The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-07-23
ssPROGREsS AND POvERTYn
IA Review of Mr.. Henry Georges Work
on the Social Problem.

"a Review of Mr. Henry Georges Work
on the Social Problem.
1MR. EDITOR: During the session re.
Gently closed, as Instructor in Political
Science lin Furman University, offered
a gold medal to that student in my class in
Political Economy who should produce
the best thesis on any subject connected
with the study. The theses were written
over fictitious signatures and handed to
committee. The decision Of the committee
was in favor of the article over the sigma.
ture of "Felix Holt" which was after
wards found to belong to Mr.. Thad. e.
Horton, of Williamson, 8. G. Below
you will find this thesis, which desire
to have published in your paper. 1t is
review of Henry Georges great work
used by us as parallel reading st the Uni
versity.-WALTER w. BROWN
Among all the master minds who have
labored on the superstructure of the
science of Political Economy, since
Adam Smith laid the foundations in his
"Wealth of Nations" a century ago, not
one has shown more force, clealness or
originality in the treatment of the sub
ject, than Mr.. Henry George has dis,
played in his work on progress and
Poverty" y,",whose publication few years
since attracted widespread attention at
the time, and has since been followed by
criticisms of the most highly favorable
character. To SAY that the success,
which the work has undoubtedly
achieved, has been owing entirely to the
very new and striking manner in which
Sthe doctrines of the current Political
Economy have been assailed, would be
too much. For, however much that may
have contributed to the general effect,
yet had the theories advocated therein
lacked the force which recommends them
to the consideration of every thinking
man. the book would have fallen as flat
as numbers of its predecessors have done
in times past. Such o work, treating as
itidoes of live facts and living problems,
certainly deserves our careful considera-
tiop. eItsis our purpose, here, not 80 much
to discuss.th new theories, which Mr..
George has sprung upon the world, bnt
to review, if we can, the arguments
which he advances in refutation of the
existing doctrines of the science. il@7t
Mr.. George states in the outset the
purpose which he proposes to accomplish.
That purpose is "to seek the Law which
associates poverty with progress, and in
creases want with advancing wea th."
That the received Economy has failed
to do this is evident, and hence he pro.
poses to pursue his inquiry into the cause
of this seeming paradox, not in obedience
to the dictates Of any authority or theory,
however well established or universally
received. To do this, nothing must be
taken for granted, but everything judged
of in the light OF first principles. 1t is
by this method of going to the root of
things, that the author has done away
with all danger of super6ciality, and has
established foundation for the pursuit
of his inquiry, on which the reader feels
safe in placing himself
Mr.. George begins his inquiry with an
investigation into the theory whereby
the current Political Economy attempts
to explain the simultaneous increase of
productive power and decrease of remu-
neration received by labor In the out.
set of this, Mr.. George comes in contact
with theory, upon which the larger
part of the theories of modern Political
Economy depend, directly or indirectly,
for their basis, and which he finds it
necessary to refute. 1t is the doctrine
that "wages are fixed by the ratio of the
number Of laborers to the capital devoted
to the employment of labor" He shows
that this itself is founded on the evident
misconception that labor is paid by cap
ital, and is supported by capital, a prop.
osition whose fallaciousness is plainly
seen when, for capital, is substituted its
meaning as given by the supporters of
the theory themselves. 1t would then
read: labor is paid by the results of past
labor set aside for the production of
wealth.. Nothing could be more incon.
sisteut with sound reasoning.
To the objection that this discrepancy
would only apply to a primitive state of
society, and loses its force when the
operations of labor become more com.
plex; the author produces the flndamen-,
tai truth that it is only by the considera-
tion of society in its primitive state that
we can derive any sure knowledge of the
laws whicbgoyern it.. For society now
is only the elaboration of society then,
and the manifold processes of this cen
tury are all directed toward the same
ends as were the simple expedients of
the simple state-the maintainence of
subsistence, and the qualification of
desire. Taking, with Mr.. George, this
view of the case, the true doctrine of
wages is seen to be that wages are pro.
duced by the labor for which they are
paid, and that they are in no sense de.
pendent upon capital. The proof is
almost self evident, and it may be safely
said that had Mr.. George accomplished
nothing more, than this exposition of the
fallacy OF the accepted doctrine of
wages, he would have been we'll repaid
for writing progress and Poverty"
With the disproof of the current
theory of wages, Mr.. George places him:
self squarely in opposition to atheory of
even more widespread acceptance-the
Malthusian theory, that population tends
constantly to increase faster than subsis-
tence, the increase of population contin.
ually pressing against the limit of sub.
sistence, thereby causing reduction of
wages to the starvation point, and a
degree of want and misery sufficient to
keep population. within bounds. Even
the most ardent believer in such a theory
could hardly repress sigh of relief were
it clearly and Enthusiastically disproyed.
That Mr.. George has done this, careful
consideration Of the course of reasoning,
whereby he reaches his conclusions con-
cerning the falsity of the. doctrine, can
not fail to show. The disproof comes
after thoroughsreview of. the facts and
analogies in the case, and-comes too with
force that compels its acceptance.
Taking the-stock examples of super.
abundance Of population producing
povertyand distress, Ireland, China and
India, Mr.. George clearly demonstrates
that tits not a too great population that
is the cause ofthe we'll known prevalence
of poverty iu,those countries but rather,
q defective social organization, whereby
labor is denied its full return, and hordes
of human hninns ore compelled to serve