Chapter IV How Modern Civilization May Decline

The conclusion we have thus reached harmonizes completely with our previous conclusions.

The conclusion we have reached agrees completely with our earlier ones.

This consideration of the law of human progress not only brings the politico-economic laws, which in this inquiry we have worked out, within the scope of a higher law—perhaps the very highest law our minds can grasp—but it proves that the making of land common property in the way I have proposed would give an enormous impetus to civilization, while the refusal to do so must entail retrogression. A civilization like ours must either advance or go back; it cannot stand still. It is not like those homogeneous civilizations, such as that of the Nile Valley, which molded men for their places and put them in it like bricks into a pyramid. It much more resembles that civilization whose rise and fall is within historic times, and from which it sprung.

Considering the law of human progress does more than bring the laws of economics we have worked out in this inquiry under a higher law, perhaps the very highest our minds can grasp. It proves that making land common property in the way I have proposed would give an enormous impetus to civilization, and that refusing to do so must bring retrogression. A civilization like ours must either advance or go back. It cannot stand still. It is not like those homogeneous civilizations, such as that of the Nile Valley, which molded men for their places and set them in them like bricks in a pyramid. It resembles far more the civilization whose rise and fall lie within historic times, the one ours sprang from.

There is just now a disposition to scoff at any implication that we are not in all respects progressing, and the spirit of our times is that of the edict which the flattering premier proposed to the Chinese Emperor who burned the ancient books—“that all who may dare to speak together about the She and the Shoo be put to death; that those who make mention of the past so as to blame the present be put to death along with their relatives.”

Just now people scoff at any suggestion that we are not progressing in every respect. The spirit of our times is that of the edict a flattering premier proposed to the Chinese Emperor who burned the ancient books. It said “that all who may dare to speak together about the She and the Shoo (the ancient Chinese classics) be put to death; that those who make mention of the past so as to blame the present be put to death along with their relatives.”

Yet it is evident that there have been times of decline, just as there have been times of advance; and it is further evident that these epochs of decline could not at first have been generally recognized.

Clearly there have been times of decline as well as advance, and clearly such declines could not at first have been generally recognized.

He would have been a rash man who, when Augustus was changing the Rome of brick to the Rome of marble, when wealth was augmenting and magnificence increasing, when victorious legions were extending the frontier, when manners were becoming more refined, language more polished, and literature rising to higher splendors—he would have been a rash man who then would have said that Rome was entering her decline. Yet such was the case.

In the days when Augustus was changing the Rome of brick into the Rome of marble, when wealth was growing and magnificence increasing, when victorious legions were pushing out the frontier, when manners were growing more refined, language more polished, and literature rising to higher splendors, he would have been a rash man who said that Rome was entering her decline. Yet she was.

And whoever will look may see that though our civilization is apparently advancing with greater rapidity than ever, the same cause which turned Roman progress into retrogression is operating now.

Whoever looks can see that although our civilization seems to be advancing faster than ever, the same cause that turned Roman progress into retrogression is operating now.

What has destroyed every previous civilization has been the tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth and power. This same tendency, operating with increasing force, is observable in our civilization to-day, showing itself in every progressive community, and with greater intensity the more progressive the community. Wages and interest tend constantly to fall, rent to rise, the rich to become very much richer, the poor to become more helpless and hopeless, and the middle class to be swept away.

What destroyed every previous civilization was the tendency toward unequal distribution of wealth and power. The same tendency, with increasing force, can be seen in our civilization today. It shows in every progressive community, and more intensely the more progressive the community. Wages and interest tend constantly to fall and rent to rise. The rich tend to become much richer, the poor more helpless and hopeless, and the middle class to be swept away.

I have traced this tendency to its cause. I have shown by what simple means this cause may be removed. I now wish to point out how, if this is not done, progress must turn to decadence, and modern civilization decline to barbarism, as have all previous civilizations. It is worth while to point out how this may occur, as many people, being unable to see how progress may pass into retrogression, conceive such a thing impossible. Gibbon, for instance, thought that modern civilization could never be destroyed because there remained no barbarians to overrun it, and it is a common idea that the invention of printing by so multiplying books has prevented the possibility of knowledge ever again being lost.

I have traced this tendency to its cause and shown by what simple means that cause may be removed. I now want to show how, if this is not done, progress must turn to decadence and modern civilization decline to barbarism, as all previous civilizations have. It is worth showing how, because many people cannot see how progress could pass into retrogression and think it impossible. The historian Gibbon, for instance, thought modern civilization could never be destroyed because no barbarians remained to overrun it. And it is a common idea that printing, by so multiplying books, has made it impossible for knowledge ever to be lost again.

The conditions of social progress, as we have traced the law, are association and equality. The general tendency of modern development, since the time when we can first discern the gleams of civilization in the darkness which followed the fall of the Western Empire, has been toward political and legal equality—to the abolition of slavery; to the abrogation of status; to the sweeping away of hereditary privileges; to the substitution of parliamentary for arbitrary government; to the right of private judgment in matters of religion; to the more equal security in person and property of high and low, weak and strong; to the greater freedom of movement and occupation, of speech and of the press. The history of modern civilization is the history of advances in this direction—of the struggles and triumphs of personal, political, and religious freedom. And the general law is shown by the fact that just as this tendency has asserted itself civilization has advanced, while just as it has been repressed or forced back civilization has been checked.

