjury, if any man haa been endowed withpolitical power who is a heavier burden thenthan he was before ; but it cannot be said thatthere is any new duty created for the goodcitizens toward the bad by the fact that thebad citizens are a harm to the State.


41/167

OWE TO EACH (YTHEB. 43

m.THAT IT rs NOT WICKED TO BE RICH; NAY,EVEN, TEAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BA?RICHER TEAN ONES NEIGILBOR.

I H A ^ before me a newspaper slip onwhich a writer expresses the opinion that noone should be allowed to possess more thanone million d o h worth of property. Along-aide of it is another slip, on which motherwriter expresses the opinion that the limitshould be five millions. I do not h o w whatthe compaxative wealth of the two writers i~,but it is interesting to notice that there is awide margin between their ideas of how richthey would allow their fellow-citizens to bcome, and of the point at which they (theState, of come) would step in to rob a manof his earnings. These two writem only repreaent a great deal of crnde thinking and de-chiming which is in fashion. I neverhaveknown a man of ordinary common-sense whodid not urge upon his 80118, from earliest child-hood, doctrines of economy and the practice


42/167

4 4 WHAT BOCIAL CLA55E6of accumulation. A good father believes thathe doeswisely to encourage enterprke, pro-ductive skill,prudent self-denial,and judiciousexpenditure on the part of his son. The ob-ject is to teach the boy to accumulate capital.If, however, the boy should read many of thediatribes against " he rich l1 which are afloatin our literature ; f he should read or hearsome of the current discussion about "capi-tal$' and if,with the ingenuomness of youth,he should take these productions at their lit-eral aenee, instead of discounting them, tu hisfather does, he would be forced to believethat he wm on the path of infamy when hewaa earning and saving capital. It is worthwhile to consider which we mean or what wemean. Is it wicked to be rich? Is it meanto be a capitalist ? If the question 21one ofdegree only, and it is right to be rich up toa certain point and wrong to be richer, howshall we find the point? Certainly, for prac-tical purpme~,we ought to d e h e the pointnearer than between one and five millions ofd o h .

There ie an old ecclesiastical prejudice infavor of the poor and against the rich. Indays when men acted by ecclesiastical des


43/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 45these prejudices produced waste of capital,and helped mightily to replunge Europe intobarbarism. The prejudices are notyet dead,but they survive in our society as ludicrouscontradictions and nconsistencies. One thingmust be granted to the rich : they are good-natured.erhapshey do not recognizethemselves, for a rich man is even harder todefine than a poor one. It is not uncommonto hear a clergyman utter from the pulpit allthe old prejudice in favor of the poor andagainst the rich, while asking the rich to dosomething for the poor; and the rich comply,without apparentIy having their feelings hurtat all by the invidious comparison. We allagree that he sa good member of societywho works his way up from poverty to wealth,but aa soon a8 he has worked his way up webegin to regard him with suspicion,a8 a dan-gerous member of society. A newspaper startsthe silly fallacy that the rich are rich becausethe poor are indUstriOU6, and it is copied fromone end of the conntry to the other as if itwere abrilliant apothegm. Capital is d enounced by writers and speakers who havenever taken the trouble to find out what capi-tal is, and who use the word in two or three


44/167

46 WHAT SOCIAL OLABBEBdifferent senses in as many pages. L a b o r or-ganizations are formed, not to employ com-bined effort for a common object, but to in-dulge in declamation and denunciation, andespecially to furnieh an m y living to someofficers who do notwant to work. Peoplewho have rejected dogmatic religion, and re-tained only a residuum of r e k o u s sentimen-talism, find a special field in the discuesion ofthe rights of the poor and the duties of therich. We have denunciations of banks, cor-porations, and monopolies, which denuncia-tions encourage only helplew rage and ani-mosity, because theyarenot controlled byany deiinitione or limitations, or by any distincctions between what is indispensably necessaryand what is abuse, between what is establhhedin the order of nature and what is legislativeerror. Think, for instance,of a journal whichmakes it its special business to denounce mo-nopolies, yet favors a protective tariff,and hasnot a word to say against trades-uniom orpatents!Think of public teachers who saythat the farmer is ruined by the cost of trmeportation, when they mean that he cannotmake any profits became his farm is too farfrom the market, and who denounce the


45/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 47railroad because it does not correct for thefarmer, at the expense of its stockholders, thedisadvantage which lies in the physical situa-tion of the farm! Think of thatconstruetion of this situation which attributes all thetrouble to he greed of moneyed corpora-tions ! Think of the piles of rubbish thatone has read about corners, and wateringstocks, and selling futures!

