Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
This quotation is now going around the web attributed to Churchill. Is it accurate? “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” —M.S.
It is more or less correct, but it’s a run-together, truncated version of two separate comments:
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” —Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948, in Churchill, Europe Unite: Speeches 1947 & 1948 (London: Cassell, 1950), 347.
AND
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” —House of Commons, 22 October 1945.
A variation on the above is: “I do not at all wonder that British youth is in revolt against the morbid doctrine that nothing matters but the equal sharing of miseries, that what used to be called the ‘submerged tenth’ can only be rescued by bringing the other nine-tenths down to their level…” —House of Commons, 13 June 1948.
Churchill’s “withering barrage of sarcasm,” said the late Dr. Harry Jaffa, “moreover puts us in mind of that dictum concerning property asserted by the Father of the American Constitution, James Madison, when he said, in the tenth Federalist, that ‘the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property [is] the first object of government.’ One might add that according to Madison, the U.S. Constitution is intended to provide equal protection to unequal abilities. This is just as surely what Abraham Lincoln meant when in 1864 wrote to the Workingmen’s Association of New York that ‘Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise’”1
1 Harry V. Jaffa, “Remarks for Churchill’s Birthday: Requiem for Socialism and the Iron Curtain Churchill’s Relevance to the Challenges of the Present,” Finest Hour, January 1, 1991, 22.
The Full October 22 Quote
I earnestly hope that the Government will give unprejudiced attention to the suggestions I have ventured to make. They are put forward in no spirit of controversy but in the general interest. If we do not get this country going again pretty soon, if we do not get the great wheels turning, we may lose for ever our rightful place in the post-war economic world and we may involve our finances in dire and irretrievable confusion. It is no party matter, but one in which the House as a whole should make its opinion felt in a way that will override all hesitations and obstacles which are found in the path. In order to bring us all together, I will end this practical discourse in a philosophic vein. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is 1704 the equal sharing of miseries. In the present case, where an overwhelming majority of Service men and women would gain the blessings, can we not unite on the broad democratic principle of “the greatest good of the greatest number”?
Socialism doesn’t work. It’s the abode of Intellectual Idealists. Poor Souls.
The reason it doesn’t work is because doesn’t take into account Spiritual Law – or even recognize that such exists.
But is does.
There is a Plan down here, but Socialists have no clue what it is.
Care to offer any evidence for your claims?
Socialism eventually fails because it encourages sloth and discourages inventiveness and industry. My proof: history. Capitalist countries have made the greatest advances and provided the greatest standard of living for their residents, provided those residents take advantage of the opportunities that exist. Opportunities are not given, they simply exist. One must first recognize the opportunity and then, take advantage of it. No one owes you a thing.
The argument for socialism goes like this: Yes, it’s a dismal failure everywhere it has been tried. But, we want to try it here, because we will implement it correctly.
=
Or: “We have to destroy the village in order to save it”:…?
You’re cherry-picking your facts to suit your emotional narrative. Ever heard of Sweden, Netherlands, Ireland, Greenland, Luxembourg, Finland, Denmark, Portugal? Guess you only read history books made before 1970?
–
Churchill was speaking of Socialism in the totalitarian sense, having recognized the responsibilities of the State in abetting the people’s welfare. Because a nation adopts single-payer health care, for example, doesn’t make it socialist in the full meaning as Churchill understood it. As a Danish friend says, “we are one of the most entrepreneurial, capitalist countries around.” —Eds.
The spiritual plan follows 2 rules: Love God, and Love your neighbor. In the Old Testament God advised his people not to have a king, but rather to simply follow God as their only ruler. In loving our neighbor, we can either choose to delegate this task to an uncaring and often incompetent government or do it personally as I believe was the intention. God makes neither of these choices for us because He was and is not a dictator, but rather a loving father.
Neither of these rules speak specifically about an economic system, so we are free to choose that as well. Socialism/communism inherently combines both the systems of government and economics since—not being based on natural voluntary human behavior—it must be enforced ruthlessly by the government. Socialism/communism also relies on those leading it to be at all times brilliant (because there is no marketplace to fairly set prices and allocate resources efficiently, so these must somehow be done at great effort and expense by brilliant, almost infallible people), benevolent, just and humble. As we have seen, that has never worked for long if at all. Leaders rarely if ever start with those characteristics, only get worse as they acquire more power and only get removed and replaced by someone even more ruthless.
Capitalism requires only self interest and minor regulation to insure a level playing field, and only requires enforcement to protect property rights. It has always worked far better than anything else we have seen, though never perfectly.
