Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute

“I think Scrooge is clearly misunderstood and used to vilify business.”

Fred Smith, “Charles Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge Was The Ultimate Job Creator” (Forbes, reprinted at the Competitive Enterprise Institute)

“By the tale’s account, Scrooge was honest … perhaps excessively so.”

Ted Roberts, “Ebenezer Scrooge: In His Own Defense” (the Foundation for Economic Education’s Ideas on Liberty)

“And may we all have a Merry Christmas on happy, full stomachs—thanks to inexpensive, imported corn.”

It should be noted that FEE, like Roderick T. Long, is usually more Santa than Scrooge, as Howard Baetjer Jr., David R. Henderson, Daniel Oliver, William E. Pike and Sarah Skwire can attest.

Michael Levin, “In Defense of Scrooge” (Mises Daily)

“So let’s look without preconceptions at Scrooge’s allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit’s skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit’s profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.”

Art Carden, “Christmas and Consumption” (Mises Daily)

“One of my favorite Christmas stories is A Christmas Carol, but my reasons for liking it so much have changed over the years. As I’ve learned more economics, I’ve come to see that Ebenezer Scrooge’s tight-fisted, miserly ways have some admirable qualities.”

Butler Shaffer, “The Case for Ebenezer” (Mises Daily)

“As I became older, I decided that Mr. Dickens had given Ebenezer Scrooge an undeserved reputation for villainy”

Thomas E. Woods Jr. calls Shaffer “devastating” towards “That Bum Bob Cratchit” on Mises Daily’s sister site LewRockwell.com.

Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable (predating, but excerpted in Mises Daily)

“The miser has never recovered from Charles Dickens’s attack on him in A Christmas Carol. Although the miser had been sternly criticized before Dickens, the depiction of Ebenezer Scrooge has become definitive and has passed into the folklore of our time. Indeed, the attitude pervades even in freshman economics textbooks.”

Though it should be duly noted that Mises Daily has been slacking of late. Last year, rather than posting a new Scrooge article, “Ebenezer Scrooge, Humanitarian” merely linked back to Shaffer and Block.

I soldati francesi, britannici e tedeschi, attratti dal suono dei canti di Natale che venivano dalle trincee nemiche, cominciarono timidamente a smettere di spararsi tra loro. Dalle trincee tedesche fu lanciato uno stivale, che poi risultò pieno di dolci e salumi. Man mano che acquistarono fiducia, i soldati cominciarono ad avventurarsi nella terra di nessuno tra le trincee, fino ad entrare nelle trincee stesse sul lato opposto per scambiare piccoli regali ricevuti da casa come caffè, sigarette, alcolici e giornali. Celebrarono il Natale giocando a calcio nella terra di nessuno. Soldati di entrambe le parti condivisero le loro razioni, cantarono assieme canti di Natale e posarono per le fotografie di gruppo.

Già prima di Natale le forze alleate e le potenze centrali avevano invocato alcune tregue per seppellire i morti, ma solo con l’approvazione dei rispettivi comandi supremi. Questa tregua di Natale, invece, non era stata autorizzata da nessuna delle parti, una violazione della disciplina a tutti gli effetti (fraternizzare con il nemico significava la corte marziale, tanto per intenderci). Ovviamente i capi delle forze tedesche e alleate erano profondamente sconvolti all’idea di ciò che questo fatto implicava; più sconvolti di quando, dopo l’armistizio del 1918, una unità francese in attesa impaziente della smobilitazione organizzò un soviet. Rimuginarono alla ricerca di un sistema per costringere gli uomini, con le minacce o con l’imbroglio, a tornare nelle trincee e uccidersi l’uno con l’altro.

Ma i soldati non ne volevano sapere. Il 26 dicembre, all’ordine di riprendere il fuoco, risposero sparando negligentemente in aria invece che in direzione del nemico. Tutto finì quando i comandi supremi mandarono al fronte truppe fresche che non avevano conosciuto la tregua. A Natale del 1915 e degli anni seguenti fu ordinato un fuoco di sbarramento continuo. Quando un ufficiale appena accennava ad una tregua veniva trattato in maniera esemplare. Un capitano britannico che autorizzò una tregua per seppellire i morti, seguita da un’ora di fraternizzazione, fu deferito alla corte marziale.

I governi e i comandi militari di Gran Bretagna, Francia e Germania erano giustamente spaventati dagli sviluppi. Era facilissimo per la propaganda ufficiale demonizzare il nemico agli occhi della popolazione civile a casa, come dimostrano le storie diffuse dalla stampa britannica sui soldati tedeschi che uccidevano i bambini belgi a baionettate. Ma i soldati che entravano in contatto con il “nemico” al fronte capivano subito che si trattava di persone normali come loro, con un lavoro e una famiglia a casa, persone che erano state abbastanza stupide da credere alle bugie raccontate dai politici.

Oggi i governanti hanno molte più ragioni per essere spaventati. Da quando si è diffuso internet e la connessione è praticamente diventata ubiqua in gran parte del mondo, ed i social-media hanno cominciato la loro rapida diffusione, è cresciuto esponenzialmente il numero di americani che comunica, da persona a persona, con cittadini delle nazioni “nemiche” contro cui gli Stati Uniti fanno le guerre. Non solo abbiamo accesso a canali d’informazione come Al Jazeera, che mostra i cadaveri carbonizzati e smembrati dagli attacchi americani, ma con il cellulare chiunque può caricare immagini o video sui social-media.