Undoubtedly there are, in connection witheach of these thing, cases of fraud, swindhg,and other financial crimes; that is to say, thegreed and selhhnew of men are perpetual.They put on new phases, they adjust them-selves to new forms of businem, and constant-ly devise new methods of fraud and robbery,just aa burglars devise new artifices to churn-vent every new precaution of the lock-makers.The criminal law needs to be improved tomeet new f o m of crime, but o denouncefinancial devices which are useful and legiti-mate because me is made of them for fraud,ie ridiculoua and unworthy of the age in whichwe live. Fifty years ago goodold EngliahTories used to denounce all joint-stock com-parcia in the w e way, and for S ~ Z U*mm.


46/167

48 .WHAT B0CLA.L CLABBEBAll the denunciations and declamationawhich have been referred to are made in the

interest of L the poor man. His name nevercemes to echo in the halls of legislation, andhe is the excuae and reaon for all the actawhich are paased. He is never forgotten inpoetry, wrmon, or essay. His interest is in-voked to defend every doubtful procedure andevery questionable institution. Yet where ishe 1 Who is he 1 Who ever sawhim 1 Whendid he ever get the benefit of any of the num-berless efforts in his behalf ? When,rather,was his name and interest ever invoked, when,upon examination, it did not plainly appearthat somebody else was t o win-aomebodywho was f a r too smart ver to be poor, fartoo lazy ever to be rich by industry andeconomy ?A great deal is said about the unearned in-crement from land, especially with a view tothe l a r g e gains of landlords in old countries.The unearned increment from land has indeedmade the position of an English land-owner,for the last two hundred years, the most fort-unate that any clam of mortals ever haB en-joyed ; ut the present moment, when the rentof ag r i cu l t d land in England is declining


47/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEE. 49under the competition of American land, isnot well chosen for attacking the old advan-tage. Furthermore, he unearned incrementfrom land appears in the United States as again to the first comers, who have here laidthe foundations of a new State. Since theland is a monopoly, the unearned incrementlies in he laws of Nature.Then the onlyquestion is,Who shall have it ?-the man whohas the ownership by prescription, or some orall others 8 It is a beneficent incident of theownership of land that a pioneer who reducesit to w e , nd helps to lay the foundations of anew State, finds a profit in the increaaing valueof land aa the new State grows up. It wouldbe unjust to take that profit away from him,or from any s u c w o r to whom he has sold it.Moreover, there is an unearned increment oncapital and on labor, due to the resence, aroundthe capitaliet and the laborer, of a great, in-dustrious, and prosperous society. A tax onland and a succession or probate duty on capi-tal might be perfectly justiiied by these facts.Unquestionably capital accumulates with arapidity which follows in some high seriea thesecurity, good government, peaceful order ofthe State in which it is employed; and if the

4


48/167

50 WHAT EOCIAL CLABSEBState steps in, on the death of the holder, t oclaim a share of the inheritance, such a claimmay befully justified. The laborer likewisegains bycarrying on his labor in a strong,highly civilized, and well-governed State farmore than he could gain with equal industryon the frontier or in the midst of anarchy.He gains greater remuneration for his eel-vices, and he also shares in the enjoyment ofall that accumulated capital of a wealthy com-munity which is public or semi-public in itsnature.It is often said that the earth belongs to the

m e , as if raw land was a boon, or gift. Rawland is only a c h m e to prosecute the strag-gle for existence, and the man who ,tries toearn a living by the subjugation of raw landmakes that attempt under the most nnfavor-able conditions, for land can be brought intome only by great hardship and exertion. Theboon, or gift, would be to get some land aftereomebody else had made it fit for me. Anyone in the world today can have raw land bygoing to it ; but there are millions who wouldregard it simply aa transportation for life,if they were forced to go and live on newland and get their living out of it. Private


49/167

OWE TO EAOH OTHER. 51ownership of land is only division of labor.If it is true in any wme that we all own thesoil in common, the b e s t u8e we can make ofour undivided interests is to vest them allgratnitoualy (just as we now do) in any whowill assume the function of directly treatingthe soil, while the rest of UE take other sharesin the social organization. The reamn is, be-came in this way we all get more than wewould if each one owned some land and wedit directly. Supplyand demand now deter-mine the distribution of population betweenthe direct w e of land and other pursuits; andif the total profib and chances of land-culturewere reduced by ta,king a l l theunearnedincrement in taxes, there would simply be aredistribution of industry until the profits ofland-culture, less taxes and without chancesfrom increasing value, were equal to the prof-its of otherpursuitsunder exemption fromtaxation.It k remarkable that jealonsy of individual

property in land often goes along with veryexaggerated doctrines of tribal or nationalproperty in land. We are told that John,Jamw, and William ought not to possess partof the earths surface because it belongs to


50/167

58 W H A T SOCIAL CLABEEBd men ; but it is held that Egyptians, Nicaraguans, or Indians have such right to the ter-ritory which they occupy, that they may barthe avenues of commerce and civilization ifthey choose, and that it is wrong to overridetheir prejudices or expropriateheir land.The ruth is, that he notion that he raceown the earth haa practical meaning only forthe latter class of caaes.