So the nature of humans probably has much to do with the success or failure of each system, but it puts Socialism/Communism on a knife edge from which it is bound to fail because the imperfect leaders inherently tend to acquire the power to stay there for too long and make themselves rich at the expense of others, which obviously defeats the purpose of the system.
Capitalism, when combined with various democratic/republic forms of government, continues to work far better and for much longer, but as time goes on may tend to slowly succumb to the faults of the leaders as well, particularly as enduring over-regulation or failure to protect private property occurs, but it has the benefit of giving us more time to correct things by removing and replacing leaders more easily. Its basic premise of allowing self interest to guide the system by automatically setting prices and allocating resources efficiently works much more reliably since it depends on common and natural behavior of humans, which often includes a willingness of many to voluntarily take care of their neighbors in need, often doing a much better job of it than any government ever could.
This quote needs context. It can’t be applied out of its context which is the UK after the second world war emerging from an extremely unequal social system.
Imho pure capitalism doesn’t work and pure socialism doesn’t work, you need to strive for a balance that does work. I believe that this can be achieved and market forces will drive it to a balance.
I believe Churchill believed this also, he was trying to restrain the pure socialists that were born out of the unequal system.
Nice try Crazy- he would say it today.
Socialism isn’t equality. Why should we be equal anyway? Who thought that up -well St-Juste and Robespierre, who created a tyranny based on terror that furnished the blueprint for communism. You have the ruling elite who control everything and the general public under their thumb so the elite can stay in power. Venezuela is a beautiful example of where socialism leads. Leftists are always hung up on theories and fantasies but never want to look at cold, hard reality. Better to be oppressed by capitalism than starved by socialism. At least you have 40 brands of toilet paper to choose from and aspirin for your headache. Plus you can try to get a job that suits you, not the one that the state gives you. It is idiotic to rebuild what is basically the feudal system from the Middle Ages and that is what the paradise of the worker really seems to be.
Je suis en accord sur les réflexions de bons sens de lucidité d’intelligence voire de bienveillance en ce qui concerne la situation actuelle….si j’ai bien compris. Sir Winston Churchill possédait, il me semble ces talents entr’autre la prudence equivalente de l’intuition.
Tout est possible en ce moment si particulier qui demande une prise conscience ENORME.
Tous mes souhaits pour cette Réussite en mouvement.
.
Merci pour vos encouragements. -Ediors
Socialism is great when everyone is honest and has the same work ethic. Works great for ants and bees. If human honesty and work ethic were plotted they used to be a perfect bell curve. But today there are more and more slackers and cheats and of course those folks want socialism. As the county diversifies there will be an army of takers and not many makers. Its death throes will accelerate.
I believe that Capitalism is better than Socialism because it incentivises hard work. It rewards your work. Adrain Rogers said ” You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it” The problem is that in capitalism, when the gap between the haves and the have nots widens, it is then that the poor revolt and take to socialism. SO in order for Capitalism to be successful, it needs some element of planning. In short, a mixed economy with a minimal of government interference.
Exodus 20:15 – Thou shalt not steal.
This is the root of my entire political philosophy. The premise of this admonition is that someone owns ‘something’ – you shouldn’t take it. God is clearly in favor of owning property. Do not take, by force or fraud, property which does not belong to you. Could this possibly get any simpler?
The way to achieve more… (talents)… is to find ways to bring more value to the marketplace. The marketplace of industry.. .the marketplace of ideas… the marketplace of community… the marketplace of relationships – No one ever became more valuable to a company or any of these markets by simply demanding it. Life itself, however, demands from us.. that we make measurable progress … in reasonable time. And as we make progress… as we flex the muscles of commitment.. of perseverance.. of learning… we become more valuable in these markets. No one ever became more successful by simply moaning and begrudging what others have in Their pockets. If one would reap… then first one must plant… not protest.
Socialism is one of the doctrines of the Atheistic Humanist belief system (“religion”) that says that since we are nothing but evolve animals (their “creation account”), then WE (the small elite “shepherds” group) MUST take control of the evolution of mankind to be “made into our image”. The Atheistic Humanist belief system has a vision of a “man-made heaven on earth”, which history reveals has ALWAYS ultimately been ruled over by the biggest cut-throat egomaniac among them. Their “prophets” were Voltaire, Henri Saint-Simon, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, etc. that initiated the first revolutionary attempt with the French Revolution, which turned into a “dog-eat-dog” bloodbath and gave rise to Napoleon taking the crown of Emperor from the Pope to crown himself!…and that’s been the pattern of socialism ever since…the Communist (Common-ists), National SOCIALIST Workers Party (NAZI is the acronym), Fascism (meaning “bundle of sticks tied together), Progressivism (actually regressivism)…they’re all branches in the Atheistic Socialist Utopian family tree. They quarrel with each other as denominations of the same belief system over which one’s going to ultimately take domination of the global police state. It is a deceptive, conniving, EVIL belief system that unleashes the innate fallen sin nature of mankind through moral relativism without the restraining power of submitting to the Higher Authority of Holiness (just as Napoleon was symbolically shaking his fist in the face of God by crowning himself) . Nature reveals that when you turn out the “LIght” you automatically get “darkness”.