Novantanove anni fa i soldati dovettero camminare fino alle trincee opposte per capire che le truppe “nemiche” erano esattamente come loro, e che i loro veri nemici li avevano a casa, a Londra, Parigi, Berlino. Oggi sempre più civili lo capiscono prima ancora di sparare un singolo colpo.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

French, British and German soldiers, intrigued by the sound of Christmas carols from the enemy trenches, first tentatively refrained from firing on one another. A German boot tossed into the British trenches turned out to be filled with candy and sausage. Soldiers, with increasing confidence, began to venture out into no-man’s land and into each other’s trenches to exchange small presents like coffee and cigarettes, spirits, and newspapers from home. They celebrated Christmas by playing football on no-man’s-land. Soldiers from opposing armies shared rations, sang carols together and posed for group photographs.

The Allies and Central Powers had previously called temporary truces as Christmas approached, in order to bury their dead — but only with approval from their respective High Commands. This Christmas truce, in contrast, was completely unauthorized by commanders on either side, a violation of discipline in just about every imaginable respect (fraternization with the enemy — a court-martialable offense — just for starters). And needless to say, the German and Allied leaderships were utterly terrified by the implications — even more terrified than after the Armistice in 1918 when a British unit in France, impatient for demobilization, organized a soviet. They racked their brains to come up with a way to threaten or trick the men in the trenches into ending the unauthorized truce and getting back to killing one another.

The soldiers weren’t having any of it, though. Directly ordered to resume fire on December 26, they perfunctorily fired their rifles into the air rather than at the enemy. Finally the High Commands ended the truce by bringing in fresh troops from the rear who had not experienced the truce. In Christmas 1915 and subsequent years, truces were prevented by ordering continuous artillery barrages from the rear, and making conspicuous examples of officers who even hinted at allowing another Christmas truce. A British captain who authorized a local truce for burying the dead, followed by half an hour of fraternization, was court-martialed.

The governments and military commands of Britain, France and Germany were rightly afraid of this development. It was fairly easy to demonize the enemy to the civilian population at home with official war propaganda, like the stories in the British press about German soldiers bayoneting Belgian infants. But soldiers who came into direct contact with the “enemy” on the front quickly learned that they were just regular people like themselves with jobs and families at home, who had been stupid enough to believe the lies their politicians had told them.

Today our rulers have much more reason to be afraid. Since the rise of the Internet and near-ubiquitous connectivity in much of the world, and the rapid growth of social media networks, there’s been at the very least an order of magnitude increase in the number of Americans who have direct person-to-person communications with citizens of “enemy” nations whenever the United States goes to war. And we have not only easy access to media outlets like Al Jazeera showing the charred and dismembered bodies from U.S. air strikes, but ordinary people uploading images or videos to social media via cell phone.

It took a physical trip into the opposing trenches ninety-nine years ago for soldiers to discover that “enemy” troops were just like them, and their real enemies were back home in London, Paris and Berlin. Today a large, and rapidly growing, portion of the civilian public knows that before a shot is ever fired.

Translations for this article:

• Spanish, La Tregua de Navidad de 1914.
• Italian, La Tregua di Natale del 1914.

The holiday season is also a time of reflection and, for many, hope. I am curious about hope, however, and wonder if careful reflection will reveal it is time to give it up. This idea was introduced to me by the writing of Derek Jensen in his piece “Beyond Hope,” and the notion has stuck for some time now. I do not mean that we should  be pessimists — rather very much the contrary. Hope means we are waiting for someone else to make things better. Hope is passive. It is time to join our peers of past and present and be the change. Acting means we do not have to wait or hope anymore — we can build anew within the shell of the old. When we act it will then not matter who is sitting in a position of power. In the words of Howard Zinn, “it matters more who is sitting in … pushing for change.”

During the “season of peace” it is prudent to remember that human history is full of moments of compassion, love, altruism and kindness. Most of us simply long for creative labor, safe communities, healthy environments and peace. It is important to remember this. There are of course drastic divisions across religious and political boundaries today, and at these indoctrinated boundaries violence tends to erupt. The liberated human condition, however, is one that longs for peace.

The old order is one of human suppression, wealth disparity, a command and control mentality, and most abhorrent an order of war.  This order has existed because people are obedient to the rules and norms of power and influence. As we hope for a better tomorrow we allow coercive, pervasive violence. Defiance to these norms, dissent, social power and liberty all pay homage to a much higher moral law. The fact that such defiance has occurred all throughout our collective history should be celebrated. We have accomplished much in the face of such great aggression. We have built safe communities, we have worked to liberate our labor, we have built orders of solidarity. We have overcome hurdles standing in the way of liberty and democracy — we have moved forward.

Some have even taken very drastic measures to oppose war and oppression. Chelsea Manning is just a recent example that comes to mind. Many throughout human history have sacrificed their own personal liberty to call out the atrocities of war and all forms of aggression. Some have even given their lives to advance peace. We should all be very thankful for these actions – they are paramount to a free society. We need not always risk our lives and liberty, however, as dissent should be gauged by each individual. For free people have, do and will continue to change the world.

So, in the spirit of the season let us all decide to embrace peace. Let us no longer follow the whims of politicians or those who wish to command and control society. Instead may we labor to co-ordinate and cultivate the societies and communities we all wish to freely associate with. Let us labor for causes that are just and reject the notion of just wars and necessary violence. All to often power ignores what is just and enhances the very atrocities it sets out eliminate. One need not look past the history of war, especially in the past century, to see this. Let us, the collective, the individual instead labor for peace.