The great gains of a great capitalist in amodem state must be put under the head ofwages of superintendence. Any one who be-lieves that any great enterprise of an indmtri-al character can be started without labor mmthave little experience of life. Letany onetry to get a railroad built, or tostart a factoryand win reputation for its products, or to starta school and win a reputation for it, or toounda newspaper and make it a succw, or to startany other enterprise, and he will find whatobstacles must be overcome, what risg, mustbe taken, what peraeverance and courage arey n i r e d , what foresight and sagacity are neee888ry. Especially in a new country, wheremany tasks are waiting, whc re resource8 arestrained to the utmost a l l the time, the judg-ment, courage, and perseverance required to


51/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 53organize new enterprises and carry hem tosuccess are sometimes heroic. Persona whopossese the neceasaxyuaJXcationa obtaingreat rewards. Theyought to do so. It iefoolish to rail at them. Then, again, the abil-ty to organize and conduct industrial, commer-cial, or financial enterprises is rare ; he greatcaptains of industry are ae rare a~ great gener-als. The great weakness of all co-operativeenterprises is in hematter of supervision.Men of routine or men who can do what theyare told are not hard to find ; but men whocan think and plan and tell the routine menwhat to do are very rare. They are paid inproportion tohe supply and demand ofthem.I f Mr. A. T. Stewart made a great fortuneby collecting and bringing dry-goods to thepeople of the United States, he did EO becamehe understood how to do that hing betterthan any other man of his generation. Heproved it, because he carried the businessthrough commercial crises and war, and keptincressing its dimensions. If, when he died,he left no competent successor, the businessmust break up, and p~ into new organizationin the hands of other men. Some have mid


52/167

54 WHAT E00IA.L CLABBEBthat Mr. tewart madehis fortune outof thosewho worked for him or with him. But wouldthose persons have been able to come togeth-er, organize themselves, and earn what theydid earnwithout him?Not t all. Theywould have been comparatively helpless. Heand they together formed a great system offactories, stores, transportation, under hisguidance and judgment. It waa for the bene-fit of all; but he contributed to it what DOone else waa able to contribute-the one guid-ingmind which made the whole thing possi-ble. In no Bense whatever does a man whoaccumulates a fortune by legitimate industryexploit his employ&, or make his capital outof anybody else. The wealth which he winswould not be but for him.The aggregation of large fortunes is not atall a thing to be regretted. On the contrary,it is a necessary condition of many forms ofsocialadvance. If we should set a limit tothe accumulation of wealth, we should my toour moat valuable producers, W e do notwant you to do ua the services which you beetunderstand how to perform, beyond a certainpint. It would be like killing off our gememl~n war. A meat deal is said, in the cant


53/167

OWE TO EACH OTEEE. 55of a certain school, about (ethicalviews ofwealth, and we are told that some day menwill be found of such public spirit that, aftertheyhaveaccumulated a few millions, theywbe willing t o go on and labor simply forthe pleasure of paying the taxes of their fel-low-citizem. Possibly this is true. It is aprophecy. It is as impossible to deny it m itie silly toam it. For if a time ever comawhen there are men of this kind, the men ofthat age will arrange their affairs wmrdingly.There are no such men now, and those of uswho live now canuot arrange our &aim bywhat men will be a hundred generationshence.

There is every indication that we are to wenew developmentsof the power of aggregatedcapital to wrve civilization, and that the newdevelopmenta will be made righthere inAmerica. Joint -stock companies areyet intheir infancy, and incorporated capital, insteadof being a thing which can be overturned, isa thing which is becoming more and more in-dispensable. .I shall havesomething to sayin another chapter about the necessary checkaand guarantees,in a political point of view,which must be established. Economically


54/167

56 WHAT aocuL CLAMEBspeaking, aggregated capital will be more andmore essential to the performance of our s ecia1 tasks. Furthermore, it eeem tome cer-tain that all aggregated capital will fall moreand more under personal control. Each great,company will be known as controlled by onemrrster mind. The reason for this Kea in thegreat superiority of personal management overmanagement by boards and committees. Thistendency is in the public interest, for it is inthe direction of more satisfactory reaponsibil-its. The great hinderance to the developmentof thh continent has lain in the lack of capi-tal. The capital which we have had has beenwasted by division and dissipation, and by in-judicious applications. The waste of capital,in proportion to the total capital, in this c o wtry between 1800 and 1850, n the attemptawhich were made to establish means of cornmunication and transportation, WBB enonnouaThe wastewas chielly due to ignorance andbad management, especially to State controlof public works. We are to w e he development of the countrypushed forward at an m-precedented rate by an aggregation of capital,and a sptematic application of it under thedirection of competent men. Thisdevelop