The conditions of social progress, as we have traced the law, are association and equality. Since the first gleams of civilization appeared in the darkness after the fall of the Western Empire, modern development has tended generally toward political and legal equality. It has abolished slavery and status, swept away hereditary privileges, and put parliamentary government in place of arbitrary government. It has established the right of private judgment in religion and given high and low, weak and strong more equal security in person and property. It has widened freedom of movement and occupation, of speech and of the press. The history of modern civilization is the history of advances in this direction, of the struggles and triumphs of personal, political and religious freedom. The general law shows in this: civilization has advanced as the tendency has asserted itself and has been checked as it has been repressed.

This tendency has reached its full expression in the American Republic, where political and legal rights are absolutely equal, and, owing to the system of rotation in office, even the growth of a bureaucracy is prevented; where every religious belief or non-belief stands on the same footing; where every boy may hope to be President, every man has an equal voice in public affairs, and every official is mediately or immediately dependent for the short lease of his place upon a popular vote. This tendency has yet some triumphs to win in England, in extending the suffrage, and sweeping away the vestiges of monarchy, aristocracy, and prelacy; while in such countries as Germany and Russia, where divine right is yet a good deal more than a legal fiction, it has a considerable distance to go. But it is the prevailing tendency, and how soon Europe will be completely republican is only a mat527ter of time, or rather of accident. The United States are therefore, in this respect, the most advanced of all the great nations, in a direction in which all are advancing, and in the United States we see just how much this tendency to personal and political freedom can of itself accomplish.

The tendency has reached its full expression in the American Republic. There political and legal rights are absolutely equal, and rotation in office even prevents a bureaucracy from growing. Every religious belief or non-belief stands on the same footing. Every boy may hope to be President, and every man has an equal voice in public affairs. Every official depends, directly or indirectly, on a popular vote for the short lease of his place. In England the tendency still has some triumphs to win, in extending the suffrage and sweeping away the remnants of monarchy, aristocracy and prelacy. In Germany and Russia, where divine right is still a good deal more than a legal fiction, it has a considerable distance to go. But it is the prevailing tendency, and how soon Europe will be completely republican is only a matter of time, or rather of accident.527 The United States is therefore the most advanced of all the great nations in a direction in which all are advancing. There we see just how much this tendency to personal and political freedom can accomplish by itself.

Now, the first effect of the tendency to political equality was to the more equal distribution of wealth and power; for, while population is comparatively sparse, inequality in the distribution of wealth is principally due to the inequality of personal rights, and it is only as material progress goes on that the tendency to inequality involved in the reduction of land to private ownership strongly appears. But it is now manifest that absolute political equality does not in itself prevent the tendency to inequality involved in the private ownership of land, and it is further evident that political equality, co-existing with an increasing tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth, must ultimately beget either the despotism of organized tyranny or the worse despotism of anarchy.

The first effect of the tendency to political equality was a more equal distribution of wealth and power. While population is comparatively sparse, inequality in wealth is mainly due to inequality of personal rights. Only as material progress goes on does the tendency to inequality involved in making land private property appear strongly. But it is now plain that absolute political equality does not in itself prevent the tendency to inequality involved in the private ownership of land. It is further evident that political equality alongside growing inequality in the distribution of wealth must ultimately produce either the despotism of organized tyranny or the worse despotism of anarchy.

To turn a republican government into a despotism the basest and most brutal, it is not necessary formally to change its constitution or abandon popular elections. It was centuries after Cæsar before the absolute master of the Roman world pretended to rule other than by authority of a Senate that trembled before him.

Turning a republican government into the basest and most brutal despotism does not require formally changing its constitution or abandoning popular elections. For centuries after Caesar, the absolute master of the Roman world still pretended to rule only by the authority of a Senate that trembled before him.

But forms are nothing when substance has gone, and the forms of popular government are those from which the substance of freedom may most easily go. Extremes meet, and a government of universal suffrage and theoretical equality may, under conditions which impel the change, most readily become a despotism. For there despotism advances in the name and with the might of the people. The single source of power once secured, everything is secured. There is no unfranchised class to whom appeal may be made, no privileged orders who528 in defending their own rights may defend those of all. No bulwark remains to stay the flood, no eminence to rise above it. They were belted barons led by a mitered archbishop who curbed the Plantagenet with Magna Charta; it was the middle classes who broke the pride of the Stuarts; but a mere aristocracy of wealth will never struggle while it can hope to bribe a tyrant.

But forms are nothing when substance has gone, and the forms of popular government are the ones the substance of freedom can most easily leave. Extremes meet. A government of universal suffrage and theoretical equality can, under pressing conditions, most readily become a despotism. For there despotism advances in the name and with the might of the people. Once the single source of power is secured, everything is secured. There is no unfranchised class to appeal to, no privileged orders who, in defending their own rights, may defend those of all.528 No bulwark remains to stay the flood, no eminence rises above it. Belted barons led by a mitered archbishop curbed the Plantagenet with Magna Charta. The middle classes broke the pride of the Stuarts. But a mere aristocracy of wealth will never struggle while it can hope to bribe a tyrant.

