“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Just a reminder that this is what this guy is defending.
Also apparently, Scrooge was written by Dickens as a reflection of the abuse him and his poverty-stricken parents suffered. His parents couldn't afford their debt, so they were put into a workhouse (basically a slave labour prison for life) while Dickens, as a child, had to work in a rat-infested shoe factory making barely enough to eat.
So yeah, fuck that article.
The extreme moral bias against the poor in industrial England was extremely similar to the neolib’s rag against the “dregs of society”. The liberal’s answer to the many complex economic problems of the last century was to just regress intellectually by about 150 years.
He argues that Scrooge was good for the economy because he was creating wealth. He wasn't! He didn't spend anything! He just wanted money for money's sake, not to spend it on things. When he died, people are shocked at how awful his living conditions were, because he refused to spend anything he didn't have to. Scrooge contributed nothing to the economy until he got ghosted.
Cast this take back into the flames of hell from whence it came
Put this thing back where it came from or so help me
"In defense of Hitler, whose expedience cleansed the world"
Virgin 20% life expectancy increase in Victorian England vs Chad 100% life expectancy increase in communist China
They must be running a competition to see who can publish the most brain melting take
I was going to post this but I didn't get around to read it but thought, "no way someone is going to stan for Scrooge right? Has to be a joke."
