I think what Henry George wrote in his book “Progress and Poverty” more than one hundred years ago still applies very much to our society today. What do you think, are changes in the distribution of wealth and power possible without major upheavals?

 The following is Chapter 42 of “Progress and Poverty” by Henry George, saying How Modern Civilization May Decline:

OUR CONCLUSIONS about the law of human progress agree completely with our previous conclusions about the laws of political economy. They also show that making land common property — by taxing its value — would give an enormous boost to civilization. Furthermore, unless we do so, we will regress.

Every previous civilization has been destroyed by the unequal distribution of wealth and power. I have traced this tendency to its cause — and provided a simple way to remove it. I will now show how, if this is not done, modern civilization will decline to barbarism, as all previous civilizations have.

History clearly shows these periods of decline, though they were not recognized at their start. When the first Emperor was changing Rome from brick to marble and extending the frontier, who would have said Rome was entering its decline? Yet such was the case.

Our civilization appears to be advancing faster than ever. Yet anyone who looks will see the same cause that doomed Rome is operating today — with increasing force. The more advanced the community, the greater the intensity. Wages and interest fall, while rents rise. The rich get richer, the poor grow helpless, the middle class is swept away.

It is worthwhile to explain the process, since many people cannot see how progress could turn into retreat. They think such a thing is impossible. Many scoff at any implication that we are not progressing in all respects. The conditions of social progress, we have found, are association and equality. The general tendency of modern development has indeed been toward political and legal equality. We have abolished slavery, revoked hereditary privileges, instituted representative government, and recognized religious freedom. High and low, weak and strong have more equal security in their person and property. There is freedom of movement and occupation, of speech and of the press.

The initial effect of political equality is a more equal distribution of wealth and power. While population is sparse, unequal distribution of wealth is due mainly to inequality of personal rights. The inequality resulting from private ownership of land shows itself only as material progress advances. Political equality does not, in itself, prevent inequality arising from private ownership of land. Furthermore, political equality — when coexisting with an increasing tendency toward unequal distribution of wealth — will ultimately beget either tyranny or anarchy.

A representative government may become a dictatorship without formally changing its constitution or abandoning popular elections. Forms are nothing when substance has gone. And the forms of popular government are those from which the substance of freedom may go most easily. For there despotism advances in the name of the people. Once that single source of power is secured, everything is secured. An aristocracy of wealth will never struggle while it can bribe a tyrant.

When the disparity of condition increases, democratic elections make it easy to seize the source of power. Many feel no connection with the conduct of government. Embittered by poverty, they are ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder or follow the most blatant demagogue. One class has become too rich to be stripped of its luxuries, no matter how public affairs are administered. Another class is so poor that promises of a few dollars will outweigh abstract considerations on election day. A few roll in wealth, while the many seethe with discontent at things they don’t know how to remedy.

Where there is anything close to equal distribution of wealth, the more democratic government is, the better it will be. Where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the opposite is true. The more democratic government is, the worse it will be. To give the vote to people who must beg or steal or starve, to whom the chance to work is a favor — this is to invoke destruction. To put political power in hands embittered and degraded by poverty is to wreak havoc.

Hereditary succession (or even selection by lot) may, by accident, occasionally place the wise and just in power. But in a corrupt democracy, the tendency is always to give power to the worst. Honesty and patriotism are a handicap, while dishonesty brings success. The best sink to the bottom, the worst float to the top. The vile are ousted only by the viler.

National character gradually absorbs the qualities that win power. In the long panorama of history, we see over and over that this transforms free people into slaves. A corrupt democratic government must finally corrupt the people. And when the people become corrupt, there is no resurrection. Life is gone, only the carcass remains. It is left but for the plowshares of fate to bury it out of sight.

Unequal distribution of wealth inevitably transforms popular government into despotism. This is not a thing of the far future. It has already begun in the United States, and is proceeding rapidly before our very eyes. Men of the highest ability and character avoid politics. The technique of handlers and hacks counts more than the reputations of statesmen. The power of money is increasing, while voting is done recklessly. Political differences are no longer differences of principle. Political parties are passing into the control of what might be considered oligarchies and dictatorships.

Modern growth is typified by the great city. Here we find the greatest wealth and the deepest poverty. And here popular government has most clearly broken down. In all the great American cities of today, a ruling class is defined as clearly as in the most aristocratic countries. Its members have whole wards in their pockets, select slates for nominating conventions, and distribute offices as they bargain together. “They toil not, neither do they spin,”* yet they wear the finest of raiment and spend money lavishly. They are men of power, whose favor the ambitious must court, and whose vengeance they must avoid.

Who are these men? The wise, the learned, the good? No. They are gamblers, fighters, or worse. Men who have made a trade of controlling votes, and buying and selling offices and legislation. Through these men, rich corporations and powerful financial interests pack the Senate and the courts with their lackeys. In many places today, a Washington, a Franklin, or a Jefferson could not even get into the state legislature. Their very character would be an insurmountable disqualification.

