That We All Might Be Rich
Henry George
[Chapter 13 from the book, Social Problems,
published in 1883]
THE terms rich and poor are of course frequently used in a relative
sense. Among Irish peasants, kept on the verge of starvation by the
tribute wrung from them to maintain the luxury of absentee landlords
in London or Paris, "the woman of three cows" will be looked
on as rich, while in the society of millionaires a man with only
$500,000 will be regarded as poor. Now, we cannot, of course, all be
rich in the sense of having more than others; but when people say, as
they so often do, that we cannot all be rich, or when they say that we
must always have the poor with us, they do not use the words in this
comparative sense. They mean by the rich those who have enough, or
more than enough, wealth to gratify all reasonable wants, and by the
poor those who have not.
Now, using the words in this sense, I join issue with those
who say that we cannot all be rich; with those who declare that in
human society the poor must always exist. I do not, of course, mean
that we all might have an array of servants; that we all might
outshine each other in dress, in equipage, in the lavishness of our
balls or dinners, in the magnificence of our houses. That would be a
contradiction in terms. What I mean is, that we all might have
leisure, comfort and abundance, not merely of the necessaries, but
even of what are now esteemed the elegancies and luxuries of life. I
do not mean to say that absolute equality could be had, or would be
desirable. I do not mean to say that we could all have, or would want,
the same quantity of all the different forms of wealth. But I do mean
to say that we might all have enough wealth to satisfy reasonable
desires; that we might all have so much of the material things we now
struggle for, that no one would want to rob or swindle his neighbor;
that no one would worry all day, or lie awake at nights, fearing he
might be brought to poverty, or thinking how he might acquire wealth.
Does this seem an utopian dream? What would people of fifty
years ago have thought of one who would have told them that it was
possible to sew by steam-power; to cross the Atlantic in six days, or
the continent in three; to have a message sent from London at noon
delivered in Boston three hours before noon; to hear in New York the
voice of a man talking in Chicago?
Did you ever see a pail of swill given to a pen of hungry
hogs? That is human society as it is. Did you ever see a company of
well-bred men and women sitting down to a good dinner, without
scrambling, or jostling, or gluttony, each, knowing that his own
appetite will be satisfied, deferring to and helping the others? That
is human society as it might be.
"Devil catch the hindmost" is the motto of our
so-called civilized society to-day. We learn early to "take care
of No. 1," lest No. 1 should suffer; we learn early to grasp from
others that we may not want ourselves. The fear of poverty makes us
admire great wealth; and so habits of greed are formed, and we behold
the pitiable spectacle of men who have already more than they can by
any possibility use, toiling, striving, grasping to add to their store
up to the very verge of the grave --that grave which, whatever else it
may mean, does certainly mean the parting with all earthly possessions
however great they be.
In vain, in gorgeous churches, on the appointed Sunday, is
the parable of Dives and Lazarus read. What can it mean in churches
where Dives would be welcomed and Lazarus shown the door? In vain may
the preacher preach of the vanity of riches, while poverty engulfs the
hindmost. But the mad struggle would cease when the fear of poverty
had vanished. Then, and not till then, will a truly Christian
civilization become possible. And may not this be?
We are so accustomed to poverty that even in the most
advanced countries we regard it as the natural lot of the great masses
of the people; that we take it as a matter of course that even in our
highest civilization large classes should want the necessaries of
healthful life, and the vast majority should only get a poor and
pinched living by the hardest toil. There are professors of political
economy who teach that this condition of things is the result of
social laws of which it is idle to complain! There are ministers of
religion who preach that this is the condition which an all-wise,
all-powerful Creator intended for his children! If an architect were
to build a theater so that not more than one-tenth of the audience
could see and hear, we would call him a bungler and a botch. If a man
were to give a feast and provide so little food that nine-tenths of
his guests must go away hungry, we would call him a fool, or worse.
Yet so accustomed are we to poverty, that even the preachers of what
passes for Christianity tell us that the great Architect of the
Universe, to whose infinite skill all nature testifies, has made such
a botch job of this world that the vast majority of the human
creatures whom he has called into it are condemned by the conditions
he has imposed to want, suffering, and brutalizing toil that gives no
opportunity for the development of mental powers -- must pass their
lives in a hard struggle to merely live!
Yet who can look about him without seeing that to whatever
cause poverty may be due, it is not due to the niggardliness of
nature; without seeing that it is blindness or blasphemy to assume
that the Creator has condemned the masses of men to hard toil for a
bare living?
If some men have not enough to live decently, do not others
have far more than they really need? If there is not wealth sufficient
to go around, giving every one abundance, is it because we have
reached the limit of the production of wealth? Is our land all in use
? is our labor all employed? is our capital all utilized? On the
contrary, in whatever direction we look we see the most stupendous
waste of productive forces -- of productive forces so potent that were
they permitted to play freely the production of wealth would be so
enormous that there would be more than a sufficiency for all. What
branch of production is there in which the limit of production has
been reached? What single article of wealth is there of which we might
not produce enormously more?
If the mass of the population of New York are jammed into the
fever-breeding rooms of tenement-houses, it is not because there are
not vacant lots enough in and around New York to give each family
space for a separate home. If settlers are going into Montana and
Dakota and Manitoba, it is not because there are not vast areas of
untilled land much nearer the centers of population. If farmers are
paying one-fourth, one-third, or even one-half their crops for the
privilege of getting land to cultivate, it is not because there are
not, even in our oldest States, great quantities of land which no one
is cultivating.
So true is it that poverty does not come from the inability
to produce more wealth that from every side we hear that the power to
produce is in excess of the ability to find a market; that the
constant fear seems to be not that too little, but that too much, will
be produced! Do we not maintain a high tariff, and keep at every port
a horde of Custom-House officers, for fear the people of other
countries will overwhelm us with their goods? Is not a great part of
our machinery constantly idle? Are there not, even in what we call
good times, an immense number of unemployed men who would gladly be at
work producing wealth if they could only get the opportunity? Do we
not, even now, hear, from every side, of embarrassment from the very
excess of productive power, and of combinations to reduce production?
Coal operators band together to limit their output; iron-works have
shut down, or are running on half-time; distillers have agreed to
limit their production to one-half their capacity, and sugar refiners
to sixty per cent; paper-mills are suspending for one, two or three
days a week; the gunny-cloth manufacturers, at a recent meeting,
agreed to close their mills until the present overstock on the market
is greatly reduced; many other manufacturers have done the same thing.
The shoemaking machinery of New England can, in six months' full
running, it is said, supply the whole demand of the United States for
twelve months; the machinery for making rubber goods can turn out
twice as much as the market will take.
This seeming glut of production, this seeming excess of
productive power, runs through all branches of industry, and is
evident all over the civilized world. From black-berries, bananas or
apples, to ocean steamships or plateglass mirrors, there is scarcely
an article of human comfort or convenience that could not be produced
in very much greater quantities than now without lessening the
production of anything else.
So evident is this that many people think and talk and write
as though the trouble is that there is not work enough to go around.
We are in constant fear that other nations may do for us some of the
work we might do for ourselves, and, to prevent them, guard ourselves
with a tariff. We laud as public benefactors those who, as we say, "furnish
employment." We are constantly talking as though this "furnishing
of employment," this "giving of work," were the
greatest boon that could be conferred upon society. To listen to much
that is talked and much that is written, one would think that the
cause of poverty is that there is not work enough for so many people,
and that if the Creator had made the rock harder, the soil less
fertile, iron as scarce as gold, and gold as diamonds; or if ships
would sink and cities burn down oftener, there would be less poverty,
because there would be more work to do. The Lord Mayor of London tells
a deputation of unemployed working-men that there is no demand for
their labor, and that the only resource for them is to go to the
poorhouse or emigrate. The English government is shipping from Ireland
able-bodied men and women to avoid maintaining them as paupers. Even
in our own land there are at all times large numbers, and in hard
times vast numbers, earnestly seeking work-the opportunity to give
labor for the things produced by labor.
Perhaps nothing shows more clearly the enormous forces of
production constantly going to waste than the fact that the most
prosperous time in all branches of business that this country has
known was during the civil war, when we were maintaining great fleets
and armies, and millions of our industrial population were engaged in
supplying them with wealth for unproductive consumption or for
reckless destruction. It is idle to talk about the fictitious
prosperity of those "flush" times. The masses of the people
lived better, dressed better, found it easier to get a living, and had
more luxuries and amusements than in normal times. There was more
real, tangible wealth in the North at the close than at the beginning
of the war. Nor was it the great issue of paper money, nor the
creation of the debt, which caused this posterity. The government
presses struck off promises to pay; they could not print ships,
cannon, arms, tools, food and clothing. Nor did we borrow these things
from other countries or "from posterity." Our bonds did not
begin to go to Europe until the close of the war, and the people of
one generation can no more borrow from the people of a subsequent
generation than we who live on this planet can borrow from the
inhabitants of another planet or another solar system. The wealth
consumed and destroyed by our fleets and armies came from the then
existing stock of wealth. We could have carried on the war without the
issue of a single bond, if, when we did not shrink from taking from
wife and children their only bread-winner, we had not shrunk from
taking the wealth of the rich.
Our armies and fleets were maintained, the enormous
unproductive and destructive use of wealth was kept up, by the labor
and capital then and there engaged in production. And it was that the
demand caused by the war stimulated productive forces into activity
that the enormous drain of the war was not only supplied, but that the
North grew richer. The waste of labor in marching and countermarching,
in digging trenches, throwing up earthworks, and fighting battles, the
waste of wealth consumed or destroyed by our armies and fleets, did
not amount to as much as the waste constantly going on from unemployed
labor and idle or partially used machinery.
It is evident that this enormous waste of productive power is
due, not to defects in the laws of nature, but to social
maladjustments which deny to labor access to the natural opportunities
of labor and rob the laborer of his just reward. Evidently the glut of
markets does not really come from over-production when there are so
many who want the things which are said to be over-produced, and would
gladly exchange their labor for them did they have opportunity. Every
day passed in enforced idleness by a laborer who would gladly be at
work could he find opportunity, means so much less in the fund which
creates the effective demand for other labor; every time wages are
screwed down means so much reduction in the purchasing power of the
workmen whose incomes are thus reduced. The paralysis which at all
times wastes productive power, and which in times of industrial
depression causes more loss than a great war, springs from the
difficulty which those who would gladly satisfy their wants by their
labor find in doing so. It cannot come from any natural limitation, so
long as human desires remain unsatisfied, and nature yet offers to man
the raw material of wealth. It must come from social maladjustments
which permit the monopolization of these natural opportunities, and
which rob labor of its fair reward.
What these maladjustments are I shall in subsequent chapters
endeavor to show. In this I wish simply to call attention to the fact
that productive power in such a state of civilization as ours is
sufficient, did we give it play, to so enormously increase the
production of wealth as to give abundance to all -- to point out that
the cause of poverty is not in natural limitations, which we cannot
alter, but in inequalities and injustices of distribution entirely
within our control.
The passenger who leaves New York on a trans-Atlantic steamer
does not fear that the provisions will give out. The men who run these
steamers do not send them to sea without provisions enough for all
they carry. Did He who made this whirling planet for our sojourn lack
the forethought of man? Not so. In soil and sunshine, in vegetable and
animal life, in veins of minerals, and in pulsing forces which we are
only beginning to use, are capabilities which we cannot exhaust --
materials and powers from which human effort, guided by intelligence,
may gratify every material want of every human creature. There is in
nature no reason for poverty -- not even for the poverty of the
crippled or the decrepit. For man is by nature a social animal, and
the family affections and the social sympathies would, where chronic
poverty did not distort and embrute, amply provide for those who could
not provide for themselves.
But if we will not use the intelligence with which we have
been gifted to adapt social organization to natural laws -- if we
allow dogs in the manger to monopolize what they cannot use; if we
allow strength and cunning to rob honest labor, we must have chronic
poverty, and all the social evils it inevitably brings. Under such
conditions there would be poverty in paradise.
"The poor ye have always with you." If ever a
scripture has been wrested to the devils service, this is that
scripture. How often have these words been distorted from their
obvious meaning to soothe conscience into acquiescence in human misery
and degradation -- to bolster that blasphemy, the very negation and
denial of Christ's teachings, that the All-Wise and Most Merciful, the
Infinite Father, has decreed that so many of his creatures must be
poor in order that others of his creatures to whom he wills the good
things of life should enjoy the pleasure and virtue of doling out
alms! "The poor ye have always with you," said Christ; but
all his teachings supply the limitation, "until the coming of the
Kingdom." In that kingdom of God on earth, that kingdom
of justice and love for which he taught his followers to strive and
pray, there will be no poor. But though the faith and the hope and the
striving for this kingdom are of the very essence of Christ's
teaching, the stanchest disbelievers and revilers of its possibility
are found among those who call themselves Christians. Queer ideas of
the Divinity have some of these Christians who hold themselves
orthodox and contribute to the conversion of the heathen. A very rich
orthodox Christian said to a newspaper reporter, awhile ago, on the
completion of a large work out of which he is said to have made
millions: "We have been peculiarly favored by Divine Providence;
iron never was so cheap before, and labor has been a drug in the
market."
That in spite of all our great advances we have yet with us
the poor, those who, without fault of their own, cannot get healthful
and wholesome conditions of life, is our fault and our
shame. Who that looks about him can fail to see that it is only the
injustice that denies natural opportunities to labor, and robs the
producer of the fruits of his toil, that prevents us all from being
rich? Consider the enormous powers of production now going to waste;
consider the great number of unproductive consumers maintained at the
expense of producers -- the rich men and dudes, the worse than useless
government officials, the pickpockets, burglars and confidence men;
the highly respectable thieves who carry on their operations inside
the law; the great army of lawyers; the beggars and paupers, and
inmates of prisons; the monopolists and cornerers and gamblers of
every kind and grade. Consider how much brains and energy and capital
are devoted, not to the production of wealth, but to the grabbing of
wealth. Consider the waste caused by competition which does not
increase wealth; by laws which restrict production and exchange.
Consider how human power is lessened by insufficient food, by
unwholesome lodgings, by work done under conditions that produce
disease and shorten life. Consider how intemperance and unthrift
follow poverty. Consider how the ignorance bred of poverty lessens
production, and how the vice bred of poverty causes destruction, and
who can doubt that under conditions of social justice all might be
rich?
The wealth-producing powers that would be evoked in a social
state based on justice, where wealth went to the producers of wealth,
and the banishment of poverty had banished the fear and greed and
lusts that spring from it, we now can only faintly imagine. Wonderful
as have been the discoveries and inventions of this century, it is
evident that we have only begun to grasp that dominion which it is
given to mind to obtain over matter. Discovery and invention are born
of leisure, of material comfort, of freedom. These secured to all, and
who shall say to what command over nature man may not attain?
It is not necessary that any one should be condemned to
monotonous toil; it is not necessary that any one should lack the
wealth and the leisure which permit the development of the faculties
that raise man above the animal. Mind, not muscle, is the motor of
progress, the force which compels nature and produces wealth. In
turning men into machines we are wasting the highest powers. Already
in our society there is a favored class who need take no thought for
the morrow -- what they shall eat, or what they shall drink, or
wherewithal they shall be clothed. And may it not be that Christ was
more than a dreamer when he told his disciples that in that kingdom of
justice for which he taught them to work and pray this might be the
condition of all?
|