55/167

OWE TO EACH OTHFJt. 57ment will be for the benefit of all, and it willenable each one of us, in his measure and way,to increase his wealth. We may each of uago ahead to do so, and we have every reasonto rejoice in eachother's prosperity. Thereought to be no laws to guarantee propertyagainet the folly of i ta possessors. In the ab-sence of such laws, capital inheritedby aspendthrift will be squanderedand re-accu-mulated in the hands of men who are fit andcompetent to hold it. So it shouldbe, andunder such a state of things there is no reasonto desire to limit the propertywhich any manmay acquire.


56/167

58 WHAT BOcm CLAESES

Iv.ON TEE REASONS WHY MAN rs NOT

ALTOGETHER A BRUTE.THEArab have a story of a man who d esired to test which of his three son6 loved himmost. He sent them out to see which of thethree would bring him the most valuable present. The three sons met in a distant city, andcompared the gifts they had found. The firsthad a carpet on which he could transport him-self and others whithersoever he would. Thesecond had a medicine which would cure anydisease: The hird had a glw in which hecould w e what waa going on at any place hemight name. The third used his glass t o Beewhat WFIS going on at home :he ww his fatherill in bed. The h t ransported all three totheir home on his carpet. The second admin-ietered the medicine and saved the fathereiife. The perplexity of thefather when hehad to decide which mng gift had been of themmt d u e to him illwtrates very fairly thedi6culty of saying whether land, labor, or


57/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEX. 59capital ia most wential to production. N oproduction is possible without the co-opemtion of all three.

We know that men once lived on the spon-taneous fruits of the earth, just m other ani-malsdo. In that stage of existence a manwm just like the brutes. His existence wasat the sport of Nature. He got what. he couldby way of food, and ate what he could get,but hedepended onfindingwhat Nature gave.He could wrest nothing from Nature; heouldmake her produce nothing; and he had onlyhis limbs with which to appropriate what sheoffered. is existence waslmost entirelycontrolled by accident; he possessed no capi-tal ; he lived out of his product, and produc-tion had only the two elements of land andlabor of appropriation. A t the present timeman is an intelligent animal. H e ~ O W Sme-thing of the laws of Nature ;he can avail him-self of what is favorable, and avert what isunfavorable, in nature, to a certain extent ;hehas narrowed the sphere of accident, and inmme respects reduced it to computationswhich lessen its importance;he can bringthe productive forces of Nature into service,and make them produce food, clothiq, and


58/167

60 WHAT SOCIAL CLA66E6shelter. How has the change been broughtabout ? The an6wer is, By capital. If we cancome to an understanding of what capital is,andwhat a place it occupies in civilization,it will clear up our ideas about a great manyof these schemes and philosophies which areput forward to criticise social arrangements,or aa a basis of proposed reforms.

The h t beginnings of capital are lost inthe obscurity which covere all the germs ofcivilization. The more onecomes to under-stand the c ue of the primitive man, the morewonderful it seem that man ever started onthe road to civilization. Among he loweranimals we h d ome inchoate forms of capi-tal, but from them to theowest forms of realcapital there is a great stride. It doesnotseem possible that man could have taken thatstride without intelligent reflection, and every-thing we know about the primitiveman showeus that he did not reflect. No doubt accidentcontrolled the h t eteps. Theymayhavebeen won and lost again many times. Therewas one natural element which man learnedto use 80 early that we cannot find any traceof him when he had it not-fire. There waaone tool-weapon in nature-the flint. Beyond


59/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 61the man who was so f a r superior to the brutesthat he knew how to use fire and had the w eof flints we cannot go. A man of lower civil-ization than that was so like the brutes that,like them, he could leave no sign of his pres-ence on the earth mve his bones.The man who had a flint no longer need bea prey to a wild animal, but could make a preyof it. He could get meat food. He who hadmeat food could provide his food in such timeas to get leisure to improve his iEnt tools. Hecould get skins for clothing, bones for needles,tendons for hread. He next devised trapsand snares by which to take animals alive.He domesticated them, and lived on their in-crease. He made them beasts of draught andburden, and so got the use of a natural force.He who hadbeasts of draughtand burdencould make a road and trade, and so get theadvantage of all soils and all climates. Hecould make a boat, and use the winds a~ force.He now had sdch tools, science, and skill thathe could till the ground, and make it give himmore food. So fromthe first stepthat manmade above the brute the thing which madehie.civilization possiblewas capital. Every stepof capital won made the next step possible, up


