“socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of greed”

[martasfic]

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.)

Comments

[aearwen2.livejournal.com]

I think one thing to remember is that socialism is a different animal from communism. Socialism espouses a more equitable division of property, where Communism dictates State ownership of all property. Socialism advocates "From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need." It teaches a form of community awareness and responsiblity, not only to self, but to one's neighbors.

Mind you, we already practice a certain level of democratic socialism, both in the US as well as other Western nations. We have public police departments and fire departments. We use tax dollars, put them in a common pool and then provide these services to the public at large regardless of ability to pay for such services privately.

I think democratic socialism is a good answer to many of the problems that people deal with on an everyday level. Public health care - where everybody pays a certain amount in taxes, and then enjoys the benefits of being able to go to the doctor without fear of bankruptcy - would be another area into which I'd like to see the principle extended.

Of course, people with lots of money don't like any kind of socialism - because of the tendency in the human animal for greed. Capitalism caters to greed, to the point now that our entire democratic system of elections is bought and sold, won or lost, depending on how much money a candidate or proposition has behind it. Far too many well-heeled are of the opinion that "I've got mine, to Hell with everybody else."

Churchill was reacting to the mistaken idea that Socialism = Communism. However, that said, Socialism, as a human construct, is not perfect. NO system of governance is without its flaws. Pure Socialism isn't the answer. Pure Capitalism isn't either (as we're all now becoming aware of.) Democratic Socialism, however, mixes two ideas in a responsible manner, so that one is both encouraged and rewarded for doing well, but those who fail for whatever reason aren't left without any resources at all.

Perhaps, if Churchill had lived to this decade of the 21st Century, his statement would read a bit differently. He was a wise man otherwise...

[marta-bee.livejournal.com]

You'll get no argument for me that pure capitalism isn't the answer. I've been reading, and enjoying, Michael Sandel's book What Money Can't Buy which is about the way we tend to use the market to settle too wide a variety of things these days - allocating lifesaving healthcare, access to elected officials, etc. His point is that there are some things that when you use the market to distribute them, it changes the value and "cheapens" the good in question. (It's not just that the poor don't have enough money to buy what they need; it's that when you put a money-value on some things you take away part of what makes them valuable.) I think he's on to something, but then I'm sympathetic to his line of thought.

As for the rest - I do know there's a difference between communism and socialism, and tried to flesh out what I mean by those terms in the comment just below this. But one thing Dwim convinced me of was that I don't understand the theory behind all this nearly well enough, and I need to read up before I really defend any opinion on it. So perhaps I should keep my mouth shut on a lot of this for now. :-)