What Social Classes Owe to Each Other | Page 4

existence is a privileged person of the highest
species conceivable on earth. Princes and paupers meet on this plane,
and no other men are on it all. On the other hand, a man whose labor

and self-denial may be diverted from his maintenance to that of some
other man is not a free man, and approaches more or less toward the
position of a slave. Therefore we shall find that, in all the notions
which we are to discuss, this elementary contradiction, that there are
classes and that there are not classes, will produce repeated confusion
and absurdity. We shall find that, in our efforts to eliminate the old
vices of class government, we are impeded and defeated by new
products of the worst class theory. We shall find that all the schemes
for producing equality and obliterating the organization of society
produce a new differentiation based on the worst possible
distinction--the right to claim and the duty to give one man's effort for
another man's satisfaction. We shall find that every effort to realize
equality necessitates a sacrifice of liberty.
It is very popular to pose as a "friend of humanity," or a "friend of the
working classes." The character, however, is quite exotic in the United
States. It is borrowed from England, where some men, otherwise of
small account, have assumed it with great success and advantage.
Anything which has a charitable sound and a kind-hearted tone
generally passes without investigation, because it is disagreeable to
assail it. Sermons, essays, and orations assume a conventional
standpoint with regard to the poor, the weak, etc.; and it is allowed to
pass as an unquestioned doctrine in regard to social classes that "the
rich" ought to "care for the poor"; that Churches especially ought to
collect capital from the rich and spend it for the poor; that parishes
ought to be clusters of institutions by means of which one social class
should perform its duties to another; and that clergymen, economists,
and social philosophers have a technical and professional duty to devise
schemes for "helping the poor." The preaching in England used all to
be done to the poor--that they ought to be contented with their lot and
respectful to their betters. Now, the greatest part of the preaching in
America consists in injunctions to those who have taken care of
themselves to perform their assumed duty to take care of others.
Whatever may be one's private sentiments, the fear of appearing cold
and hard-hearted causes these conventional theories of social duty and
these assumptions of social fact to pass unchallenged.

Let us notice some distinctions which are of prime importance to a
correct consideration of the subject which we intend to treat.
Certain ills belong to the hardships of human life. They are natural.
They are part of the struggle with Nature for existence. We cannot
blame our fellow-men for our share of these. My neighbor and I are
both struggling to free ourselves from these ills. The fact that my
neighbor has succeeded in this struggle better than I constitutes no
grievance for me. Certain other ills are due to the malice of men, and to
the imperfections or errors of civil institutions. These ills are an object
of agitation, and a subject for discussion. The former class of ills is to
be met only by manly effort and energy; the latter may be corrected by
associated effort. The former class of ills is constantly grouped and
generalized, and made the object of social schemes. We shall see, as we
go on, what that means. The second class of ills may fall on certain
social classes, and reform will take the form of interference by other
classes in favor of that one. The last fact is, no doubt, the reason why
people have been led, not noticing distinctions, to believe that the same
method was applicable to the other class of ills. The distinction here
made between the ills which belong to the struggle for existence and
those which are due to the faults of human institutions is of prime
importance.
It will also be important, in order to clear up our ideas about the notions
which are in fashion, to note the relation of the economic to the
political significance of assumed duties of one class to another. That is
to say, we may discuss the question whether one class owes duties to
another by reference to the economic effects which will be produced on
the classes and society; or we may discuss the political expediency of
formulating and enforcing rights and duties respectively between the
parties. In the former case we might assume that the givers of aid were
willing to give it, and we might discuss the benefit or mischief of their
activity. In the other case