What do you think?
Rate this book
Memoir on Pauperism: Does Public Charity Produce an Idle and Dependent Class of Society?
[L]egal charity has not only taken freedom of movement from the English poor but also from those who are threatened by poverty.
-from "Memoir on Pauperism"
Inspired by a trip to England at a time when that nation was in the throes of political, social, and economic strife and poverty was rampant, political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville developed his theories on civil society as it relates to its poorest members and set them down in this 1835 essay.
With keen insight, he explains:
. why the richest nations have the most paupers
. why private charity is more likely to alleviate poverty than government aid
. how good intentions backfire to produce a chronically dependent underclass.
The political and economic situations Tocqueville examines are immediately recognizable as one that haunts the world's richest nations today, and his lessons are still to be learned. This is an important book for our unsteady times.
Also available from Cosimo Classics: Tocqueville's Selected Letters on Politics and Society.
French writer ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE (1805-1859) was born in Paris and practiced law before embarking on travels in America to study the young nation's political experiment. The result, the two-volume Democracy in America (1835, 1840), is considered a classic discourse on 19th-century America.
-from "Memoir on Pauperism"
Inspired by a trip to England at a time when that nation was in the throes of political, social, and economic strife and poverty was rampant, political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville developed his theories on civil society as it relates to its poorest members and set them down in this 1835 essay.
With keen insight, he explains:
. why the richest nations have the most paupers
. why private charity is more likely to alleviate poverty than government aid
. how good intentions backfire to produce a chronically dependent underclass.
The political and economic situations Tocqueville examines are immediately recognizable as one that haunts the world's richest nations today, and his lessons are still to be learned. This is an important book for our unsteady times.
Also available from Cosimo Classics: Tocqueville's Selected Letters on Politics and Society.
French writer ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE (1805-1859) was born in Paris and practiced law before embarking on travels in America to study the young nation's political experiment. The result, the two-volume Democracy in America (1835, 1840), is considered a classic discourse on 19th-century America.
48 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1911
7 people are currently reading
302 people want to read
About the author
Alexis de Tocqueville
906 books1,251 followersAlexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocqueville, usually known as just Tocqueville, was a French aristocrat, diplomat, sociologist, political scientist, political philosopher, and historian. He is best known for his works Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes, 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both, he analyzed the living standards and social conditions of individuals as well as their relationship to the market and state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after Tocqueville's travels in the United States and is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.
Tocqueville was active in French politics, first under the July Monarchy (1830–1848) and then during the Second Republic (1849–1851) which succeeded the February 1848 Revolution. He retired from political life after Louis Napoléon Bonaparte's 2 December 1851 coup and thereafter began work on The Old Regime and the Revolution. Tocqueville argued the importance of the French Revolution was to continue the process of modernizing and centralizing the French state which had begun under Louis XIV. He believed the failure of the Revolution came from the inexperience of the deputies who were too wedded to abstract Enlightenment ideals.
Tocqueville was a classical liberal who advocated parliamentary government and was skeptical of the extremes of majoritarianism. During his time in parliament, he was first a member of the centre-left before moving to the centre-right, and the complex and restless nature of his liberalism has led to contrasting interpretations and admirers across the political spectrum.
Tocqueville was active in French politics, first under the July Monarchy (1830–1848) and then during the Second Republic (1849–1851) which succeeded the February 1848 Revolution. He retired from political life after Louis Napoléon Bonaparte's 2 December 1851 coup and thereafter began work on The Old Regime and the Revolution. Tocqueville argued the importance of the French Revolution was to continue the process of modernizing and centralizing the French state which had begun under Louis XIV. He believed the failure of the Revolution came from the inexperience of the deputies who were too wedded to abstract Enlightenment ideals.
Tocqueville was a classical liberal who advocated parliamentary government and was skeptical of the extremes of majoritarianism. During his time in parliament, he was first a member of the centre-left before moving to the centre-right, and the complex and restless nature of his liberalism has led to contrasting interpretations and admirers across the political spectrum.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
Read
May 11, 2020i rate books on my enjoyment. for this one, i've got an assignment for this so it'd be biased to rate it out of enjoyment soooo...
