SouthernFox, it sounds as if Churchill was referring to Socialism as practiced by the Soviet Union.
By contrast, we're referring to socialism as practiced by the Scandinavians, which is a horse of a different color.
With no disrespect, it is my impression based on the first post that we are neither talking about socialism as practiced on the European model nor Marxism as practiced by the Soviet model. I never meant to get into the question of whom or what movement Churchill is talking specifically about, although I’m fairly confident that Churchill’s political alignment was generally lukewarm to even the humanitarian-based European model of socialism.
It is best to avoid a detour into that discussion though, because there are a thousand definitions of socialism that vary based on individual interpretation. I’ve observed that there are some who believe that any interference whatsoever in the natural operations of the marketplace is Marxism. I have no sympathy with simplistic and absolutist views, be they found on the political left or right. A free market is not perfect by any means, but it is neither a greedy devil that exploits, nor is it a deity that never needs correcting or regulatory fine-tuning.
But I digress… I’m solely focused on the original post and its ramifications.
We need look no further than the words of the original post:
No, don't look across the ocean for what socialism is, although the Scandinavian countries have given the idea a good shot. Again, don't look anywhere else for what socialism is. Look within. Let it come out from within.
We seem to be delving into ‘socialism’ and ‘anarchism’ as some sort of idiosyncratic inner influence as defined by the original poster – although it is disturbingly driven by the same ‘smash the state’ and ‘create a utopia’ mentality that gave birth to the Soviet model, and makes the same vague promises and demands.
I must give credit where it is due in pointing out that this variation of anarchic communism makes significant updates to fit today’s world. Instead of attacking the church, the aristocracy, and the monarchy, it attacks corporations, ‘the rich’ in general, and ‘the government’ in general.
My antipathy towards this philosophy stems from how it seems to originate from the same factors which originally generated the Soviet model of Marxism. Marxism, as the Soviets implemented it, was a foreign idea adopted by conspiratorial groups during the dying decades of the Russian Empire.
Those men are of course dead now, as are millions of others that their movement ultimately took with them. The economic ramifications of what they achieved still haunt their former dominions.
Its early conspiratorial adherents suffered from a restless search for meaning, a frustration with existence, a personalized feeling of injustice (even if the individual in question is largely detached from it; mind you that Marx never engaged in manual labor, and neither did most of the Soviet revolutionaries), a philosophical vacuum and ennui that attracts hollow ideas about a possible utopia, a feeling of marginalization, a search for identity, and a feeling of urgent action required to establish the foundations of some idealized world.
These are the psychological characteristics of those who attach themselves to utopian –isms.
It requires a suspension of disbelief to imagine that such a system can be implemented, and that society would come out better for it. It requires a reductionist and simplistic mentality – the belief that ‘everything is so easy’. I don’t buy it – I actually find it repulsive, given the misery and damage that it has ultimately done to the human race.
Human health is also served by repetitive physical labor.
This statement has spurred me to start debating in my head which character of Dostoevsky’s novel,
The Possessed, your stated beliefs best personify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Possessed_(novel)
We need to remember that typical assessments of "socialism" in the USA context are really assessments of bureaucratic malfunction. That bureaucratic malfunction in turn occurs in hostile/corrupt environments--(non-socialistic or weakly socialistic environments, or, really, anti-socialistic environments).
I want to make it plainly clear here that I’m not conservative. I don’t belong to any –ism.
My reaction to your philosophy is
not a knee-jerk one based on some instinctive and unthinking negative reaction to the word ‘socialism’. My cold reaction to socialism, and anarchism for that matter too, is based on rational analysis. I recognize that there is not even an accepted definition of socialism, and there are often enormous misunderstandings of it. However, I have a disbelief in utopian or ideological callings. I believe in science, pragmatism, intelligence, and careful rational thought.
I don’t actually foresee a bureaucratic malfunction in the system laid out here. I don’t
even see a system. All I see are disorganized and ambiguous thoughts shaped by ennui.
And I genuinely wish you the best of luck in escaping it. I mean that.
