Reader’s Comment: The great Socialist con-trick

In response to Laura Perrins: Left-wing men really are the weaker sex, Ravenscar wrote:

By definition, Socialism is ultimately shrivelled selfishness. Weak-headed people are drawn to Socialism; it's the easy choice because it doesn't require people to exercise intellect or conscience, very conveniently. It endeavours to imitate Christianity, but Socialism laid bare is antithetical to altruism, benevolence, faith, hope and charity. Dressing up Socialism as ‘caring for society’ surely must rate as one of the greatest con-tricks of all time, if not the greatest. You need to have a soul to be empathic. That is the black hole at the source of Socialism: it has no conscience, no heart, no compassion.




  • Great comment!

  • Revd Robert West

    I personally would not demonise Socialism in the way that some would do. It is all a question of balance, and what we should do ourselves, or get the State, or some form of more local government to do. The extremes of total state control and no state at all are to be avoided, but it is not always easy to agree on the precise line of demarcation between the state and civic society. It has gone too far in terms of the state, at the current time; but that is due to the neglect of the church and the members of civic society, who have allowed it. The dominant way of thinking seems to be to hold politicians to account for everything. We seem to have ministers, now, for everything: the Nanny state. This divests us of responsibility and discretion: we just tick boxes and blindly follow regulations or orders. The Grenville Tower ‘atrocity’ is the outcome. We certainly need the state to be clawed back, but we also need to take responsibility ourselves: freedom to do just as we wish is not the answer. Let Justin Welby take note. He needs to get back to the Christian religion. We all do.

    • Colonel Mustard

      It must be demonised not for what it is (or pretends to be) but for what is has become and the consequences for our nation.

      Don’t conflate the responsibilities of the State with Socialism. That is precisely the subterfuge that the Socialists peddle.

    • Andy

      I would ! Socialism is a wicked and evil ideology which has brought nought but ruin and death on humanity wherever it has shown its ugly head. It was Socialism that created the gulag and built Auschwitz. And now it is rearing its ugly vile head in our country yet again. It needs to be defeated and destroyed. To do that you fight it with Liberty.

      • Revd Robert West

        The Welfare State, the National Health Service: we have all benefited from some of these things; and they have all risen on the understanding that some degree of ‘socialism’ or state provision is a good thing. I agree that a lot has gone wrong, especially in Education, but it was not that way at first.

        • No and neither Lenin nor Chavez was all bad, at first, either. You identify as clergy, this is the role of the church, not the cold hard state.

          • Revd Robert West

            A society is free to organise itself to help those who are in need or who are less fortunate than others, and this can be done through the state as broadly defined – national, regional, shire, district and parish. The problem is when things become too centralised and where there are no checks and balances, and no alternatives to such provision, or where the original ethos can become corrupted. At times the state, narrowly defined as the central government, has helped the common man against local bullies and over-mighty subjects. One can think of the government of Henry VII who reined in the power of the barons, or the Federal Government of the United States, which clipped the wings of the States and banned their Negro slavery. The LEFT WING sometimes has the truth on its side but I agree that the current bureaucratic state, with its ‘equality’ agenda, its homosexualism for children and its indoctrination of kids and public sector workers, is not doing its job well.

        • Jethro

          Dear & Reverend Sir’,
          [Which is how, I think, Wippell’s used to address us Clergy – or, maybe it was ‘Reverend & Dear…’] I venture to suggest that your post includes a typically Anglican ‘on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other’ confusion false equivalence: before The Welfare State and The National Health Service, there was not nothing, as, indeed, you end up implying (‘…but it was not that way at first.’): there was much provision via Friendly Societies, Hospital Associations, Benevolent Societies, and so on, as well as vast – and costly – provision by the Church. But Socialism is inherently parasitic, producing nothing of itself, merely using and hollowing out what others have already provided, claiming all the credit, and at last, extinguishing the self-giving ethos that imbued everything. As an example, my Wife, who died a few months ago in an N.H.S. Hospital, devoted most of her life to nursing patients in the N.H.S., as a Nurse and Midwife, where, with one or two exceptions, she endured a standard of Nursing that would not have been countenanced in her days of training; a few years before that, in another hospital, it seemed that, because they knew she was an ‘old-fashioned’ Nurse, they went out of their way sadistically to demean and mistreat her, and the one or two nurses who showed any gentleness and compassion were compelled to keep it camouflaged, for fear of retribution from those who ruled the roost – a neat reversal of the standards and values once embedded in all Nurses.

          • Revd Robert West

            I am sorry to hear of this very bad experience, and I do agree that a lot has gone wrong; and that we need to revive the old ethos, if at all possible, within the state sector. Yes, I am aware that civil society provided a lot of what the state now provides, and did it in a better way at times, quality wise. However, the Labour Party’s provision, of 1945-1951, was very popular, and was a democratic choice because civic society could not do enough to alleviate the woes of the working man in the interwar period. Do we really want to go back to that? I acknowledge that the war-on-want has gone wrong and has now fostered the dependency culture and the bloated nomenklatura; but these things can be, I believe, addressed, and put right by (a) attacking ‘political correctness’, (b) cutting management,(c) delegating leadership to the chalk face as it were, and (d) reinstituting Christian and Victorian values.

          • Colonel Mustard

            It is a sad reflection on what the NHS has become that it now looks so good in the Carry On films.

  • Reborn

    nice again. I’m staggered that my inoffensive comments of a few seconds ago
    are being reviewed.
    Have a group of Corbynistas hacked in to this site ?

  • I have not read of any left wing violent bloody revolution been carried out by ‘weak men’.
    Cowardly perhaps but not weak, by hiding motivations behind emotionalism.

    I agree with ‘Ravenscar’ in his (her?) choice of words using ‘weak headed’ instead of Laura Perrins insinuation of physically weak.

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    “Socialism as ‘caring for society’ surely must rate as one of the greatest con-tricks of all time…”

    As I remarked yesterday, Socialism is a reverse-Baudelaire’s Devil, whose trick was in trying to con us into believing that it ever CAN exist as advertised.

  • Nockian

    I disagree. Both Christianity and Socialism are philosophies that place altruism first. The twist is that socialism is collectivist altruism centred on the group/state.

    Christian altruism has a more individual nature, it asks people to renounce a part of their lives, in a kind of conflicted containment somewhat similar to a drug user who takes nourishment in order to get away with periodic fixes.

    Both in part, or whole are advocating the sacrifice of man to some-thing. In the case of socialism it is the group; for Christianity it is the Supernatural.

    As a polemic, neither of these philosophical dead ends have never demanded consistency. They have never asked men to sacrifice their goods, pleasures, goals, values and ideas as matters of principle. They are never stupid enough and realise that this would be suicide. They wish him to go on functioning, working and achieving – else he would have no values to give up. They expect him to exercise his mind for his own sake, for his survival and then deny his judgement as the spirit moves him. In other words to be ruled by whim, the whim of the relevant authority or beneficiary, whenever it interjects into the process and demands to be paid off.