What do you think?
Rate this book
What Social Classes Owe to Each Other
Classic treatise on the importance of maintaining the rights of the individual in the face of expanding state control manipulated by organized pressure groups.
145 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1883
31 people are currently reading
291 people want to read
About the author
William Graham Sumner
304 books31 followersWilliam Graham Sumner (October 30, 1840 – April 12, 1910) was a classical liberal American social scientist. He taught social sciences at Yale, where he held the nation's first professorship in sociology. He was one of the most influential teachers at Yale or any other major school. Sumner wrote widely within the social sciences, with numerous books and essays on American history, economic history, political theory, sociology, and anthropology. He supported laissez-faire economics, free markets, and the gold standard. He adopted the term "ethnocentrism" to identify the roots of imperialism, which he strongly opposed. He was a spokesman against imperialism and in favor of the "forgotten man" of the middle class, a term he coined. He had a long-term influence on conservatism in the United States.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
March 9, 2020
20 May 2019 - I read this book in college, about 1976, for a government class, and used it as the basis for my class presentation on William Graham Sumner. I remember really enjoying the book very much. It made perfect sense to me and I can see why it has been ignored and slandered by the statists, interventionists, socialists, "progressives," collectivists, etc. - the simple logic destroys the morality of their coercive schemes of redistribution, and other policies.
As I remember one of the main arguments was about the proverbial "forgotten man" "C" who was taxed, regulated and otherwise harassed by a combination of A and B in society, simply because they were "the majority" in the democratic system. See the problem? Why is it right/moral for a majority to steal from the minority, simply because they vote on it? This is how democracies become as tyrannical as any dictatorship, monarchy, etc.
2020-03-09: Minor edits
As I remember one of the main arguments was about the proverbial "forgotten man" "C" who was taxed, regulated and otherwise harassed by a combination of A and B in society, simply because they were "the majority" in the democratic system. See the problem? Why is it right/moral for a majority to steal from the minority, simply because they vote on it? This is how democracies become as tyrannical as any dictatorship, monarchy, etc.
2020-03-09: Minor edits
June 28, 2013
This book is about social cooperation and its preservation, and how the State is used as a tool for some people to exploit other people. That, of course, is not what Sumner is supposed to have written about: he is supposed to have been a heartless "social Darwinist".
Sumner warns against the risk of plutocracy. He is considered a "social Darwinist", along with Spencer, because of his views that the State shouldn't take from some to give to others, even if those others are poor. What is seldom said is that neither Spencer nor Sumner were against helping those in need: they just thought that wasn't for the State to do.
The last chapter is about how people should help each other because no one is free from making mistakes. That doesn't sound like a "social Darwinist", right? There are some comments that may sound shocking, about saving people from their own folly at the expense of those that worked hard. But Sumner's argument is more about not undermining responsibility, which is characteristic of the free man, and not punishing people for their virtues. A considerable number of pages is about unions, and how they can be beneficial. Hardly "social Darwinist" material. That rights and duties, freedom and responsibilities go together is one of Sumner's main points. But he argues along the lines that this is so because this is how society is preserved: people rely on each other. Some of his arguments remind one of Public Choice theory, and he warns against what we today call "crony capitalism", whose main victim is "The Forgotten Man", who is not precisely a rich man.
Sumner's phrase "the struggle for existence" is sometimes mentioned to describe his "social Darwinism". Yet, the phrase doesn't refer to a fight of man against man in which the stronger will prevail: it refers to the fight of man against Nature: the struggle for life, in which we are all partners.
So, next time you see someone accusing Sumner of being a heartless monster, ask the accuser whether he actually read his books. This isn't to say Sumner's opinions can't be found objectionable. But as much as one may object Sumner's and Spencer's views about the role of the State, one should not misrepresent them. Sumner thought that the free society, which is the one that achieves more for everyone, particularly the poor, was in danger if the State was used as a tool for taking from some to give to others.
Sumner warns against the risk of plutocracy. He is considered a "social Darwinist", along with Spencer, because of his views that the State shouldn't take from some to give to others, even if those others are poor. What is seldom said is that neither Spencer nor Sumner were against helping those in need: they just thought that wasn't for the State to do.