60/167

62 WHAT SOCIAL CLASSEEto he present hour. Not a step has beenor can bemadewithout capital. It is laboraccumulated, multiplied into itself-raised toa higher power, a~ the mathematicians my.The locomotive s only poseible today be-cause, from he flint-knife up, one achieve-ment hw been multiplied into another throughthousands of generations. We cannot nowstir a step n our lifewithout capital. Wecannot build a school, a hospital, a church, oremploy a missionary society, without capital,any more than we could build a palace or afactory without capital. W e have ourselves,and we have the earth; he thing which limitswhat we can do is the third requisite-capital.Capital is force, human energy stored or ac-cumulated, and very few people ever come toappreciate its importance to civilized Me. Weget eo used to it that we do not see its use.

The industrial organiqtion of society kundergone a developmentwith the development of capital. Nothing hss ever made menspread over the eaTth and develop the artsbutnecessity-that is, the need of getting a liv-ing, and the hsrdships endured in trying tomeet that need. The human race haa had topay with its blood at every step. It has had


61/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEB. 63to buy its experience. The thing which haskept up the necessity of more migration ormore power over Nature has been increase ofpopulation. Where population hasecomechronically excessive, and where the popula-tion haB succumbed and sunk , instead of devel-oping energy enoughfor a new advance, thereraces have degenerated and settled in to perma-nent barbarism. Theyhave lost the powerto rise again, and have made no inventions.Where life has been so easy and ample thatit cost no effort, few improvements have beenmade. It is in the middle range, with enoughsocial pressure to make energy needful, andnot enough social pressure to produce despair,that the most progress has been made.

At first all labor was forced. Men forcedit on women, who were drudges and slaves.Men reserved for themselves only the workof hunting or war. Strange and often horri-ble shadows of all the old primitive barbarismare now to be found in the slums of great citries, and in the lowest groups of men, in themidst of civilized nations. Men mpose la-bor on women in some suchgroups today.Through various grades of slavery, serfdom,villainage,and through varions organizations


62/167

64 WHAT S O C I A L CLASSESof castes and guilds, the industrial organiza-tion has beenmodified and developed up tothe modern system. Some men have beenfound o denounce and deride the modernsystem-what they call the capitalist system.The modem system is based on liberty, oncontract, and on private roperty. It hasbeen reached through a gradual emancipationof the mass of mankind from old bonds bothtoNature and to their fellow-men. Villagecommunities, which excite the romantic ad-miration of some writers, were fit only fora most elementary and unorganized society.They were fit neither to cope with the natu-ral diBculties of winning much food from lit-tle land, nor to cope with the malice of men.Hence they perished. In the modern societythe organization of labor is high. Some areland-owners and agriculturists, some are tram-porters, bankers, merchanb, teachem ; someadvance the product by manufacture. It is asystem of division of functions, which is beingrefined all the time by subdivision of tradeand occupation, and by the differentiation ofnew trades.

The ties by which all are held together arethose of free co-operation and contract. Ifwe


63/167

OWE TO EACL OTHER 65look back for comparison to anythingof whichhuman history gives ns a type or experiment,we see that themodern free system of indnstryoffers to every living human being chances ofhappiness indescribably in excess of what for.mer generations have possessed. It offers nosuch guarantees as were oncepossessed byBorne, that they should in no cme suffer. Wchave an instance right at hand. The negroes,once slaves in the United States, used to beassured care, medicine, and support ; but theyspent heir efforts, and other men took theproducts. They have been setree. Thatmeans only just this : hey now work and holdtheir own products, and are assured of nothingbutwhat they earn. In escaping from sub-jection they have lost claims. Care, medicine,and support heyget, if they earn it.Willany one say that he black men have notgained? Will any one deny that individualblack men may seemworse of f? Will anyone allow such observations to blind him to thetrue significance of the change? If any onethinks that there are or ought to be somewherein society guarantees that no man shall sntferhardship, lethim understand thatthere canbe no en& guarantees, d m ther men give

6


64/167

66 WHAT BOCIAL CLABBEBthem-that is,unless we go back to slavery,andmake one man's effort conduce to an-other man's welfare. Of coarse, if a specnlator brealm oose from science and history,and plans outan ideal society in which allthe conditions are to be dxerent, he is a law-giver or prophet, and those may listen to himwho have leisure.