We are a nation of equal opportunity, not of guaranteed success. And it should stay that way . The poor will be with us always no matter what their reasons or excuses .
“Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings and socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
It’s as true as the day is long.
The problem with the quote from Churchill going around the web is not that it’s an inaccurate description of socialism. It gives people the false impression that Churchill was genuinely opposed to socialism. Robert Welch described Churchill as Stalin’s “great friend”: “This remained true right up to the time when Winston Churchill, with his usual flair for dramatic statements, announced: ‘I did not become Her Majesty’s First Minister in order to preside over the dissolution of her empire.’ He then proceeded to do exactly that, with all the smoothness that his great friend, Stalin, could have asked; thus leaving as easy targets for Communist infiltration and takeover many peoples who had clearly earned the right to British protection from the Communists by being colonial subjects of the empire for generations.” (Robert Welch, The John Birch Society Bulletin, April, 1975.)
=
Readers may decide for themselves how much we have to learn from Mr. Welch, who muddled the quotation and its timing. Churchill said, “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire” on 9 November 1942. Welch also oversimplified the Stalin-Churchill relationship and the dissolution of the Empire, with which Stalin had little to do. That followed almost inevitably from a variety of factors after the war. -RML
I don’t know where you get your history, but Churchill did not trust Stalin “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” The idea that Churchill “liked” Stalin is simply absurd and you should be ashamed to post misinformation.
–
Their relationship was more complicated and cannot be summarized in a few lines. WSC did say after Yalta that he could “trust Stalin,” but he was soon disabused of that notion. See Connor Daniels, “Favourable Reference to the Devil: Why Churchill Allied with Stalin.”
Don’t talk about Socialism if you live under Capitalism, don’t talk about it if you didn’t live in Cuba for at least the last thirty years. The words of Churchill seems to be written today for the people living there. I don’t know if Capitalism works, but for sure Socialism is not an alternative.
Few today have said it better, though many roll their eyes at Churchill’s maxim, while running off the cliff. He was right to realize that these humanisms comprise a religion separating itself from moral law. I think the most important word in his quotation is “envy”: the starting point for the nonproductive citizens who demand more of the working class, encouraged by comments like “you didn’t build that” or “it takes a village.” Capitalism allows individual ingenuity, which works when government allows people freely to use their God-given talents to better themselves, their family and their community.
Churchill’s ready with should appeal to everyone. One of my favorites is, “If a man is 20 and not a Socialist, he has no heart. If a man is 40 and not a Capitalist, he has no head.”
Sorry to disappoint, but he never said that, nor anything like it. A more common misquoite is: “If a man is not liberal in youth he has no heart. If he is not conservative when older he has no brain.” Another variation: “When I was a young liberal I thought with my heart; when I grew wiser and conservative I thought with my brain.” These are all over the internet, but do not occur in his 20 million published words and 60 million words about him by biographers or colleagues. It is a prime example of “Churchillian Drift.”
In 1976 visited Czechoslovakia as a back packing Eurorail Canadian tourist. The small consulate office in Vienna was only open between 9-11 am daily. However, there were many people, and the forms had to be filled out in quadruplicate – in German, Czech and Russian, which unfortunately are none of my learnt languages. Also had to have photos of my head straight on and profile. Also had to change currency for each day of my stay. Also had to have the hotel stamp, sign and date each day of my stay. When was invited to a private house, had to go each day to the local police station to stamp, sign and date. Concluded that the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of bureaucratic self-justification and attempts to extend the workers’ roles and importance.
–
Similarly a Polish engineer told me it used to take 10 years to build a 10 or 20 story building in Warsaw (vs 1.5 years in North America). The Polish engineers – 5 of them – would come to a site to view a particular problem, say the connection between a column and s base plate. They would all return to their office and two weeks later a design detail would arrive at the site. Everyone just wanted to prolong their employment. There was no profit incentive to keep the workers’ self interest in check.