July 27, 2023
I’ve just learned more about economics, and governmental economic policy, through the few hours in which I read this booklet this morning, than I ever did through years of secondary school classes on economics, bookkeeping, ‘maatschappijleer’, and even history.
I’m not saying that I can already apply that knowledge, too. It still needs to synthesise, preferably synergise, into understanding. And at the very least, that requires time.
But the major advantage of de Tocqueville’s approach over that of much ‘education’ of whatever level nowadays, is that de Tocqueville actually explains, whereas most ‘education’ only instructs. De Tocqueville delves into the ‘Why?’ behind the (economic) system, whereas most education only — and mostly confusedly, at that — explicates one, or multiple, mechanisms within that (economic) system.
If education is successful, the student is left only with a blueprint of a mechanism, or the multitude of mechanisms that make up a system, and the ways in which those influence one another. But this is rarely ever successful, and even if it is successful, this does not guarantee that the student understands how to make any use of that, or influence the mechanism or system oneself. In some way, education even fosters passive acceptance. Which is exactly the antithesis, antidote, to discovery and innovation — the purported aim and driving force of education.
If de Tocqueville’s approach is successful, you have an understanding of the principles that the blueprint is built on. You don’t necessarily have the blueprint itself yet, you are likely to still lack a sufficient overview of the mechanism, let alone the various mechanisms that make up a system. That is, however, not much of a problem, because coming to reach that overview is much easier when you grasp the principles that shape the blueprint.
And, after all, a blueprint is always still. It is the set, rigid, unliving explication of the closed loop, the closed loop which aims to express the structure of the movement that it is about. A blueprint is a rigidificafion, a solidification of a movement that we cannot keep in our mind’s eye, in its motion. It always aims to capture something that cannot be captured. A movement is never bounded, and whenever it is, tension rises. It needs a very strong bond in order to not let that force unleash itself damagingly, even destructively.
Only an intuitive understanding of this unbounded structure of motion, energy, can ever ‘hold’, but not capture, the actual structure of a system, or mechanism — the structure that we always present rigidly, but that rather exists in motion.
Only in that recognition, a recognition which is fostered by going after the ‘Why?’; by remaining open-ended, rather than positing a closed loop; by noticing the movements, rather than the rigidities; of always remaining in wonder, asking questions, and looking for the next thing, rather than believing you have clear-cut, final answers; only therein will you be able to have some semblance of influence over anything.
And even then, it is still not influence, but inspiration. Which you can only find by accepting, actively accepting, that you can only follow along with life, and so be ‘rigid’ only in being a beacon for others to do the same.
I’m not saying that I can already apply that knowledge, too. It still needs to synthesise, preferably synergise, into understanding. And at the very least, that requires time.
But the major advantage of de Tocqueville’s approach over that of much ‘education’ of whatever level nowadays, is that de Tocqueville actually explains, whereas most ‘education’ only instructs. De Tocqueville delves into the ‘Why?’ behind the (economic) system, whereas most education only — and mostly confusedly, at that — explicates one, or multiple, mechanisms within that (economic) system.
If education is successful, the student is left only with a blueprint of a mechanism, or the multitude of mechanisms that make up a system, and the ways in which those influence one another. But this is rarely ever successful, and even if it is successful, this does not guarantee that the student understands how to make any use of that, or influence the mechanism or system oneself. In some way, education even fosters passive acceptance. Which is exactly the antithesis, antidote, to discovery and innovation — the purported aim and driving force of education.
If de Tocqueville’s approach is successful, you have an understanding of the principles that the blueprint is built on. You don’t necessarily have the blueprint itself yet, you are likely to still lack a sufficient overview of the mechanism, let alone the various mechanisms that make up a system. That is, however, not much of a problem, because coming to reach that overview is much easier when you grasp the principles that shape the blueprint.
And, after all, a blueprint is always still. It is the set, rigid, unliving explication of the closed loop, the closed loop which aims to express the structure of the movement that it is about. A blueprint is a rigidificafion, a solidification of a movement that we cannot keep in our mind’s eye, in its motion. It always aims to capture something that cannot be captured. A movement is never bounded, and whenever it is, tension rises. It needs a very strong bond in order to not let that force unleash itself damagingly, even destructively.
Only an intuitive understanding of this unbounded structure of motion, energy, can ever ‘hold’, but not capture, the actual structure of a system, or mechanism — the structure that we always present rigidly, but that rather exists in motion.
Only in that recognition, a recognition which is fostered by going after the ‘Why?’; by remaining open-ended, rather than positing a closed loop; by noticing the movements, rather than the rigidities; of always remaining in wonder, asking questions, and looking for the next thing, rather than believing you have clear-cut, final answers; only therein will you be able to have some semblance of influence over anything.
And even then, it is still not influence, but inspiration. Which you can only find by accepting, actively accepting, that you can only follow along with life, and so be ‘rigid’ only in being a beacon for others to do the same.
May 28, 2020
Should be a required reading in high school civics, economics, and sociology. Brief, but ordered well to explain the history of indigence, the moral ties/outcomes, the degradation of the dignity of man through public charity, and the resultant violence and theft/pillaging uprising that inevitably result from the inescapable increase in poverty due to public charity. Humanists won’t like it because the majority of the solution relies upon the decentralization of benevolence to the private sphere, specifically with moral oversight and underpinnings in order to succeed. But let’s be honest—the humanists hate it whenever you bring up all the historical data to show their chosen, anti-theistic means will never achieve their desired, anti-theistic ends. Which begs the question...how hard is it to find a pair of pants that fit when you’re a walking logical fallacy?
January 5, 2023
'Het is dus niet de armoede die de landarbeider totaal onbezonnen en losbandig maakt (...) Het is het totale gemis aan enige vorm van bezit, het is de absolute afhankelijkheid van het lot.'
February 9, 2014
The great French man takes a look at the paradox offered by modern societies (in this case England, early 19th Century): "The countries appearing to be more impoverished (are the ones with) the fewest indigents", and "among the peoples most admired for their opulence, one part of the population is obliged to rely on the gifts of the other in order to live."
The key? Well-fare, public charity. Today it may not seem a paradox anymore, so ingrained in our righteous leftist minds it is. But Tocqueville saw it as it surreptitiously came forth, along with the Industrial Revolution. His analysis is clear-minded, cool, not coldly detached from the anguish of the miseries of the poor, but -on the contrary- interested enough to inquire into the roots of this modern paradox, which has since provided the daily fuel for the Left's demagoguery, and is the real opium of the self-blinded masses.
Tocqueville is not the Manichean the Left would like to think. His solution to the vicious cycle of welfare-poverty-more-welfare is not to cut through and banish it all. It is to get away with what went wrong in an originally fine idea: To cut loose from there, and return to the healthy idea of improving society, not contributing to its impoverishment.
A real diamond this book is, for its value and for its tiny size. You'll find where exactly the waters we're drinking from now got muddled up.
The key? Well-fare, public charity. Today it may not seem a paradox anymore, so ingrained in our righteous leftist minds it is. But Tocqueville saw it as it surreptitiously came forth, along with the Industrial Revolution. His analysis is clear-minded, cool, not coldly detached from the anguish of the miseries of the poor, but -on the contrary- interested enough to inquire into the roots of this modern paradox, which has since provided the daily fuel for the Left's demagoguery, and is the real opium of the self-blinded masses.
Tocqueville is not the Manichean the Left would like to think. His solution to the vicious cycle of welfare-poverty-more-welfare is not to cut through and banish it all. It is to get away with what went wrong in an originally fine idea: To cut loose from there, and return to the healthy idea of improving society, not contributing to its impoverishment.
A real diamond this book is, for its value and for its tiny size. You'll find where exactly the waters we're drinking from now got muddled up.
April 19, 2008
Tocqueville correctly identifies the culprit of modern poverty – industrialism – but seems resigned to industrialism and social Darwinism as being natural and inevitable. Thus his concerns are never met with a strong solution and his concerns of public charity as a legal right leading to an idle and dependent class of society are never resolved. To his credit, he does draw a distinction between justice and charity and the need for both but he doesn’t look at the justice of charity. He is all for public assistance to those who have merely fallen on bad luck through no fault of their own (industrialism may be the prime mover here) but determining who has bad luck versus who has a character flaw is a fool’s errand to try to discern. As long as we can’t tell the difference between the two, it is a matter of justice to not condemn the innocent for the mistakes of the guilty.
