“socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of greed”
Originally published at Faith Seeking Understanding. You can comment here or there.
I’m interested what people make of this quote by Winston Churchill:
I don’t consider myself a communitarian, not a socialist. That means I’m not allergic to the idea of private property. I think people who work hard deserve to profit from their work, and I’m not that opposed to the idea that some people just lucked out and were born with potential society wants to reward (or were born into families that had the resources to encourage said potential). To an extent, I’m okay with that. I definitely think that by living in a certain society I take up certain obligations to look after my other community-members, and it’s wrong for me to indulge in luxury while the guy who delivers my pizza can’t even afford healthcare or whatever. But that doesn’t mean you have to go whole-hog socialist. It just means you recognize you have certain obligations you have to meet, just like you have to pay for the roads you drive on.
But even so, I find these thoughts… interesting. Socialism may come out of a certain ignorance about human nature, I’ll give you that, but the gospel of envy? As I understand it, it’s not about being jealous of the rich – it’s about recognizing that private property encourages some of the nastier quirks of our psychology. I don’t find socialism per se particularly immoral or anything, and on a small scale I can even see it working. It’s the whole national project where things break down.
I’m more interested in what other people make of this quote, though. Do you agree? Does it surprise you that Winston Churchill would say this? (Given the times, I can see him having no love of socialism.) Do you know any more of the context than I do?
(P.S. – I know I owe comments to people. I haven’t forgotten. I’ve got some time this afternoon when I plan on doing that.)
no subject
A gigantic national government filtering the socialist message adds on, "Or better yet, let's just take it from this other person, who you have never met and never will, and give it to you 'cause he doesn't need an excess of product anyhow and you do, you poor slob."
In a tiny community, however, your best friend says, "Here, I know you couldn't pay the light bill this month, and I have a little extra from a bonus at work, so just take this and don't worry about it, okay? I know you got my back some day when I need it."
The latter evokes "from each according to ability, to each according to need." The former, on the other hand, does evoke failure, ignorance, and envy. I think you hit it on the head when you said, I don’t find socialism per se particularly immoral or anything, and on a small scale I can even see it working. It’s the whole national project where things break down.
no subject
My instinct about socialism is it takes away the incentive to work hard, which means everyone suffers. There you and I agree - the size of the group makes so much difference! I think a lot of this comes down to what you mean by that word and I want to read some of the books Dwim suggested downthread. But even though my instinct right now is there are other, better theories - I still don't think socialism is infantilizing. If anything it's more empowering than relying on the boss or government to pay you. In my opinion, at least.
no subject
no subject
But then I seem to have a first-class ability to mishear what people mean on this topic. So I may just have misread you. I'm really sorry if that's the case.
no subject