And when the disparity of condition increases, so does universal suffrage make it easy to seize the source of power, for the greater is the proportion of power in the hands of those who feel no direct interest in the conduct of government; who, tortured by want and embruted by poverty, are ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder or follow the lead of the most blatant demagogue; or who, made bitter by hardships, may even look upon profligate and tyrannous government with the satisfaction we may imagine the proletarians and slaves of Rome to have felt, as they saw a Caligula or Nero raging among the rich patricians. Given a community with republican institutions, in which one class is too rich to be shorn of its luxuries, no matter how public affairs are administered, and another so poor that a few dollars on election day will seem more than any abstract consideration; in which the few roll in wealth and the many seethe with discontent at a condition of things they know not how to remedy, and power must pass into the hands of jobbers who will buy and sell it as the Prætorians sold the Roman purple, or into the hands of demagogues who will seize and wield it for a time, only to be displaced by worse demagogues.

And as the disparity of condition grows, universal suffrage makes it easier to seize the source of power. A greater proportion of power lies in the hands of those who feel no direct interest in how government is conducted. Tortured by want and brutalized by poverty, they are ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder or follow the loudest demagogue. Or, made bitter by hardship, they may even watch profligate and tyrannous government with the satisfaction we may imagine the poor and the slaves of Rome felt at seeing a Caligula or Nero raging among the rich patricians. Take a community with republican institutions in which one class is too rich to give up its luxuries, no matter how public affairs are run, and another so poor that a few dollars on election day seem worth more than any abstract consideration. The few roll in wealth and the many seethe with discontent at a state of things they do not know how to remedy. Power must then pass to jobbers who will buy and sell it as the Praetorians sold the Roman purple. Or it will pass to demagogues who seize and wield it for a time, only to be displaced by worse demagogues.

Where there is anything like an equal distribution of wealth—that is to say, where there is general patriotism, virtue, and intelligence—the more democratic the government the better it will be; but where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the more democratic the government the worse it will be; for, while529 rotten democracy may not in itself be worse than rotten autocracy, its effects upon national character will be worse. To give the suffrage to tramps, to paupers, to men to whom the chance to labor is a boon, to men who must beg, or steal, or starve, is to invoke destruction. To put political power in the hands of men embittered and degraded by poverty is to tie firebrands to foxes and turn them loose amid the standing corn; it is to put out the eyes of a Samson and to twine his arms around the pillars of national life.

Where wealth is distributed with anything like equality, that is, where patriotism, virtue and intelligence are general, the more democratic the government, the better. But where wealth is grossly unequal, the more democratic the government the worse. Rotten democracy may not in itself be worse than rotten autocracy, but its effects on national character will be worse.529 To give the vote to tramps, to paupers, to men to whom a chance to labor is a boon, to men who must beg or steal or starve, is to invoke destruction. To put political power in the hands of men embittered and degraded by poverty is to tie firebrands to foxes and turn them loose in the standing corn. It is to put out the eyes of a Samson and twine his arms around the pillars of national life.

Even the accidents of hereditary succession or of selection by lot, the plan of some of the ancient republics, may sometimes 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 weighted, and unscrupulousness commands success. The best gravitate to the bottom, the worst float to the top, and the vile will only be ousted by the viler. While as national character must gradually assimilate to the qualities that win power, and consequently respect, that demoralization of opinion goes on which in the long panorama of history we may see over and over again transmuting races of freemen into races of slaves.

Even the accidents of hereditary succession, or of selection by lot as in some ancient republics, may sometimes put the wise and just in power. In a corrupt democracy the tendency is always to give power to the worst. Honesty and patriotism are weighted down, and unscrupulousness commands success. The best gravitate to the bottom, the worst float to the top, and the vile are ousted only by the viler. National character gradually comes to resemble the qualities that win power, and so respect. Thus goes on that demoralization of opinion which in the long panorama of history we see turning races of freemen into races of slaves over and over again.

As in England in the last century, when Parliament was but a close corporation of the aristocracy, a corrupt oligarchy clearly fenced off from the masses may exist without much effect on national character, because in that case power is associated in the popular mind with other things than corruption. But where there are no hereditary distinctions, and men are habitually seen to raise themselves by corrupt qualities from the lowest places to wealth and power, tolerance of these qualities finally becomes admiration. A corrupt democratic government must finally corrupt the people, and when a people become corrupt there is no resurrection. The life is gone, only the carcass remains; and it is left but for the plowshares of fate to bury it out of sight.

In eighteenth-century England, when Parliament was only a close corporation of the aristocracy, a corrupt oligarchy clearly fenced off from the masses could exist without much effect on national character. People then associated power with other things than corruption. But where there are no hereditary distinctions, and men are habitually seen rising by corrupt qualities from the lowest places to wealth and power, tolerance of these qualities finally becomes admiration. A corrupt democratic government must finally corrupt the people, and when a people become corrupt there is no resurrection. The life is gone and only the carcass remains. It is left only for the plowshares of fate to bury it out of sight.

Now this transformation of popular government into despotism of the vilest and most degrading kind, which must inevitably result from the unequal distribution of wealth, is not a thing of the far future. It has already begun in the United States, and is rapidly going on under our eyes. That our legislative bodies are steadily deteriorating in standard; that men of the highest ability and character are compelled to eschew politics, and the arts of the jobber count for more than the reputation of the statesman; that voting is done more recklessly and the power of money is increasing; that it is harder to arouse the people to the necessity of reforms and more difficult to carry them out; that political differences are ceasing to be differences of principle, and abstract ideas are losing their power; that parties are passing into the control of what in general government would be oligarchies and dictatorships; are all evidences of political decline.