The modern industrial systemis a great I+cial co-operation. It is automatic and instinc-tive in its operation. The adjustments of theorgans take place naturally. The parties areheld together by impersonal force -supplyand demand. They may never see each other;they may be separated by half the circnm-ference of the globe. Their co-operation inthe social effort is combined and distributedagain by financial machinery, and the rightsand interests are measured and satisfied with-ont any special treaty or convention at all.AU this goes on EO smoothly and naturallythat we forget o notice it. We hink hatit costs nothing-does itself, a t were. Thetruth is, that this great co-operative effortis one of the great products of civilization-one of its costliest products and highest re-finements, because here, more than anywhere


65/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 67else, intelligence comes in, but intelligenceeo clear and correct that it does not need ex-pression.

Now, by the great social organization thewhole civilized body (and soon we shall saythe whole human race) keeps up a combinedassault on Nature for the meam of subsistence.Civilized society may be said to be maintainedin an unnatural position, at an elevation abovethe earth, or above the natural state of humansociety. It am be maintained there only byan efficient organization of the social effortand by capital. At its elevation it supportsfar greater numbers than it could support onany lower stage. Members of the society whocome into it aa it is today can live only byentering nto he organization. If numbereincrease, the organization must be perfected,and capital must increaaei. e., power overNature. If the society does not keep up itapower, if it lowers its organization or wastesita capital, it falls back toward the naturalstah of barbarism from which it roee, and ineo doing it must sacrif~cehousands of ita weak-est members. Hence hnman society lives at aconstant strain forward and upward, and thosewho have most interest that this strainbe sue-


66/167

68 WHAT E O C I A L CLABBEEcessfully kept up, that the social organizationbe perfected, and that capital be increased,are those at the bottom.

The notion of property which prevailsamong UE today is, that a man has a rightto the thing which he has made by his labor.This is a very modern and highly civilizedconception. Singularly enough, it hasbeenbroughtforward dogmatically to prove thatproperty in land is not reasonable, because mandid not make land. A man cannot "make" achattel or product of any kind whatever with-out &st appropriating land, EO as to get theore, wood, wool, cotton, fur, or other raw rnterial. All that men everappropriate andfor is to get out of it the natural materials onwhich they exercise their ndustry.Appro-priation, therefore, precedea labor-production,both historically and logically. Primitiveraces regarded, and often now regard, apprepriation a~ the beet title to property. ABusual, they are logical. It is the simplest andmoat natural mode of thinking to regard athing as belonging to that man who has, bycarrying,wearing, 6r handling it, associated itfor a certain time with his person. I onceheard a little boy of four years eay to his


67/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 69mother, Why is not this pencil mine now ?It used to be my brothers, but I have beenusing it all day. He was reasoning with thelogic of his barbarian ancestors. The reasonfor allowing private property in land is, thattwo men cannot eat the same oaf of bread.If A has taken a piece of land, and is at workgetting his loaf out of it, B cannot use thesame land at the same time for the same pur-pose. Priority of appropriation is the onlytitle of right which can supersede the title ofgreater force. The reason why man is notaltogether a brute is, because he has learned toaccumulate capital, to use capital, to advanceto a higher organization of society, to developa completer co-operation, and so to win great-er and greater control over Nature.

It is agreat delusion to look about UEJand select those menwho occupy the mostadvanced position in respect to worldly cir-cumstances as the standardo which wethinkhat all mightbe and oughto bebrought. All the complaints and criticiemsabout the inequality of men apply to inequali-ties in property, luxury, and creature com-forts, not to knowledge, virtue, or even php-ical beauty and strength. But it is plainly


68/167

70 WHAT SOCIAL CLA66EBimpossible that we should all attain to equali-ty on the level of the best of us. The historyof civilization shows us that t,he human racehas by no means marched on in a solid andeven phalanx. It has had itsadvanceguard,its rear-guard, and its stragglers. It presentsus the same picture to-day ; for it embracesevery grade, from the most civilized nationsdown to the lowest surviving types of barba-rians. Furthermore, if we analyze the socie-ty of the most civilized State, especially inone of the great cities where the highest tri-umphs of culture are presented, we find sur-vivals of every form of barbarism and lowercivilization. Hence, those who today enjoythe most complete emancipation from thehardships of human life, and the greatestcommand over the conditions of existence,simply show us the best that man has yetbeen able to do. Can we all reach that stand-ard by wishmg for it? Can we all vote itto each other? If we pull down those whoare most fortunate and succe~~ful,hall wenot by that very act defeat our own object?Those who are trying to reason out any &uefrom this angle of false notions of societyand of history are only involving themselves


69/167

OWE TO EACH OTHEB. 71in hopeless absurdities and contradictions. Ifany man is not in the first rank who mightget there, let him put forth new energy andtake his place. If any man is not in the frontrank, although he has done h b best, how canhe be advanced at a l l ? Certainly in no waysave by pnehing down any one else who ieforced to contribute to his advancement.It is often said that the mrw of mankind

are yet buried in poverty, ignorance, and brut-ishness. It would be a correct statement ofthe facts intended, from an historical and 80-ciological point of view, to say, Only a sma l lfraction of the human race have a8 yet,bythousands of years of struggle, been partiallyemancipated from poverty, ignorance, andbrutishness. When once this simple correc-tion is made in the general point of view, wegain most important corollaries for all thesubordinate questions about the relations ofracee,nations, and clasees.


