“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

[spacellama.livejournal.com]

I don't think rich people are better than poor people. Goodness, did anything I say imply that!? But I think that socialist structures do imply that poor people can't, and I dislike things and people that tell me I can't. The "you poor slob" is what I hear underneath all that condescension. But that of course is dependent on the theory that poor people can't become rich people, and vice versa. Direct socialism -- that is, knowing who gave according to ability and who took according to need, without a bureaucracy in between -- facilitates reciprocation and prevents some of the antagonistic us-versus-them stuff that we're seeing now.

[marta-bee.livejournal.com]

I thought it was implied in your statement that says Socialism says, "You can't. You aren't good enough to do this on your own. Here, let me do it for you." The suggestion I saw was, that was a change from capitalism - that under capitalism, everyone (poor people included) were responsible for their own well-being, or not. Responsibility is a wonderful thing, but it cuts both ways: it implies, at least to me, that those people who aren't able to cut it and provide for themselves are blameworthy.

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.

[spacellama.livejournal.com]

Aha! I think that was a sarcasm fail on my part. :) I feel that the socialism machine condescends to me, purportedly for my own good and all that, and that it's endorsed by, primarily, overeducated people who don't want to make me feel bad but really believe I can't function (implied: as well as they can) without all their help. When I was little and we had to go stand in line to ask for government cheese because my dad hadn't worked in months, I definitely felt the paternal pat on the head from the government. In my experience, it is the paternalistic government, which socialism seeks to expand, that tells me I'm not good enough and never can be.