Scrooge's problem was rudeness, not capitalism

Last night I spent some of my fiat currency US dollars on a performance of "A Christmas Carol."

I read the book when I was young, and perhaps every three years or so get dragged to see a theatrical production.  Sitting through this most recent spectacle, I started to wonder about the most common interpretation of Dickens' Christmas masterpiece.

And it is a masterpiece.  Dickens was the Stephen King of his era, chockfull of talent, but never adverse to making a quid by pumping out bulk writing.  But "A Christmas Carol" is one of his better efforts.  The writing is solid and intelligent and the storyline is captivating.  It is easy to enjoy the book or play, and it is no wonder "A Christmas Carol" almost singlehandedly rebooted the Christmas holiday.  Prior to Dickens' work Christmas had been a religious, rather dull event.  But after his romanticized version appeared Londoners started trading gifts, eating turkey, and regularly spitting out "Merry Christmas" (along with "bah humbug" Dickens popularized our most common Christmas greeting).  

I take issue though with the suggestion that the text is a simple indictment of capitalism.  Dickens had an acute fear of poverty having suffered through it himself as an adolescent.  He wrote regularly of the extreme class differences in England at the time.  It is an easy assumption to make that the greed of the rich was at the root of these problems.  But the evolving Industrial Revolution was a bit more complex than the Occupy version you would get if you asked the average protestor.  And I think maybe Dickens appreciated this.

Observing "A Christmas Carol" last night I pushed aside the simplistic literary criticism that had been shoved down my throat in my early days.  Rather than see Scrooge as a selfish capitalist, I went into it with an open mind.

Scrooge, prior to his ghostly conversion, was indeed a less than pleasant person.  He was curt to his assistant Bob Cratchitt.  He was rude to his nephew Guy With a Name I Forget.  And he was brusque to his maid who might have a name but I don't think I heard one.  When the phantoms come, we learn how Scrooge, as a youth, became so obsessed with wealth that he ditched his fiancé.  And he got super cheap.  Put simply, he just turned into an all around SOB.

But no place in his "Carol" does Dickens condemn the acquisition of wealth.  Even when Scrooge goes to collect debts, it is clear the money is lawfully owed.  Dickens, I feel, takes issue with Scrooge's approach.  When the merchant woman, in debt to Scrooge for her cart, gives away a few oranges she remarks it takes only a small amount of generosity to satisfy people.  And when Scrooge sees, with the Ghost of Christmas Past, his former boss spending two pounds to put on a party the apparition points out that a large sum of money isn't needed to make people happy- the gestures trumps the amount.

Scrooge's problem is that he is rude.  After his conversion, he doesn't abandon his lending business to join the masses.  Scrooge doesn't burn his bra and PayPal $10 to the Green Party.  He doesn't swear off money making to open up a head shop.  He gives away a couple bucks and just starts to act like a human being.

With that in mind I'm reevaluating my own seasonal charity.  After "A Christmas Carol" was published the rate of charitable donations in England increased dramatically.  It might have that affect on me too.  I used to end my financial year by sending money to worthy charities.  But a few years ago, knee deep in libertarianism, I decided to only contribute to political campaigns.  My theory was if I could change the system, then all the other concerns I worried about, would benefit.

But people who only focus on money, or politics- well, they're just like Scrooge.  Not technically bad people, but not really that pleasant to be around.

So I'm off to find some charities.