70/167

12 WHAT SOCIAL (?LABBE8

V.TEAT WE AfUHT HA VE FEW MEN, IP WEWANT BTRONG ACEN.IN our modem revolt against the mediaeval

notions of hereditary honor and hereditaryshame we have gone too far, for we have lostthe appreciation of the rue dependence ofchildren on parents. We have a glib phraseabout the accident of birth, but it wouldpuzzle anybody to tell what it means. If Atakes B to wife, it is not an accident that hetook B rather than C, D, or any other woman;and if A and B have a child, X, that childsties to ancestry and posterity, and his relationsto the human race, into which he has beenborn through A and B, are in no sense acci-dental. The childs interest in the questionwhether A should have married B or C is aamaterial anything one can conceive of, andthe fortune which made X he son of A, andnot of another man, is the moat material factin his destiny. If these things were better


71/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 73understood public opinion about the ethics ofmarriage and parentage would undergo a mostsalutary change. In following the moderntendency of opinion we have lost sight of thedue responsibility of parents, and our legisla-tion has thrown upon some parents the re-sponsibility, not only of their own children,but of those of others.

The relation of parents and children is theonly caw of sacrifice in Nature. Elsewhereequivalence of exchange prevails rigorously.The parents, however, hand down to theirchildren thereturnfor all which they hadthemselves inheritedromheir ancestow.Theyought to hand down the inheritancewith increase. It is by this relation that thehuman race keeps up a constantly advancingcontest with Nature. The penalty of ceasingan aggressive behavior toward the hardshipsof life on the part of mankind is, that we gobackward. We cannot stand still. Now, pa-rental affection constitutes the personal motivewhich drives every man in his place to anaggressive and conquering policy toward thelimiting conditiom of human life. Mectionfor wife and children is ah30 the greatest mo-tive to social ambition and personal self-re-


72/167

74 WHAT B O C I A L CLABBEBspect-that is, to what is technically called a" high standard of living."

Some people are greatly shocked to read ofwhat is called Malthnsianiam, when they readit in a book, who would be greatly ashamedof themselves if they did not practise Yalthu-sianism in their own &airs. Among respect-able people a man who took upon himself theww and expenses of a family before he hadsecured a regular trade or profession, or hadaccumulated some capital, and who allowedhis wife to lose caste, and his children to bedirty, ragged, and neglected, would be severe-ly blamed by the public opinion of the com-munity. The standard of living which a manmakes for himself and his family, if he meanato earn it, and does not formulate i t as a de-mand which he means to make on his fellow-men, is a gauge of his self-respect; and a highstandard of living is the moral limit which anintelligent body of men sets for itself far in-side of the natural limits of the sustainingpower of the land, which latter limit is set bystarvation, pestilence, and war. But a lughstandard of living restrains population; thatis, if we hold up to the higher standard ofmen, we muat have fewer of them.


73/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 75Taking men as they have been and are, theyare subjects of passion, emotion, and instinct.O d y the &liteof the race has yet been raised

to the point where reason and conscience caneven curb he lower motive forces. For themaBB of mankind, therefore, the price of bet-ter things is too severe, for that price can besummed up n one word-selfantrol.Theconsequence is, that for all but a few of us thelimit of attainment in life in the best case isto live out our term, to pay our debts, to placethreeor four children in a position to support themselves in a position as good as thefathers ww, and there to make the accountbalance.

Since we must all live, in the civilized or-ganization of society, on the existing capital;and since those who have only come out evenhave not accumulated any of the capital, haveno claim to own it, and cannot leave it totheir children ; and since those who own landhave parted with their capital for it, whichoapital has pused back through other handsinto industrial employment, how is a manwho hss inherited neither land nor capital to~ e c u r ea l i v i n g ? He must give his produc-tive energy to apply capital to land for the

a


74/167

76 WHAT SOCIAL CLA86E6farther production of wealth, and he must se-cure a share in the existing capital by a con-tract relation to those who own it.

Undoubtedly the man who possesses capitalhas a great advantage over the man who hasno capital, in all the struggle for existence.Think of two men who want to lift a weight,one of whom has a lever, and the other mustapply his hands directly ; hink of two mentilling the soil, one of whom u e s hie handsor a stick, while the other has a horse and aplough ; think of two men in codict witha wild animal, one of whom has only a stickor a stone, while theother has a repeatingrifle; hink of two men who are sick, one ofwhom can travel, command medical skill, getapace, light, air, and water, while the otherlacks all these things. This does not meanthat one man has an advantage q&mt theother, but that, when they are rivale in theeffort to get the means of subsistence fromNature, the one who hss capital has immeaeurable advantages over the other. If it werenot 80 capital would not be formed. Capitalis only formed by selfdenial, and if the poesession of it didnot secure advantag- andsuperioritiw of a high order men would never


75/167

OWE TO EACH OTHER. 77submit o what is necessary to get it. The6mt accumulation costs by far the most, andthe rate of increase by profits at h t e e mpitiful.Amonghe metaphors which par-t i d y illustrate capital-all of which, however,are imperfect and inadequate-the snow-ball isuseful to showsome facts about capital. Itsfirst accumulation is dow, but as it proceedsthe accumulation becomes rapid in a high ra-tio, and the element of self - denial declines.This fact, also, is favorable to the accumula.tion of capital, for if the self-denial continuedto be as great per unit when the accumulationhad become great, there would speedily comea point at which farther accumulation wouldnot pay. The man who has capital has ~ e -curedhisfuture, won leisure which he canemploy in winning secondary objects of ne-cessity and advantage, and emancipated him-self from those things in life which are grossand belittling. The possession of capital is,therefore, an indispensable prerequisite of ed-ucational, scientih, and moral goods. This isnot saying that a man in the narrowest cir-cumstanceemay not be a good man. It issaying that the extension and elevation of allthe moral and metaphysical interests of the


76/167

78 W H A T BOCLBL CLABBEBrace are conditioned on that extension of civ-ilization of which capital is the prerequisite,and that he who has capital can participate inand move along with he highest developments of his time. Hence it appears thatthe man who has his self-denial before him,however good may be hie intention, cannotbe as the man who has his selfdenial behindhim. Some eeem to hink hat his is veryunjust, but they get their notions of justicefrom some occult source of inspiration, notfrom observing the facts of this world as ithas been made and exists.

The maxim, or injunction, to which a etudyof capital leads us is, Get capital. In a com-munity where the standard of living is high,and the conditions of production are favora-ble, there is a wide margin within which anindividual may practise selfdenial and wincapital without suffering, if he has not hecharge of a family. That it requirea energy,conrage, perseverance, and prudence is not tobe denied. Any one who believa that anygood thing on this earth can be got withoutthose virtuesay believe in the philoaophereetone or the fountain of youth. If there were


77/167

OWE To EACH OTHER. 79any Utopia its nhabitants would certainlybe very insipid and characterless.

Those who have neither capital nor landunquestionably have a closer lass interestthan landlords or capitalists. If one of thosewho are in either of the atter classes is aspendthrift he loses his advantage. If thenon - capitalists increase their numbers, theysurrender themselves into he hands of thelandlords and capitalists. They compete witheach other for food until they runup the rentof laud, and they compete with each other forwages until heygive he capitalist a greatamount of productive energy for a givenamount of capital. If some of themreeconomical and prudent in themidst of a classwhich saves nothing and marries early, thefew prudent suffer for the folly of the rest,since they can only get current rates of wages;and if these are low the margin out of whichto make savings by special personal effort isnarrow. No instance has yet been eeen of asociety composed of a claa of great capitalistsand a clam of laborers who had fallen into acaste of permanent drudges. Probably nosuch t h u g is possible so long aa landlords es-pecially remain aa a third class,and so long


78/167

aa society continues to develop strong classesof merchants, financiers, professional men, andother classes. If it were conceivable thatnon-capitalist laborers should give up strng-'gling to become capitalists, should give wayto vulgar enjoyments and paasions, shouldrecklessly increase their numbers, and shouldbecome a permanent caste, they might withsome justice be called proletarians. The namehas been adopted by some professed laborleaders, but it really should be considered in-sulting. I3 there were such a proletariat itwould be hopelessly in the hande of a bodyof plutocratic capitalists, and a society eo or-ganized would, no doubt, be far worn than asociety composed only of nobles and serfu,which is the worst society the world has menin modern times.At every turn, therefore, it appears that thenumber of men and the quality of men limiteach other, and that the question whether weshall have more men or better men is of mostimportance to the class which bss neitherland nor capitaL


79/167

O W E TO EACHOTHEB. 81

VI.THAT HE WHO WOULD

what social classes owe to each other

Documents