The last chapter is about how people should help each other because no one is free from making mistakes. That doesn't sound like a "social Darwinist", right? There are some comments that may sound shocking, about saving people from their own folly at the expense of those that worked hard. But Sumner's argument is more about not undermining responsibility, which is characteristic of the free man, and not punishing people for their virtues. A considerable number of pages is about unions, and how they can be beneficial. Hardly "social Darwinist" material. That rights and duties, freedom and responsibilities go together is one of Sumner's main points. But he argues along the lines that this is so because this is how society is preserved: people rely on each other. Some of his arguments remind one of Public Choice theory, and he warns against what we today call "crony capitalism", whose main victim is "The Forgotten Man", who is not precisely a rich man.
Sumner's phrase "the struggle for existence" is sometimes mentioned to describe his "social Darwinism". Yet, the phrase doesn't refer to a fight of man against man in which the stronger will prevail: it refers to the fight of man against Nature: the struggle for life, in which we are all partners.
So, next time you see someone accusing Sumner of being a heartless monster, ask the accuser whether he actually read his books. This isn't to say Sumner's opinions can't be found objectionable. But as much as one may object Sumner's and Spencer's views about the role of the State, one should not misrepresent them. Sumner thought that the free society, which is the one that achieves more for everyone, particularly the poor, was in danger if the State was used as a tool for taking from some to give to others.
May 29, 2015
This book will not be appreciated by many readers today because of its assumptions that one social class should not be forced to care for another social class. This book is written from a mostly secular viewpoint and is most assuredly pro-capitalistic. In fact, in places it comes across as overly harsh. I first read this book in college. Its counterpart "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels was also required reading. These two books are at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum. Therefore, my Christian perspective forces me to reject both extremes and to advocate for something in between. However, taken from a purely secular point-of-view as I believe the authors of both books held, Sumner's book wins hands-down.
While it is indeed evil for one man to live in luxury in the presence of great want and suffering, it is equally evil, and I believe more-so, for one man to be forced to work while others do not work and yet still be forced to support them. I believe this is taught in the New Testament that if a man (or woman) will not work, neither let him eat. Naturally, it is rarely so cut and dried as that. Because of that, I believe God's plan is for his church to voluntarily fill this gap between the haves and the have-nots (through no fault of their own). But nowhere in scripture do I read that those who have plenty are evil and those who have little (even those who refuse to provide for themselves given opportunity) are good. And yet that is the message that Marx and his followers have polluted the world with for a hundred years.
The fact that Sumner wrote this book so early shows that the idea that one man has the inherent right to forcibly take from another and give to a third person is an old idea. With the exception of paying taxes to legitimate governmental authorities, I see no validation for that concept. But even the paying of taxes can and has been perverted in the name of "fairness". This inevitably leads to low-motivation, low production, and more poverty and misery. While I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with all of Sumner's opinions, I do agree in the main.
While it is indeed evil for one man to live in luxury in the presence of great want and suffering, it is equally evil, and I believe more-so, for one man to be forced to work while others do not work and yet still be forced to support them. I believe this is taught in the New Testament that if a man (or woman) will not work, neither let him eat. Naturally, it is rarely so cut and dried as that. Because of that, I believe God's plan is for his church to voluntarily fill this gap between the haves and the have-nots (through no fault of their own). But nowhere in scripture do I read that those who have plenty are evil and those who have little (even those who refuse to provide for themselves given opportunity) are good. And yet that is the message that Marx and his followers have polluted the world with for a hundred years.
The fact that Sumner wrote this book so early shows that the idea that one man has the inherent right to forcibly take from another and give to a third person is an old idea. With the exception of paying taxes to legitimate governmental authorities, I see no validation for that concept. But even the paying of taxes can and has been perverted in the name of "fairness". This inevitably leads to low-motivation, low production, and more poverty and misery. While I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with all of Sumner's opinions, I do agree in the main.