In theory we are intense democrats. Yet growing among us is a class who have all the power of the aristocracy — without any of their virtues. A few men control thousands of miles of railroad, millions of acres of land, and the livelihood of thousands. They name the governors as they name clerks, and choose senators as they choose attorneys. Their will with legislatures is as supreme as a French king’s.

The development of industry and commerce — acting in a social organization where land is privately owned — threatens to force every worker to seek a master. (Just as the collapse of the Roman Empire compelled every freeman to seek a feudal lord.) Industry takes on a form where one is master, while many serve. If a person steals enough, the punishment will only amount to losing part of the theft. And if a thief steals a fortune, colleagues will greet the embezzler like a Viking returning from pillage.

The most ominous political sign in the United States today is the growing complacency with corruption. Many believe there is no honest person in public office; or worse, that if there were one, he or she would be a fool not to seize the opportunities. The people themselves are becoming corrupted. Our democratic government is running the course it must inevitably follow under conditions producing unequal distribution of wealth.

Where this will lead is clear. Contempt for law develops, and reform becomes hopeless. Volcanic forces festering among the masses will explode when some accident gives them vent. Where will the new barbarians come from? Go through the squalid ghettos of great cities and you can already see them gathering.*

Hinting that our civilization may be in decline seems like wild pessimism. A fundamental belief in progress remains. But this will always be the case when advance gradually passes into retrogression. In social development, as in everything else, motion tends to continue in a straight line. Where there has been previous advance, it is extremely difficult to recognize decline — even after it has begun.

Civilizations do not decline along the same paths they came up. Government will not take us back from democracy to monarchy and to feudalism. It will take us to dictatorship or anarchy. Religion will not go back to the faiths of our forefathers, but into new forms of superstition.

The regression of civilization, after a period of advance, may be so gradual that it attracts no attention at the time. Indeed, many mistake such a decline for advancement. As the arts decline, the change may be accompanied by — or rather caused by — a change of taste. Artists who quickly adopted the new styles are regarded — in their day — as superior. As art and literature become more lifeless, foolish, and stilted — conforming to changing taste — the new fashion would regard its increasing weakness as increasing strength and beauty. Really good writers would not find readers; they would be regarded as dull. The prevailing taste becomes that of a less cultured class who regard what they like as the best of its kind.

Whether current trends in taste and opinion indicate regression is not the point. Many other things beyond dispute indicate our civilization has reached a critical point — unless a new start is made toward equality. Inequality is the necessary result of material progress wherever land is monopolized. Inequality cannot go much further without carrying us into a downward spiral so easy to start and so hard to stop.

Industrial depressions, which cause as much waste and suffering as war or famine, are like twinges and shocks preceding paralysis. The struggle to survive is increasing in intensity. We must strain every nerve to keep from being trodden underfoot in the scramble for wealth. This saps the energy to gain and maintain improvements. Diseases from related causes proliferate. In every civilized country, poverty, crime, insanity, and suicide are increasing.

When the tide turns, it does not happen all at once. When the sun passes noon, the heat of the day continues to increase. One can tell only by the way the shadows fall. But as sure as the tide must turn, as sure as the setting sun brings darkness, so sure is it that our civilization has begun to wane. Invention marches on, our cities expand. Yet civilization has begun to wane when, in proportion to population, we have more prisons, more welfare, more mental illness. Society does not die from top to bottom; it dies from bottom to top.

But the decline of civilization looms far more palpable than any statistics. There is a vague but general disappointment, an increased bitterness, a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution. If this were accompanied by some definite idea of how to obtain relief, it might be a hopeful sign. But it is not. Though we have been searching a long, long time, our power of connecting cause to effect seems not a whit improved.

A vast change in religious ideas is sweeping the world that may have a momentous effect, which only the future can tell. This is not a change in the form of religion — it is the negation and destruction of the ideas from which religion springs. Christianity is not simply shedding superstitions; it is dying at the root. And nothing arises to take its place.

The fundamental ideas of an intelligent creator and an afterlife are quickly weakening in the general mind. Whether or not this may be an advance in itself is not the point. The important part religion has played in history shows the significance of the change now going on. Unless human nature has suddenly changed its deepest characteristics, as shown by the universal history of the human race, the mightiest actions and reactions are thus being prepared.

Previously, such stages of thought have always marked periods of transition. To a lesser degree, a similar state preceded the French Revolution. But the closest parallel to the wreck of religious ideas now going on is when ancient civilization began to pass from splendor to decline.

What change may come, no mortal can tell. But that some great change must come, thoughtful people are beginning to feel. The civilized world is trembling on the verge of a great movement. Either it must be a leap upward, to advances yet undreamed of — or it will be a plunge downward, carrying us back toward barbarism.