Unequal distribution of wealth must inevitably turn popular government into despotism of the vilest and most degrading kind. This is not a thing of the far future. It has already begun in the United States and is going on rapidly before our eyes. Our legislative bodies are steadily deteriorating. Men of the highest ability and character are forced to shun politics, and the arts of the jobber count for more than a statesman's reputation. Voting grows more reckless and the power of money grows. It is harder to rouse the people to the need for reforms and harder to carry them out. Political differences are ceasing to be differences of principle, and abstract ideas are losing their power. Parties are passing into the control of what in a general government would be oligarchies and dictatorships. All these are evidences of political decline.

The type of modern growth is the great city. Here are to be found the greatest wealth and the deepest poverty. And it is here that popular government has most clearly broken down. In all the great American cities there is to-day as clearly defined a ruling class as in the most aristocratic countries of the world. Its members carry wards in their pockets, make up the slates for nominating conventions, distribute offices as they bargain together, and—though they toil not, neither do they spin—wear the best of raiment and spend money lavishly. They are men of power, whose favor the ambitious must court and whose vengeance he must avoid. Who are these men? The wise, the good, the learned—men who have earned the confidence of their fellow-citizens by the purity of their lives, the splendor of their talents, their probity in public trusts, their deep study of the problems of government? No; they are gamblers, saloon keepers, pugilists, or worse, who have made a531 trade of controlling votes and of buying and selling offices and official acts. They stand to the government of these cities as the Prætorian Guards did to that of declining Rome. He who would wear the purple, fill the curule chair, or have the fasces carried before him, must go or send his messengers to their camps, give them donatives and make them promises. It is through these men that the rich corporations and powerful pecuniary interests can pack the Senate and the bench with their creatures. It is these men who make School Directors, Supervisors, Assessors, members of the Legislature, Congressmen. Why, there are many election districts in the United States in which a George Washington, a Benjamin Franklin or a Thomas Jefferson could no more go to the lower house of a State Legislature than under the Ancient Régime a base-born peasant could become a Marshal of France. Their very character would be an insuperable disqualification.

The great city is the type of modern growth. 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 there is today as clearly defined a ruling class as in the most aristocratic countries of the world. Its members hold whole wards in their pockets, make up the slates for nominating conventions, and distribute offices as they bargain together. Though they toil not, neither do they spin, they wear the best of raiment and spend lavishly. They are men of power, whose favor the ambitious must court and whose vengeance he must avoid. Who are these men? The wise, the good, the learned, men who have earned their fellow citizens' confidence by pure lives, splendid talents, probity in public trusts, and deep study of the problems of government? No. They are gamblers, saloon keepers, pugilists, or worse, who have made a trade of controlling votes and of buying and selling offices and official acts.531 They stand to the government of these cities as the Praetorian Guards did to that of declining Rome. Whoever would wear the purple, fill the curule chair, or have the fasces carried before him must go or send messengers to their camps, give them donatives and make them promises. Through these men the rich corporations and powerful financial interests can pack the Senate and the bench with their creatures. These men make School Directors, Supervisors, Assessors, members of the Legislature, Congressmen. In many election districts in the United States, a George Washington, a Benjamin Franklin or a Thomas Jefferson could no more reach the lower house of a State Legislature than a base-born peasant could become a Marshal of France under the Ancient Régime. Their very character would be an insuperable disqualification.

In theory we are intense democrats. The proposal to sacrifice swine in the temple would hardly have excited greater horror and indignation in Jerusalem of old than would among us that of conferring a distinction of rank upon our most eminent citizen. But is there not growing up among us a class who have all the power without any of the virtues of aristocracy? We have simple citizens who control thousands of miles of railroad, millions of acres of land, the means of livelihood of great numbers of men; who name the Governors of sovereign States as they name their clerks, choose Senators as they choose attorneys, and whose will is as supreme with Legislatures as that of a French King sitting in bed of justice. The undercurrents of the times seem to sweep us back again to the old conditions from which we dreamed we had escaped. The development of the artisan and commercial classes gradually broke down feudalism after it had become so complete that men thought of heaven as532 organized on a feudal basis, and ranked the first and second persons of the Trinity as suzerain and tenant-in-chief. But now the development of manufactures and exchange, acting in a social organization in which land is made private property, threatens to compel every worker to seek a master, as the insecurity which followed the final break-up of the Roman Empire compelled every freeman to seek a lord. Nothing seems exempt from this tendency. Industry everywhere tends to assume a form in which one is master and many serve. And when one is master and the others serve, the one will control the others, even in such matters as votes. Just as the English landlord votes his tenants, so does the New England mill owner vote his operatives.

In theory we are intense democrats. Proposing to sacrifice swine in the temple would hardly have caused greater horror in ancient Jerusalem than proposing among us to confer a rank on our most eminent citizen. But is there not growing up among us a class who have all the power and none of the virtues of aristocracy? We have simple citizens who control thousands of miles of railroad, millions of acres of land, the livelihood of great numbers of men. They name the Governors of sovereign States as they name their clerks and choose Senators as they choose attorneys. Their will is as supreme with Legislatures as that of a French King sitting in bed of justice. The undercurrents of the times seem to sweep us back to the old conditions we thought we had escaped. The growth of the artisan and commercial classes gradually broke down feudalism after it had become so complete that men thought of heaven as organized on a feudal basis, and ranked the first and second persons of the Trinity as suzerain and tenant-in-chief.532 But now the growth of manufactures and exchange, in a social organization where land is private property, threatens to force every worker to seek a master. The insecurity after the final break-up of the Roman Empire likewise forced every freeman to seek a lord. Nothing seems exempt from this tendency. Industry everywhere tends to take a form in which one is master and many serve. And when one is master and the others serve, the one will control the others, even in such matters as votes. As the English landlord votes his tenants, so the New England mill owner votes his operatives.

There is no mistaking it—the very foundations of society are being sapped before our eyes, while we ask, how is it possible that such a civilization as this, with its railroads, and daily newspapers, and electric telegraphs, should ever be destroyed? While literature breathes but the belief that we have been, are, and for the future must be, leaving the savage state further and further behind us, there are indications that we are actually turning back again toward barbarism. Let me illustrate: One of the characteristics of barbarism is the low regard for the rights of person and of property. That the laws of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors imposed as penalty for murder a fine proportioned to the rank of the victim, while our law knows no distinction of rank, and protects the lowest from the highest, the poorest from the richest, by the uniform penalty of death, is looked upon as evidence of their barbarism and our civilization. And so, that piracy, and robbery, and slave-trading, and blackmailing, were once regarded as legitimate occupations, is conclusive proof of the rude state of development from which we have so far progressed.

There is no mistaking it. The very foundations of society are being sapped before our eyes. Meanwhile we ask how such a civilization as this, with its railroads, daily newspapers and electric telegraphs, could ever be destroyed. Literature breathes only the belief that we have been, are, and must be leaving the savage state further behind. Yet there are signs that we are actually turning back toward barbarism. Let me illustrate. One of the characteristics of barbarism is low regard for the rights of person and property. The laws of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors made the penalty for murder a fine proportioned to the rank of the victim. Our law knows no distinction of rank and protects the lowest from the highest, the poorest from the richest, by the uniform penalty of death. This is taken as evidence of their barbarism and our civilization. So too the fact that piracy, robbery, slave-trading and blackmailing were once regarded as legitimate occupations proves the rude state of development from which we have progressed.

But it is a matter of fact that, in spite of our laws, any533 one who has money enough and wants to kill another may go into any one of our great centers of population and business, and gratify his desire, and then surrender himself to justice, with the chances as a hundred to one that he will suffer no greater penalty than a temporary imprisonment and the loss of a sum proportioned partly to his own wealth and partly to the wealth and standing of the man he kills. His money will be paid, not to the family of the murdered man, who have lost their protector; not to the state, which has lost a citizen; but to lawyers who understand how to secure delays, to find witnesses, and get juries to disagree.

But in fact, despite our laws, anyone with enough money who wants to kill another may go into any of our great centers of population and business and gratify his desire.533 Then he can surrender himself to justice. The chances are a hundred to one that he will suffer no greater penalty than temporary imprisonment and the loss of a sum. That sum is proportioned partly to his own wealth and partly to the wealth and standing of the man he kills. His money will be paid not to the family of the murdered man, who have lost their protector, nor to the state, which has lost a citizen, but to lawyers who know how to secure delays, find witnesses and get juries to disagree.

And so, if a man steal enough, he may be sure that his punishment will practically amount but to the loss of a part of the proceeds of his theft; and if he steal enough to get off with a fortune, he will be greeted by his acquaintances as a viking might have been greeted after a successful cruise. Even though he robbed those who trusted him; even though he robbed the widow and the fatherless; he has only to get enough, and he may safely flaunt his wealth in the eyes of day.

And so if a man steals enough, he can be sure his punishment will practically amount only to losing part of the proceeds of his theft. If he steals enough to get off with a fortune, his acquaintances will greet him as a viking might have been greeted after a successful cruise. He may have robbed those who trusted him, even the widow and the fatherless. He has only to get enough, and he may safely flaunt his wealth in broad daylight.

Now, the tendency in this direction is an increasing one. It is shown in greatest force where the inequalities in the distribution of wealth are greatest, and it shows itself as they increase. If it be not a return to barbarism, what is it? The failures of justice to which I have alluded are only illustrative of the increasing debility of our legal machinery in every department. It is becoming common to hear men say that it would be better to revert to first principles and abolish law, for then in self-defense the people would form Vigilance Committees and take justice into their own hands. Is this indicative of advance or retrogression?

This tendency is an increasing one. It shows in greatest force where inequalities in the distribution of wealth are greatest, and it grows as they grow. If it is not a return to barbarism, what is it? The failures of justice I have mentioned only illustrate the growing weakness of our legal machinery in every department. It is becoming common to hear men say it would be better to go back to first principles and abolish law. Then, they say, the people would form Vigilance Committees in self-defense and take justice into their own hands. Is this a sign of advance or retrogression?

All this is matter of common observation. Though we may not speak it openly, the general faith in republican institutions is, where they have reached their fullest534 development, narrowing and weakening. It is no longer that confident belief in republicanism as the source of national blessings that it once was. Thoughtful men are beginning to see its dangers, without seeing how to escape them; are beginning to accept the view of Macaulay and distrust that of Jefferson.64 And the people at large are becoming used to the growing corruption. The most ominous political sign in the United States to-day is the growth of a sentiment which either doubts the existence of an honest man in public office or looks on him as a fool for not seizing his opportunities. That is to say, the people themselves are becoming corrupted. Thus in the United States to-day is republican government running the course it must inevitably follow under conditions which cause the unequal distribution of wealth.

All this is a matter of common observation. Though we may not say it openly, general faith in republican institutions, where they have reached their fullest development, is narrowing and weakening.534 It is no longer the confident belief in republicanism as the source of national blessings that it once was. Thoughtful men are beginning to see its dangers without seeing how to escape them. They are starting to accept the view of the historian Macaulay and distrust that of Jefferson.64 And the people at large are becoming used to the growing corruption. The most ominous political sign in the United States today is a growing sentiment that either doubts there is an honest man in public office or thinks him a fool for not seizing his opportunities. That is to say, the people themselves are becoming corrupted. In the United States today, republican government is thus running the course it must inevitably follow under conditions that cause unequal distribution of wealth.

Where that course leads is clear to whoever will think. As corruption becomes chronic; as public spirit is lost; as traditions of honor, virtue, and patriotism are weakened; as law is brought into contempt and reforms become hopeless; then in the festering mass will be generated volcanic forces, which shatter and rend when seeming accident gives them vent. Strong, unscrupulous men, rising up upon occasion, will become the exponents of blind popular desires or fierce popular passions, and dash aside forms that have lost their vitality. The sword will again be mightier than the pen, and in carnivals of destruction brute force and wild frenzy will alternate with the lethargy of a declining civilization.

Anyone who thinks can see where that course leads. Corruption will become chronic. Public spirit will be lost, traditions of honor, virtue and patriotism will weaken, law will fall into contempt, and reforms will become hopeless. Then in the festering mass volcanic forces will be generated, which shatter and rend when some seeming accident gives them vent. Strong, unscrupulous men, rising on occasion, will become the voices of blind popular desires or fierce popular passions and dash aside forms that have lost their vitality. The sword will again be mightier than the pen, and in carnivals of destruction brute force and wild frenzy will alternate with the lethargy of a declining civilization.

I speak of the United States only because the United States is the most advanced of all the great nations. What shall we say of Europe, where dams of ancient law and custom pen up the swelling waters and standing armies weigh down the safety valves, though year by535 year the fires grow hotter underneath? Europe tends to republicanism under conditions that will not admit of true republicanism—under conditions that substitute for the calm and august figure of Liberty the petroleuse and the guillotine!

I speak of the United States only because it is the most advanced of all the great nations. What shall we say of Europe, where dams of ancient law and custom pen up the swelling waters and standing armies weigh down the safety valves, though year by year the fires grow hotter underneath?535 Europe tends toward republicanism under conditions that will not admit of true republicanism. Those conditions put the petroleuse (the female incendiary of the Paris Commune) and the guillotine in place of the calm and august figure of Liberty!

Whence shall come the new barbarians? Go through the squalid quarters of great cities, and you may see, even now, their gathering hordes! How shall learning perish? Men will cease to read, and books will kindle fires and be turned into cartridges!

Where will the new barbarians come from? Go through the squalid quarters of great cities and you may see, even now, their gathering hordes! How will learning perish? Men will cease to read, and books will kindle fires and be turned into cartridges!

It is startling to think how slight the traces that would be left of our civilization did it pass through the throes which have accompanied the decline of every previous civilization. Paper will not last like parchment, nor are our most massive buildings and monuments to be compared in solidity with the rock-hewn temples and titanic edifices of the old civilizations.65 And invention has given us, not merely the steam engine and the printing press, but petroleum, nitro-glycerine, and dynamite.

It is startling to think how slight the traces of our civilization would be if it went through the throes that accompanied the decline of every earlier one. Paper will not last like parchment. Our most massive buildings and monuments cannot compare in solidity with the rock-hewn temples and titanic edifices of the old civilizations.65 And invention has given us not only the steam engine and the printing press but petroleum, nitro-glycerine and dynamite.

Yet to hint, to-day, that our civilization may possibly be tending to decline, seems like the wildness of pessimism. The special tendencies to which I have alluded are obvious to thinking men, but with the majority of thinking men, as with the great masses, the belief in substantial progress is yet deep and strong—a fundamental belief which admits not the shadow of a doubt.

Yet to hint today that our civilization may be declining seems wild pessimism. The tendencies I have mentioned are obvious to thinking men. But among most of them, as among the great masses, belief in substantial progress is still deep and strong, a fundamental belief that admits not the shadow of a doubt.

But any one who will think over the matter will see that this must necessarily be the case where advance gradually passes into retrogression. For in social development, as in everything else, motion tends to persist in straight lines, and therefore, where there has been a536 previous advance, it is extremely difficult to recognize decline, even when it has fully commenced; there is an almost irresistible tendency to believe that the forward movement which has been advance, and is still going on, is still advance. The web of beliefs, customs, laws, institutions, and habits of thought, which each community is constantly spinning, and which produces in the individual environed by it all the differences of national character, is never unraveled. That is to say, in the decline of civilization, communities do not go down by the same paths that they came up. For instance, the decline of civilization as manifested in government would not take us back from republicanism to constitutional monarchy, and thence to the feudal system; it would take us to imperatorship and anarchy. As manifested in religion, it would not take us back into the faiths of our forefathers, into Protestantism or Catholicity, but into new forms of superstition, of which possibly Mormonism and other even grosser “isms” may give some vague idea. As manifested in knowledge, it would not take us toward Bacon, but toward the literati of China.

But anyone who thinks about it will see that this must be so wherever advance gradually passes into retrogression. In social development, as in everything else, motion tends to persist in straight lines.536 So where there has been a previous advance, it is extremely hard to recognize decline even when it has fully begun. There is an almost irresistible tendency to believe that the forward movement that has been advance, and is still going on, is still advance. Each community constantly spins a web of beliefs, customs, laws, institutions and habits of thought. It produces in the individual all the differences of national character, and it is never unraveled. That is to say, in the decline of civilization communities do not go down by the paths they came up. For instance, the decline of civilization as shown in government would not take us back from republicanism to constitutional monarchy and then to the feudal system. It would take us to imperatorship (rule by Roman-style emperors) and anarchy. As shown in religion, it would not take us back to the faiths of our forefathers, to Protestantism or Catholicity. It would take us into new forms of superstition, of which possibly Mormonism and other even grosser “isms” may give some vague idea. As shown in knowledge, it would not take us toward Francis Bacon but toward the literati of China.

And how the retrogression of civilization, following a period of advance, may be so gradual as to attract no attention at the time; nay, how that decline must necessarily, by the great majority of men, be mistaken for advance, is easily seen. For instance, there is an enormous difference between Grecian art of the classic period and that of the lower empire; yet the change was accompanied, or rather caused, by a change of taste. The artists who most quickly followed this change of taste were in their day regarded as the superior artists. And so of literature. As it became more vapid, puerile, and stilted, it would be in obedience to an altered taste, which would regard its increasing weakness as increasing strength and beauty. The really good writer would not find readers; he would be regarded as rude, dry, or dull.537 And so would the drama decline; not because there was a lack of good plays, but because the prevailing taste became more and more that of a less cultured class, who, of course, regard that which they most admire as the best of its kind. And so, too, of religion; the superstitions which a superstitious people will add to it will be regarded by them as improvements. While, as the decline goes on, the return to barbarism, where it is not in itself regarded as an advance, will seem necessary to meet the exigencies of the times.

It is easy to see how retrogression after a period of advance may be so gradual as to attract no attention. Indeed, the great majority of men must necessarily mistake that decline for advance. For instance, there is an enormous difference between Grecian art of the classic period and that of the lower empire. Yet the change was accompanied, or rather caused, by a change of taste. The artists who followed that change most quickly were regarded in their day as the best. So with literature. As it became more vapid, puerile and stilted, it would be in obedience to an altered taste, which would take its increasing weakness for increasing strength and beauty. The really good writer would find no readers. He would be regarded as rude, dry or dull.537 The drama would decline in the same way. Good plays would not be lacking, but the prevailing taste would become more and more that of a less cultured class, who of course regard what they most admire as the best of its kind. So too with religion: the superstitions that a superstitious people add to it will seem to them improvements. And as the decline goes on, the return to barbarism, where it is not itself regarded as an advance, will seem necessary to meet the needs of the times.

For instance, flogging, as a punishment for certain offenses, has been recently restored to the penal code of England, and has been strongly advocated on this side of the Atlantic. I express no opinion as to whether this is or is not a better punishment for crime than imprisonment. I only point to the fact as illustrating how an increasing amount of crime and an increasing embarrassment as to the maintenance of prisoners, both obvious tendencies at present, might lead to a fuller return to the physical cruelty of barbarous codes. The use of torture in judicial investigations, which steadily grew with the decline of Roman civilization, it is thus easy to see, might, as manners brutalized and crime increased, be demanded as a necessary improvement of the criminal law.

For instance, flogging as a punishment for certain offenses has recently been restored to the penal code of England and has been strongly advocated on this side of the Atlantic. I express no opinion on whether it beats imprisonment as a punishment for crime. I point to the fact only to show how more crime and more trouble maintaining prisoners, both obvious tendencies at present, might lead to a fuller return to the physical cruelty of barbarous codes. Torture in judicial investigations grew steadily with the decline of Roman civilization. As manners brutalized and crime increased, it too might be demanded as a necessary improvement of the criminal law.

Whether in the present drifts of opinion and taste there are as yet any indications of retrogression, it is not necessary to inquire; but there are many things about which there can be no dispute, which go to show that our civilization has reached a critical period, and that unless a new start is made in the direction of social equality, the nineteenth century may to the future mark its climax. These industrial depressions, which cause as much waste and suffering as famines or wars, are like the twinges and shocks which precede paralysis. Everywhere is it evident that the tendency to inequality, which538 is the necessary result of material progress where land is monopolized, cannot go much further without carrying our civilization into that downward path which is so easy to enter and so hard to abandon. Everywhere the increasing intensity of the struggle to live, the increasing necessity for straining every nerve to prevent being thrown down and trodden under foot in the scramble for wealth, is draining the forces which gain and maintain improvements. In every civilized country pauperism, crime, insanity, and suicides are increasing. In every civilized country the diseases are increasing which come from overstrained nerves, from insufficient nourishment, from squalid lodgings, from unwholesome and monotonous occupations, from premature labor of children, from the tasks and crimes which poverty imposes upon women. In every highly civilized country the expectation of life, which gradually rose for several centuries, and which seems to have culminated about the first quarter of this century, appears to be now diminishing.66

Whether the present drifts of opinion and taste already show signs of retrogression, we need not inquire. But many undisputed facts show that our civilization has reached a critical period. Unless a new start is made toward social equality, the future may mark the nineteenth century as its climax. These industrial depressions, which cause as much waste and suffering as famines or wars, are like the twinges that precede paralysis.538 Everywhere it is evident that the tendency to inequality, the necessary result of material progress where land is monopolized, cannot go much further without carrying our civilization onto that downward path, so easy to enter and so hard to leave. Everywhere the struggle to live grows more intense. People must strain every nerve to avoid being thrown down and trodden underfoot in the scramble for wealth, and this is draining the forces that gain and maintain improvements. In every civilized country dependence on public relief, crime, insanity and suicides are increasing. In every civilized country the diseases are increasing that come from overstrained nerves, insufficient nourishment, squalid lodgings, unwholesome and monotonous occupations, premature labor of children, and the tasks and crimes poverty imposes on women. In every highly civilized country the expectation of life, which rose gradually for several centuries and seems to have peaked about the first quarter of this century, now appears to be diminishing.66

It is not an advancing civilization that such figures show. It is a civilization which in its undercurrents has already begun to recede. When the tide turns in bay or river from flood to ebb, it is not all at once; but here it still runs on, though there it has begun to recede. When the sun passes the meridian, it can be told only by the way the short shadows fall; for the heat of the day yet increases. But as sure as the turning tide must soon run full ebb; as sure as the declining sun must bring darkness, so sure is it, that though knowledge yet increases and invention marches on, and new states are being settled, and cities still expand, yet civilization has begun to539 wane when, in proportion to population, we must build more and more prisons, more and more almshouses, more and more insane asylums. It is not from top to bottom that societies die; it is from bottom to top.

Such figures do not show an advancing civilization. They show a civilization that in its undercurrents has already begun to recede. The tide in a bay or river does not turn from flood to ebb all at once. Here it still runs on, though there it has begun to recede. When the sun passes the meridian, we can tell only by how the short shadows fall, for the heat of the day still increases. As surely as the turning tide must soon run full ebb and the declining sun must bring darkness, civilization has begun to wane when, in proportion to population, we must build more and more prisons, more and more almshouses, more and more insane asylums. This holds even though knowledge still increases, invention marches on, new states are settled and cities expand.539 Societies do not die from the top down. They die from the bottom up.

But there are evidences far more palpable than any that can be given by statistics, of tendencies to the ebb of civilization. There is a vague but general feeling of disappointment; an increased bitterness among the working classes; a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution. If this were accompanied by a definite idea of how relief is to be obtained, it would be a hopeful sign; but it is not. Though the schoolmaster has been abroad some time, the general power of tracing effect to cause does not seem a whit improved. The reaction toward protectionism, as the reaction toward other exploded fallacies of government, shows this.67 And even the philosophic free-thinker cannot look upon that vast change in religious ideas that is now sweeping over the civilized world without feeling that this tremendous fact may have most momentous relations, which only the future can develop. For what is going on is not a change in the form of religion, but the negation and destruction of the ideas from which religion springs. Christianity is not simply clearing itself of superstitions, but in the popular mind it is dying at the root, as the old paganisms were dying when Christianity entered the world. And nothing arises to take its place. The fundamental ideas of an intelligent Creator and of a future life are in the general mind rapidly weakening. Now, whether this may or may not be in itself an advance, the importance of the part which religion has played in the540 world’s history shows the importance of the change that is now going on. Unless human nature has suddenly altered in what the universal history of the race shows to be its deepest characteristics, the mightiest actions and reactions are thus preparing. Such stages of thought have heretofore always marked periods of transition. On a smaller scale and to a less depth (for I think any one who will notice the drift of our literature, and talk upon such subjects with the men he meets, will see that it is sub-soil and not surface plowing that materialistic ideas are now doing), such a state of thought preceded the French revolution. But the closest parallel to the wreck of religious ideas now going on is to be found in that period in which ancient civilization began to pass from splendor to decline. What change may come, no mortal man can tell, but that some great change must come, thoughtful men begin to feel. The civilized world is trembling on the verge of a great movement. Either it must be a leap upward, which will open the way to advances yet undreamed of, or it must be a plunge downward, which will carry us back toward barbarism.

But there are signs of the ebb of civilization far more palpable than any statistics. There is a vague but general feeling of disappointment, increased bitterness among the working classes, and widespread unrest and brooding revolution. If this came with a clear idea of how to get relief, it would be hopeful. It does not. Though schooling has spread for some time now, the general power of tracing effect to cause seems not a whit improved. The reaction toward protectionism, like the reaction toward other exploded fallacies of government, shows this.67 Even the philosophic free-thinker cannot look at the vast change in religious ideas now sweeping over the civilized world without feeling that it may have most momentous consequences, which only the future can develop. For what is going on is not a change in the form of religion but the negation and destruction of the ideas from which religion springs. Christianity is not simply clearing itself of superstitions. In the popular mind it is dying at the root, as the old paganisms were when Christianity entered the world. And nothing arises to take its place. The fundamental ideas of an intelligent Creator and of a future life are rapidly weakening in the general mind. Whether or not this is in itself an advance, the importance of the part religion has played in the world's history shows the importance of the change now going on.540 Unless human nature has suddenly altered in what the history of the race shows to be its deepest characteristics, the mightiest actions and reactions are preparing. Such stages of thought have always marked periods of transition. On a smaller scale and to a lesser depth, such a state of thought preceded the French revolution. I think anyone who notices the drift of our literature, and talks on such subjects with the men he meets, will see that materialistic ideas are now doing sub-soil plowing, not surface plowing. But the closest parallel to the wreck of religious ideas now going on is the period in which ancient civilization began to pass from splendor to decline. What change may come, no mortal man can tell, but thoughtful men begin to feel that some great change must come. The civilized world is trembling on the verge of a great movement. Either it must be a leap upward, which will open the way to advances yet undreamed of, or a plunge downward, which will carry us back toward barbarism.