535

p In our example, we had recourse to hypothetical figures. We shall now address ourselves to reality.

p We shall ask the-reader to pay special attention to the following figures, which show the growth of income in various brackets in Britain between the years 1843 and 1879–80:

Incomes in £

1843

1879–80
Between 500 and 5,000
17,990
42,927
„ 5,000 and 10,000

493

1,439
„ 10, 000 and 50,000

200 785

50,000
or more

8 68

p The number of persons with incomes of between £ 500 and £ 5,000 more than doubled; the number with incomes of between £ 5,000 and £ 10,000 almost trebled; the number of rich men pocketing between £ 10,000 and £ 50,000 a year almost quadrupled; last, the number of millionaires with annual incomes of £ 50,000 or more increased eightfold.  [535•* 

p Thus there can be no doubt: inequality in the distribution of Britain’s national income went up considerably in the period mentioned above. Consequently, the "diffusion of wealth" is nothing more than a “pious” falsehood.

p True, the number of persons with incomes of between £ 150 and £ 500 more than trebled during the same period. It follows that the number of payers in this bracket—the most modest 536 of the lot—grew more rapidly than did the number of payers in the two immediately following schedules, and lagged behind only the fourth (£ 10,000-£ 50,000) and the fifth (£ 50,000 or more) schedules.  [536•*  Given some good will, one might say, in this connection, several words on the diffusion of wealth in the medium strata of payers. But we shall not be put out of countenance by such words, for now we are already well aware that the phenomenon we have indicated could have been caused by a multitude of causes with absolutely no relation to the "diffusion of wealth". Besides, we have before us the fact of the far more rapid growth in the number of payers in the two upper brackets. Consequently, the increase in social inequality leaves absolutely no room for doubt.  [536•** 

p We see the same increase in other capitalist countries as well.

p Between the years 1848 and 1885, fortunes of various magnitude in the Canton of Zurich increased as follows:

Size of fortunes

1848 1885

p Growth, per cent
From 5,000 to 50,000 fr. (approx.) „ 50,000 to 500,000 „ Over 500,000 fr.
9,100 930 30
17,000 2,650 190
90 185 530

p In Basle, Glarus, Bremen, Hamburg, the Kingdom of Saxony, and Prussia, one could see the same relation between figures expressing the growth of fortunes of various magnitude.

p In the period between 1879 and 1890, the number of incomes in excess of 9,600 marks rose by 100 per cent in the Kingdom of Saxony, while the number of incomes above 100,000 marks went up by 228 per cent.  [536•*** 

537

p We also have an amazing table from Engel, referring to Prussia.

p Between the years 1845 and 1873, the number of payers in various schedules rose as follows:

p In Bracket One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight
The number of payers rose:
1,000- 1,600 thalers by
1,600- 3,200
3,200- 6,000
6,000- 12,000 12,000- 24,000 24,000- 52,000 52,000–100,000 100,000–200,000
110.2 per cent
132.3 „ „ 153.9

p „ „ 224.8

p „ 370.6

p „
476.3 „
468.4 „ 433.3

p „
Nine 200,000 or more
,,2,000.0 „  [537•* 

p On all sides you will see one and the same thing: the actual advance in all countries of the capitalist world follows the same direction as in our hypothetical society: the number of payers in the upper brackets grows everywhere at an incomparably more rapid rate than the number of payers of modest means. The results obtained through observation of reality coincide amazingly with those we obtained when we surmised that the increase in the social income does not improve the condition of the working class. In many cases, however, reality greatly outstrips our hypothetical example, in which the difference in the growth of the number of payers of various categories is far lower than in Prussia (according to Engel’s table) or at least in the Canton of Zurich. That is probably because our example did not sufficiently take into account the concentration of property in the less wealthy strata of society. It is quite possible that, in reality, such concentration greatly slows down the growth in the number of “moderate” incomes.

p In short, the nature of our example is in full keeping with the actual state of affairs in capitalist society. However, our example was based on the surmise that the distribution of social income among the various classes of society becomes ever more uneven. Obviously, that is what takes place in reality.

But if that is so, then all the rant on the blunting of social contradictions, the diffusion of wealth, the “impoverishment” of the capitalists and the “enrichment” of the working people is a bitter mockery of a class that so keenly feels the existence of 538 social inequality. The doctrine of Carey-Bastiat and their offspring—Goschen, Schultze-Gavernitz and their ilk, is nothing more than artful but unconvincing talk by advocates of a cause which, at least in principle, is a lost one.