Progress and Poverty

The purpose of the introduction is to set the parameters for the investigation of Progress and Poverty. The author defines a central problem in 19th-century industrialized countries. This problem is the apparent paradox between technological advancements and material wealth brought on by the Industrial Revolution, on the one hand, and the worsening poverty for the already disadvantaged, on the other.

Between 1760 and 1840 and again between 1880 and 1914, the Industrial Revolution transformed society in a number of important ways. Europe and North America moved away from one-off artisanship to mass-scale production facilitated by developing technology. These developments led to increased urbanization, as many moved to the cities to work in factories. At the same time, labor rights were virtually non-existent. Long work hours and unsafe work environments were common, while poverty persisted. Some countries, like the United States, did not prohibit child labor until 1938. This subject is discussed in the theme Unequal Wealth Distribution in Industrialized Societies.

As a rhetorical device, George emphasizes the benefits of the Industrial Revolution—from saving labor to electricity—to set up the stark contrast between the poverty and squalor in which a significant portion of the population lives. He isolates the problem in densely-populated urban environments that feature the most progressive results of the Industrial Revolution. George himself had experienced financial troubles throughout his life. Indeed, it was not until he secured work as a state gas meter inspector—which did not require a substantial investment of his time—that he was able to focus on writing this book. It is possible that the author was motivated to understand the problem not only by witnessing those on the lowest end of the socioeconomic spectrum but also by his own life experiences.

It was also these terrible conditions that inspired key theorists like Karl Marx, who resided in Britain, to analyze the relationship between capital and the proletariat through the lens of class struggle. George does not go as far as to view the problem in this way, but he understands that the socioeconomic conditions are so poor for the disadvantaged that he fears the emergence of revolutionary sentiments, referring to “charlatans” that may take advantage of the disillusioned masses.

Methodologically, the author proposes using political economy as the instrument to understand the cause of worsening socioeconomic conditions for the disadvantaged. He finds the previous explanations—some of which went as far as blaming technology as such—inadequate.