May 5, 2016
This memoir is very thought-provoking. I think that the thoughts and ideas written in it are very true. Public charity produces and idle and dependent class of society. Individual charity, which is the charity which Christ told his followers to practice, is a charity that substitutes for public charity and does not have the bad side affects public charity can have.
January 16, 2019
A worthwhile read. His thoughts toward the end on the innate shame or embarassment of asking for private charity being a helpful limiting principle (of which public charity lacks) was something I had not thought about before.
March 31, 2025
Un análisis extremadamente liberal y moralista sobre el Pauperismo y sus causas, sobre la caridad pública como un mal con piel de cordero, sobre los límites del estado de la época para hacer frente a la crisis y que refleja la incapacidad de los argumentos liberales de la época para dar un motivo contundente, válido y convincente para cambiar la realidad.
Un texto sorprendentemente honesto que refleja el pensamiento de la época, y podemos reconocer muchos de esos argumentos en la actualidad, y también que tiende puentes para un pensamiento opuesto ya que las limitaciones de la caridad legal que reconoce, son posibles de atacar, usando herramientas diferentes a las existentes en ese momento (un estado desarrollado, productor que pueda ofrecer empleo a cambio de un sueldo, por ejemplo)
En fin, interesante lectura.
Si me toca leerlo para Facultad, cuenta para el reading goal, lo 100to.
Un texto sorprendentemente honesto que refleja el pensamiento de la época, y podemos reconocer muchos de esos argumentos en la actualidad, y también que tiende puentes para un pensamiento opuesto ya que las limitaciones de la caridad legal que reconoce, son posibles de atacar, usando herramientas diferentes a las existentes en ese momento (un estado desarrollado, productor que pueda ofrecer empleo a cambio de un sueldo, por ejemplo)
En fin, interesante lectura.
Si me toca leerlo para Facultad, cuenta para el reading goal, lo 100to.
January 17, 2021
Excellent writing on the difference between public and private charity. The point that *obligating* a working man to pay tax which goes to work-able people puts both the giver and the receiver of this money on the same level. That person who sits on a dote doesn't feel ashamed of the disaster where (s)he got, rather is sure of his "right" and obligation of the government to pay him his expenses.
Personally, those are the thoughts and questions I had myself on a modern-day social democracy in Europe. Definitely will reread it again to think more.
Personally, those are the thoughts and questions I had myself on a modern-day social democracy in Europe. Definitely will reread it again to think more.
September 12, 2019
Not what I expected from de Toqueville after reading Democracy in America. Though not surprised. In his time the issue was widows and unwed mothers that had to be taken care of particularly if the father/family of either refused to assist in their care. The argument then and now is who's responsible? The person or the government?
March 23, 2025
This work, written in 1835, simply reinforces my long held belief that private charity is more effective than public charity. Private charity, by treating each case individually and personally, can act with compassion towards each person on a one-on-one basis. I know this from personal experience in working with the St Vincent de Paul Society.
November 23, 2022
Scherp en doeltreffend geschreven kijk op de armoede tijdens het begin van de industrialisatie. Interessant om te zien hoe bepaalde inzichten en politieke beleidswerkingen van toen zich reflecteren tot de huidige maatschappij.
June 25, 2019
Pobreza, como prece, cuando parece y como el lucha contra ella puede generar más pobreza, económica y moral y poner en riesgo todo el tejido social existente.
June 26, 2008
This french statesman has added so much to understanding our own country. Age old understanding on the danges of welfare/entitlement thinking.
September 9, 2016
Very much a supply-side argument.
February 1, 2014
Prescient analysis on the eventual conclusion of a welfare state, of eminent applicability to America in the 21st century... and with recommendations those in government have failed to heed.
July 16, 2014
Básicamente, el pueblo pobre será pobre, morirá pobre.
Tan cierto esto hoy como en 1835.
Tan cierto esto hoy como en 1835.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews