The idea of private wealth not based on the fulfilment of social duty was repugnant to him because it was contrary to nature. The vice of the laissez-faire economists was that they regarded capital as an economic commodity divorced from political and social activity. They treated its use as a purely private affair. Disraeli saw capital not as a commodity of value but as political and social power: as something to be used as a trust. He therefore wished to see its possession permanently associated with social obligations. The ownership of land was capable of giving such association. That of stocks and shares was not. In all this Disraeli was a Socialist before Socialism became a political force.

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "The idea of private wealth not based on the fulfilment of social duty was repugnant to him because it was contrary to nature. The vice of the laissez-faire economists was that they regarded capital as an economic commodity divorced from political and social activity. They treated its use as a purely private affair. Disraeli saw capital not as a commodity of value but as political and social power: as something to be used as a trust. He therefore wished to see its possession permanently associated with social obligations. The ownership of land was capable of giving such association. That of stocks and shares was not. In all this Disraeli was a Socialist before Socialism became a political force." in the context of "Arthur Bryant, English Saga, 1840–1940 (1940), p. 96" to mean that wisdom is timeless.