October 6, 2008
This book is the basis for Amity Shlaes' "The Forgotten Man". William Sumner does one of the best jobs I've ever seen of explaining why the government should not interfere in social institutions. Society creates the institutions needed by the members therein without the government interfering and does a significantly better job than government can.
September 29, 2018
This is honestly just a laissez-faire love letter to Capital itself. I read it on a long flight a few weeks ago since I wasn't in the mood for anything else on my device and it provided me with good entertainment, so I rate it 4 for Comedy.
December 28, 2022
Now I understand how and why my conservative parents think the way they do.
October 24, 2014
The idea of forced redistribution of the wealth is profoundly defeated. Every politician should be required to read this book before taking office. Great book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 15, 2025
3.5 stars. I had to read this for class and to be honest, I was just going to read the first 30 pages and call it a day. However, it really interested me so I kept reading. I really like the way that he wrote this essay, the metaphors he used really put the words he was proclaiming into perspective.
November 20, 2008
This book is the basis for Amity Shlaes' book "The Forgotten Man". William Sumner does one of the best jobs I've ever seen of explaining why the government should not interfere in social institutions. Society creates the institutions needed by the members therein without the government interfering and does a significantly better job than government can.
Want to read
October 21, 2017I was able to read this work online via the following link:
https://mises.org/library/what-social...
I also found a link here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18603...
https://mises.org/library/what-social...
I also found a link here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18603...
August 21, 2008
An interesting read with a few valid points, but the overall social-Darwinist arguement failed to sway me.
May 3, 2021
“What Social Classes Owe to Each Other”
It is not hard to have immediate grave reservations about social Darwinism and his arguments promoted here in the Chapter “The Case of the Forgotten Man Further Considered.” Men have no natural rights and they inherit from nothing and no one has any duty to provide them with anything. Something does not come from nothing on earth. This is his argument. I am curious if this was also his preaching from the pulpit as a clergyman that the rich owe nothing to the poor?
It is not hard to have immediate grave reservations about social Darwinism and his arguments promoted here in the Chapter “The Case of the Forgotten Man Further Considered.” Men have no natural rights and they inherit from nothing and no one has any duty to provide them with anything. Something does not come from nothing on earth. This is his argument. I am curious if this was also his preaching from the pulpit as a clergyman that the rich owe nothing to the poor?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 12, 2021
Imagine writing a whole book about how the forgotten man in the US was the people with means and the virtual monopoly on political agency.
My favorite part was that he mentions how he mentions the injustice done to women from a central gov propping up the textile mills artificially, but doesn't mention how women have no political agency to change that.
My favorite part was that he mentions how he mentions the injustice done to women from a central gov propping up the textile mills artificially, but doesn't mention how women have no political agency to change that.
April 14, 2021
Very interesting read, while I disagree with his conclusion, his assessment of the problem was seemingly spot on. Crazy to see how he predicted where we would be in the future and was near exactly right.
September 23, 2025
Pretty good, worth reading
December 23, 2010
Whatever you think of William Graham Sumner's argument, he expresses classical Social Darwinist theory quite eloquently. The title of the book, "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other," is answered by the author, essentially, as: "nothing." At one point in his body of work, he noted that life is like "Root, hog, or die." You have to work hard to make it or. . . .
A classic line from this work illustrates the logic (Page 17): "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 struggling to free ourselves from these ills. The fact that my neighbor has succeeded in his struggle better than I constitutes no grievance for me."
If you have value as a person, you will "make it." And those who cannot make it have no claim on the bounty that your success has created. It is a perspective that can be associated with the phrase "Nature, red in tooth and claw." A battle, a struggle for survival between individuals.
Most biologists of behavior today would reject this mano e mano perspective, noting that altruism and cooperation are a considerable part of human nature--as is conflict.
In his day, though, Sumner was a major figure, along with Herbert Spencer and others, in the Social Darwinist movement.
Currently reading
April 1, 2012Check out the essay "The Forgotten Man" toward the end. You can view it here: http://mises.org/daily/2485 It really sums up why the country is in the shape it is in right now.
July 19, 2008
different, and good, and short
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews