Progress and Poverty

The stark contrast between the immense material wealth produced by industrialized societies in Europe and North America and the extent of poverty and squalor, especially in urban centers like London and New York, led several thinkers to investigate this apparent paradox. For Henry George, this key theme is alluded to in the very title of this book, Progress and Poverty. For this reason, it is important to briefly examine the socioeconomic conditions in 19th-century industrialized countries, other thinkers’ views on this phenomenon, and George’s analysis thereof. 

The Industrial Revolution occurred in two waves between 1760 and 1840 and 1870 and 1914. This period was one of mass industrial production, technological advancement, infrastructural amelioration—such as the railway tracks and telegraph lines that George mentions—and increased urbanization. At the same time, despite technological achievements that improved labor efficiency and effectiveness, the 19th century featured economic depressions and falling worker wages. Laborers barely scraped by. Workplaces were unsafe and child labor was common (the United States only banned child labor in 1938). The eight-hour workday was only gradually introduced in the early-20th century.

These conditions of unrestrained capitalism led different thinkers to offer explanations and solutions. Some, like Thomas Malthus, resigned to the fact that population growth in relation to a limited food supply would necessarily lead to poor socioeconomic conditions, especially for the lower classes. In The Crisis, he supports state relief for the disadvantaged and advocated for private charity. Others, like Karl Marx—who was motivated by what he witnessed of workers’ life in London—viewed history through the lens of unequal social relations and class struggle. In the Industrial Revolution period, it was the capital that exploited the proletariat. Marx’s solution was radical: seizing the means of production through a revolution and eventually establishing a stateless society free of private property. 

George represents the middle ground between cosmetic solutions like that of Malthus and radical social restructuring like that of Marx. Like Marx, the author is equally appalled by the living conditions of the working class and disparages the argument that the economically disadvantaged are in this state due to their poor work ethic or lack of education. He understands the nature of the ruling class and argues that such a lazy explanation “soothes the sense of responsibility and flatters by its suggestion of superiority” (302).

However, unlike Marx, George does not question the character of unrestrained capitalism. He does not view capital and labor as powers in conflict. For him, both capital and labor are victims of the rising land rent and, therefore, the private landowner. For this reason, his solution to the crisis of capitalism is the abolition of private land ownership by imposing a single tax on land. Like Marx, George is a supporter of socialism but only as an organically emerging social system: “The ideal of socialism is grand and noble; and it is, I am convinced, possible of realization; but such a state of society cannot be manufactured—it must grow” (319). He seems to oppose the idea of a revolution as he mentions “charlatans and demagogues” at the beginning and appears critical of revolutionary solutions (11).

Furthermore, George does not consider socialism necessary for the implementation of equal wealth distribution through his land reform. In fact, his ideas are a closer match to distributism, as he advocates voluntary communal sharing of the wealth freed up through the single land tax which could come from government-led public spending. Overall, George considers his ideological position to be in line with the true ideals of democracy and liberty personified by the initial founding of the American Republic.