“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

[marta-bee.livejournal.com]

Thanks to everyone for the comments. I think I need a better understanding of socialism, and some of you (Dwim particularly) brought up some really good points.

I've never really studied socialism academically - never read a word of Marx or (to my knowledge) even about him. I don't wear that as a mark of pride or anything; actually, I'm more than a bit embarrassed by that. I also wrote this post in a rush and was more than a bit frustrated by what I thought was an idiotic take by someone who had lots of historical reason to hate the communism/socialism of his day (I wasn't sure how sharp a distinction Churchill would draw), being passed around as a vague appeal to authority for why modern socialism was wrong. I may have come down more harshly on socialism than I meant to, simply because I was trying to preempt a particular argument. Maybe this election has me paranoid, or maybe writing something for two very different groups (here and FB) has made me hedge my bets more than I like. I think I was mad at the quote which struck me as so obviously wrong, but was afraid if I said anything and didn't undercut the argument that you had to be a fan of the national government owning all industries in order to disagree with Churchill, I'd come home to exactly the wrong kind of reactions. I don't think I laid that out well, mainly because I don't understand Marxism well enough to really speak with confidence. (Also because I was rushed.) So I'm sorry if I misrepresented the theory.

Altariel, thanks so much for the historical background. That's precisely what I was looking for. Dwim, thanks for the philosophical critique. I'm sorry I got so much of it wrong. I'd like to understand the theory better than I do - do you have any suggestions on good starting points, offline or on?

It's also possible that when I think of socialism, it's simply not what you guys think the word means. Or how it's used by people working with the philosophy much more than I am. So maybe that's part of the problem? When I think of "socialism," I think of a situation where the factories and companies and any other goods-producing institution is owned by everyone. Usually it's equally owned - meaning that however gifted you are or hard you work, your share won't increase. (I suppose in theory you could help society as a whole generate more goods to go around, which would help you indirectly.) Communism on the other hand is the situation where the government owns everything on behalf of all the citizens. Are those definitions off-base?

Here's my problem with socialism defined this way: we are more driven to help those closest to us (and particularly myself). I'll go the extra mile and be more self-motivated if I know there's some benefit to me or those I care most about (my family, my friends, and more generally my community). This is why I said socialism might work on a small scale. If the grad students in my department open a food coop and we all own it equally, I'm still motivated to work hard to make sure the coop goes well, since I know them and want them to benefit from that work. Also because it's small that benefit will affect me more directly. But if this coop gets bigger and includes all the grad students at my school (including MBA's and engineering students and law students I've never met), or if we even include all grad students at any school in NYC, I have less of a drive to help those other people because I don't know them. So working hard to make the coop run well becomes less and less important me - and to everyone. If it doesn't benefit you or those you care most about, it becomes harder to get people to go the extra drive.

[marta-bee.livejournal.com]

[contd.]


This isn't an issue on a small scale, because your sacrifices do help those you care about most. But the larger the scale gets, the less motivated people would seem to get. This is why I think some income inequality is okay and even a good idea (since we're better off when certain professionals drive themselves to be the best they can be). But this inequality needs to be low and only be used once everyone's needs are met. We also need to emphasize that when a rich person helps a poor person out they aren't extra good, don't get any control over how said money is spent. There are no "strings attached" here. And the wealth levels should be reset from time to time, so people are benefiting from their own hard work, not their grandfathers.

That's my starting point, in any event. I'm definitely convinceable that I'm wrong on any of this.

A quick note, dashed off

[dwimordene-2011.livejournal.com]

Marxists.org = free source of translated writings by many major figures. Woot!

I'll also pimp an author who had a major influence on me: Schweickart: After Capitalism. Short, sweet, clearly written - yes, market socialism, which I understand is a controversial theory, but he's really good at explanation and he is of your clan: he did his Ph.D. in mathematics first, then jumped ship to do a second one (o.0) in philosophy at Ohio State University. :-D

Re: A quick note, dashed off

[marta-bee.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Dwim. I'll definitely look into him. Economic justice is such an important topic these days, and I do want to understand it better. (I actually attended Cleveland State, not Ohio, but I won't hold that against him, and the shared math background is promising.)