Socialist Propaganda

What a bunch of Crap! This movie has nothing to do with Socialism. It has to do with PERSONAL charity. It's about the spirit of Chirstmas and people who aren't normally nice or giving who take this one time of the year to give to the poor and be Merry towards their fellow man. Not once in this movie is it suggested that making a profit is bad. Scrooges nephew is wealthy man, Mr. Fezziwink(sp) was rich, the people at the exchange that Scrooge did business with seemed to be well off. And yet they were all happy, giving people.

You are confusing Socialism with Charity. In this movie and the book they mention the workhouses where the Government has taken taxes and opened institutions that are supposed to help people are failures. Not once does this movie advocate the Government taking someone's money and giving to others, which is what Socialism is. Scrooge can make all the money he want's. And he can do with it what he wants. It's his own freewill that makes him give to others. Not the Government.





"....we're lucky if we last three months."
John Lennon, 1963

Your analysis is really simplistic. Do you know what the "poor law" was or what the "treadmill" meant in those times and in the context of the story? Dickens was writing about horrible conditions that did exist in his own time and the fact that people who had power and money chose to look the other way, as Scrooge does. It never equates being rich with evil, it is about the personal choices one makes.

More universally the story is about having some concern for your fellow man and not being totally and constantly absorbed in your own self interests. Hardly socialist propaganda..

I can see how this tale could be construed as a Socialist wet dream, in which wealth is “bad” and the impoverished “good”. Especially since this theme is constantly shoved down our throats through the media, political K thru 12 and beyond. This film, thank heavens, is not.

Imagine if the roles in this tale were reversed, and Scrooge was a poor working stiff. Would he be happier, nobler or wiser?... no. He would have been just as miserable.

The moral of this story is that every man must be an active participant in the human race, with Love being the only currency to exchange. (i.e. Love for family, for friends, for life and for ones self.)

Did you notice anything absent in this film’s dialog?

Throughout this movie, an actual amount of money is only mentioned thrice. The first is when Crachet informs his son of Holywells’ offer to apprentice in his company. The second when Scrooge’s belongings are sold in the Christmas yet to come. And finally when Scrooge offers half a crown to the young boy who fetches the prize turkey. That’s all.

At the exchange, Scrooge never mentions an amount for his corn, only that it will cost the buyer 5% more than the day before. Later on Christmas Day, he whispers privately to the fundraiser on how much his contribution to the poor will be. Are these omissions a coincidence?

Of course not, to Dickens, the amount of money in past, present or future value is incidental. The act of giving is what is valued, one act of many that will eventually redeem Ebenezer’s soul.

Remember, Ebenezer’s character is meant to be pitied not hated. We cheer at Scrooges’ reformation because he chooses it willingly. Free will is anathema to socialism.

Scrooge was a miserable man, period. What humanity he had within him died with his beloved sister, and the pursuit of wealth became his goal. In the process he learned to 'look out for Number 1', yet he lived his life under spartan conditions and saw no reason why others shouldn't. He thought his nephew a fool for marrying, and he thought the same of Cratchit. Worse, Cratchit had children to support as well. Scrooge turned a blind eye to other people's troubles and joys, thinking it all to be 'humbug', because he secretly longed for such things himself. His bitterness towards losing all who he loved (his father, who wasted too many years on his own anger towards him, his sister as mentioned above, the woman he had planned to marry, and even his business partner)led him to build walls about himself. But the ghosts made him relive happier times in his youth, and showed him that the humble Cratchit home was full of love.

To Scrooge, money was something real, something he could hold in his hands, see with his eyes. It wouldn't die on him. It wouldn't walk away from him. It kept him from thinking about everything else he longed for in this life but had never been able to make happen.

Anyway, that's what it was supposed to be about.

Gee, you've never read a Christmas Carol have you? The moral of the story is not how rich you are but how you use your money that counts. And if you have a problem with that talk to Jesus, who had one or two opinions on rich men, camels and the eye of a needle.

But yes, you are right, if you don't give to the poor neither will you receive assistance in your hour of need.

Why should Scrooge have to pay for all of Cratchit's progeny? Why does he irresponsibly have a large family that he can't provide for? Being an active participant in the human race can also mean "keeping it in your pants" and not create a burden for others.

Maybe we should have more Scrooges and less "baby's daddys"

Unlike most of your corespondents I agree with you. Although I suggest that it is incumbent upon those with wealth to allow effective 'trickle down', for want of a better phrase. To me this story says merely : No-one lives forever, no pockets in a shroud! It is a sober plea I think. The current vogue for 'quantitative easing' in the general economy, will actually result in more desperately poor people as the value of money will be debased by inflation as only the holders of gold or more useful commodities will be 'wealthy'. The Anglo Saxon nations (especially) have been bankrupted by their incompetent leaders and I suspect about to disappear from the pages of history. I fear then the message of this story may lose its true meaning as we dream of the good old days of fiscal rectitude. Viva Scrooge!

OP you are a sad pitiful creature devoid of light. I Ignore you in the name of Christmas!

Too old to die young, and too young to grow up.