What Social Classes Owe to Each Other

"What ought All-of-us to do for some-of-us? But some-of-us are included in all-of-us and, so far as they get the benefit of their own efforts, it is the same as if they worked for themselves, and tehy must be cancelled out of All-of-us. Then the question which remains is, What ought Some-of-us do for Others-of-us, or, What do social classes owe to eachother?" This is the question William Graham Sumner poses and attempts to answer in What Do Social Classes Owe to Eachother. His answer, in brief, is that, the minute we suggest that social classes owe anything to eachother is the minute that some become the dictators of others and, by result, liberty is fractured. Sumner starts out by championing civic liberty and the idea that all persons have an equal right to their own earnings. Tamper with this, he writes, and no matter how good the intention, some will begin to rule others. By extension, Sumner reminds us that talk about "the State" as if it is a benevolent abstraction misses the fact that "the State" - particularly in a democratic country - is just some individuals governing other individuals. Sumner spends a good deal of time talking about the ideas of capital and labor. Capital is the means of production, and labor is the effort put forth to make capital into things we use. In Sumner's time, and in ours, there is much championing of the labor force but little championing of those who hold capital. Sumner, like Rand after, reminds us that labor needs capital to create wealth. Unlike Rand, however, Sumner reminds us taht just as much as labor needs capital, capital needs labor (in order to make it into something). For the reviewer below, who complains that Sumner is too individualistic, it is remarkable to note how many times Sumner stresses this, and similar, points: labor and capital need eachother, and the economy cannot function unless we all are doing our parts (harkening back to Adam Smith's division of labor and invisible hand.) Lastly, Sumner talks about the "forgotten man." "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D... I call C the Forgotten Man." While much is always made of the rich being made to give to the poor, all too often, what happens is that the rich (who are often in power) decide that the middle class will give to the poor. Therefore, those who are on the verge of bettering themselves via their own effort are forced to give to those who are not, when their money could have been used to create more wealth (by making money, buying goods, and helping others who are trying to better their lot in the process.) In our own time, Sumner's book is a very interesting defense of economic liberty and the danger of statism and regulation. As you can see, the argument is much more philosophical than economic (whether capitalism leads to a better economy is secondary to whether it is morally justified). My biggest

I have found no other work that so clearly destroys the foundations of socialism in so few pages as this work. The rhetoric is fertile ground for effective debate, as it rarely uses gobblygook economic theory... which fortunately was not around at the time this work was written. No Supply/demand curves here.

First published in 1883, Sumner's "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other" is an excellent source for the promotion of limited government. Sumner talks about the "Forgotten Man" in context to the socio-political and economic of a state. He defines the differences between the "weak", "poor" and the "burden" and how the humanitarians, reformers and the philathropists of our society seek forced charities from the "Forgotten Man" to support the above. In this book he promotes the principles of democracy and voluntary charity. He gives solid reason and logical explainations about his philosophy. I higly recommend this 145 page read to the students of Political Theory and Philosophy.

"Not a damn thing." As George Stigler summarized this classic case for laissez faire.

No author has ever done a better job, in such a short book, of taking the bark off the socialist concepts of one social class owing anything to another. The philosophy of Sumner, who was a professor at Yale, (but a great thinker, nonetheless!) has shown up in the rhetoric of many politicians throughout this century. The Marxist idea of forced redistribution of the wealth is profoundly defeated. Every politician should be required to read this book before taking office. Sumner's caustic pen and penetrating analysis make this one of the best five I've ever read in the Annals of Freedom.