![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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
Date: 2012-11-16 11:12 pm (UTC)God's honest truth: In Florida in the mid-60s, a required Social Studies course in high school was called "Americanism vs. Communism". This was not a class about citizenship, nor about how the Capitalist system worked and how the Communist system worked. Nope, it was how the big bad evil Socialists (who were "pinkos" back then, while "commies" were "red") were sneaking Communist ideas into our government. But if we were ever vigilant, they could not overcome the "American Way" which naturally is better than any other "way". The only thing I really took away from that class was a vague memory of a b/w film about people being dragged off to prison because the gov't had been infiltrated by Socialists, enabling the Commies to invade and take over. Think "Red Dawn" with worse acting and production values. Now this was years AFTER the McCarthy Era had ended! (Though a couple of years BEFORE Woodstock and hippies and such.)
Personally? I do believe in private property, and I do believe in capitalism--but a regulated capitalism, because unregulated, it turns into nothing but pure unbridled greed, in which people and companies that have amassed more material wealth than they will ever be able to use feel the need to amass even more and to avoid if they can, using up any of it on anyone besides themselves unless it will in some way benefit them.
Without regulation, they will consider the safety and well-being of ordinary people (the very people who enable them to make their riches) as not their problem--even when they harm or kill people. (BP? Massey Energy? Enron?)
I think there are certain things that the gov't does better than private business: armies, police, protection from fire and disaster relief are a few of them. Others are seeing to the education of the young, incarcerating criminals, taking care of commonly used facilities such as roads and bridges AND seeing to the health of the citizens.
Also keeping people with lots of money from taking advantage of people with less money.
While I was thrilled with Obamacare, and am pleased it will not be going away anytime soon, I think that it does not go nearly far enough. I DO think we need a nationalized health care system, and I would have been thrilled if they had gone much further in that direction. Of course, that would NEVER have gotten anywhere in Washington.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 01:54 am (UTC)I completely agree with you on a lot of this, particularly about national healthcare. Like you, I think we need at least a public option and I'd really like an increased in taxation/spending on free health clinics and other basic services. Whenever I've gotten sick or injured in countries that had national health services I've gotten so much better of coverage and less redtape than I get in America.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-18 02:50 am (UTC)Even people whose job was to imagine a different future had trouble wrapping their minds around such a different world.
I remember a feeling of culture shock myself when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union failed. I was elated, and yet at the same time, shocked and confused that a state of affairs I had thought was more or less permanent had simply vanished away. I remember wondering what would happen now, and thinking maybe we were on our way to a much more enlightened and less dangerous world. Little did I know...