  1. This is so true and well argued – but offers no practical solution to the problems. Communism hasn’t worked. Redistribution of wealth has to be voluntary – but once people have their hands on material possessions and power, they don’t want to let go.

    1. Communism in the Soviet Union did not work because the Bolshevist, a faction of the Communists, slaughtered the “intelligentia” instead of making use of them.

  2. This information needs to be widely propagated. Henry George’s work has been deliberately suppressed for far too long. Two basic reforms – prohibiting private banks from creating money out of thin air and adopting George’s Land Value Tax – would virtually eliminate debt and go a long way towards eliminating inequality.

    1. What you say, Stuart, makes total sense to me. Where is the political will to take Henry George seriously and to explain to people what George’s Land Value Tax is about? Even people with a very small property and a house on it are being scared or being told to be scared of a tax like the one that George proposed.

      And who is willing to put the banks into their place? Can we force the super rich to agree to a change in the present banking system?

      I think George said somewhere that the power lies with the people. But for this, the people have to be made aware what is in their interest and what can be done to prevent barbarism. For as long as the general public in developed or developing countries still have a good life they are not concerned about changes. But as more and more people with some education are being pushed into poverty, this might change. Without all these wars in third world and impoverished countries some things perhaps would have changed already. Do not these wars help to make the very rich people richer and richer?

  3. Reblogged this on AuntyUta and commented:

    Henry George says: ‘ . . . . making land common property — by taxing its value — would give an enormous boost to civilization. Furthermore, unless we do so, we will regress.

    Every previous civilization has been destroyed by the unequal distribution of wealth and power. . . .

  4. Having just become acquainted, I’m very glad to find you a Henry George admirer, auntyuta. He seems to have faded from public memory since the “deregulation” mania of the Reagan- Thatcher years so perfectly captured in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” movie. One of the central characters Gordon Gecko (played by Michael Douglas) made a soliloquy on how Greed is Good. The trickle down theories have long since been discredited since the early 90s, but government has been so captured by brokers, bankers and their lobbies that nobody with odd exceptions like Argentina and the Scandinavian countries have departed from them.

    Just before Fairfax went under (the first time) I was a regular reader of The Age which was then a great journal. The Letters pages, aided by Tandberg cartoons, was as stimulating as many of its Op-ed features. I remember that someone from the Henry George Society in Melbourne would often write in propounding his theories on property tax. It made sense to me, but I didn’t follow up at all because it seemed like a lost cause from another age. I didn’t even know much of him personally and had assumed that he was probably English, maybe a Fabian, from the late Victorian era which produced many brilliant thinkers.

    Some years later I looked him up via Wiki and similar sources, and was surprised to learn he was an American. I didn’t pursue much of his work, but your selection confirms he was a great thinker. His views apply much more to life than they do to purely economics, albeit in his day, Political Economy would have embraced what he was saying on how we are governed and the need for equality.

    By coincidence, the anti-public spending age had made me redundant in my middle age. I got by in the end working as a cabbie, useful work but poorly paid for the hours worked. Still I was grateful to have any work/income and it helped me get my daughters to higher education. I filled in a lot of the idle hours listening to Radio National (then a brilliant current affairs/talks/ documentary type of station. At one point there was a brilliant documentary series by a Canadian archaeologist on the rise and fall of various civilisations.

    He pointed to that out of seven great ancient civilisations, four had arisen without any connection with other civilisation influences. All seven had perished through the reasons expounded by George of too much greed and excessive consumption by those in power. Mesopotamian and Egyptian by excessive demand on once fertile soils; the Central and South American ones often for simple reasons of inadequate water or water planning. How ironic that we’re now seeing the same thing happening in the Murray Darling Basin.

    In addition to the need for fairness and equality, we need, like Iceland, to take a firm punishment hand against this theft of public resources.

  5. Hello Don, thank you for your great extensive comment. Did you know that Henry George visited Australia? You might be interested to read up on this:

    ‘Henry George toured England again in 1888 and 1889. In 1890 he visited Australia and New Zealand to very enthusiastic welcomes. His visit to Australia was the catalyst for the formation of the one of Australia’s two major political parties, the Australian Labor Party.’

  6. Thanks for that auntyutal I didn’t know he visited Australia, but it might explain how Melbourne had a Henry George Society. I’ll look at the video soon.

    1. Peter and I have been members of the Associationg for Good Goverment for many years, Don. This is their website:

      “We are an organisation that believes that the growing problems we are experiencing can be combated far more effectively by securing our natural rights than by authoritarian controls.

      Though we may not immediately see it, the natural right we need most is the right to land.�

      This is the teaching of Henry George, American economist and social philosopher whose ideas and principles the Association propagates through submissions, courses, seminars, articles and its bi-monthly magazine Good Government.”

Leave a Reply to berlioz1935 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s