–
Interesting. A Q&A making the rounds of Warsaw in the old communist days was: “Q: What would happen if the Soviet Union invaded and occupied the Sahara Desert? A: Nothing for ten years. Then there would be a shortage of sand.” -Editors
Fascinating reading a number of comments that haven’t a clue about the history or intent of socialism. This speaks volumes about the educational system here in the States and abroad.
My parents came form Eastern Europe in the Sixties and socialism was nasty, murderous mania. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Education is an interesting subject concerning this! If children are indoctrinated by the educational system to believe a certain way, then as adults they are more easily manipulated to lean that way. In this manner, over time (even decades) a philosophy can be adopted to replace the current axiom and influence entire generations without them having any knowledge of it, even thinking that perhaps it was their own idea. Opinion : Those in education should perhaps look at how they were educated. Objectively review (as much as possible) all sides of every issue and consider the bias that was taught to them before blindly passing those same biases on to future generations. Freedom can be real! But more often is an illusion. “It is easier to fool people than to convince people they’ve been fooled”! Attributed to Mark Twain
When capitalists say, “the Soviet Union was proof that socialism is a failure,” socialists often respond, “but that wasn’t real socialism!” When socialists point to the successes of many modern-day European social democracies, the capitalists respond, “but that isn’t real socialism!” If one of these responses is fatuous, then surely they both are. (I think they’re both correct.) Both “socialism” and “capitalism” have a wide ranges of different meanings. Rather than taking Churchill’s statements as aphoristic truths or immutable lies, it would be better to pay careful attention to the context in which he spoke them and the precise target of his rhetoric. We are likely to consider Churchill’s criticism varies depending on just what he was talking about and what his intentions were.
–
That post was made to verify a quotation, not to explore Churchill’s varied reactions to various forms of socialism. The dates make his context obvious. For broader discussion of his comments on socialism see Julia Wacker, “Social Reform and Churchill’s Alternative to Socialism.” and “Social Reform in a Changing World.” Also Larry P. Arnn, “Churchill and Socialism” and Churchill’s own unpublished 1950 article, “This is Freedom.”
—Editors
Replying to O.S. Rackham: Those social democracies have no significant military and zero world influence, no similarity to the USA. Name one major pharmaceutical breakthrough from one of them, one world-changing invention. No countries fly Finnish fighter jets. When is the last time Luxembourg put a man onto the moon or launched private satellites? The US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence positively changed a hitherto stagnant humanity, which leaped forward at lightning speed when freedom, independence, and liberty were combined with capitalism. Nobody with any credibility will debate this. Europe was responsible for genocide, colonialism, WW1, leading to WW2, and now possibly WW3. Surely there is an argument for doing exactly the opposite of everything Europe is doing, in three words: independence, freedom and liberty.
The “So Called” Scandinavian success doesn’t exist. Go to these countries and call them Socialist, the response you get will be a suprrise. Yes, they have greater social safety nets but they pay a stiff price. What these countries have created since WW2 is economic stagnation that, yes, does prevent the bottom tier of society from suffering (as much) but also gives those who wish to rise above their station a more arduous task to get there. Without the capitalist titans of the US, UK, Germany, Japan, etc. these countries would have ceased to exist after 1955. Most advancements of the 20th century were made by Capitalist countries. It is capitalist wealth that has kept Europe free since 1945. Socialism is the modern version of feudalism, where the bottom of society is locked into their economic cast, the middle is prevented from working their way up, and the elites control everything for their advantage.
It’s ultimately a quite interesting read of each commenter’s viewpoints between capitalism and socialism.
On paper, socialism and communism are perfect. However, they miss one small, simple factor: that of human nature.
It should also be noted that the three greatest prolific mass murderers in written human history were all socialists: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (Saloth Sar), together responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
Taken to their limits Capitalism exploits without mercy and Socialism strips all of freedom . Neither is very palatable. We like to think of socialism as owning the franchise on “good” and capitalism on “greed” . Socialists care about people and Capitalists dont. Ample precedent shows these are untrue. The defining difference between them is choice. As society becomes socialist so individual choice diminishes, Coming from Canada there are a Great number of things on which i have no choice whatsoever. Health care is a good crucible for this. If i said to someone in the USA that i need my doctors permission to see a specialist they would gasp in horror and this is by no means the only limit on my choice . Location of services, when they are applied, by whom, and what service, are all dictated by the state. Important to note is that I have no alternative (they are against the law). Also in terms of concentration of power Socialized policies tend to protect the organizations that already make policy. This differs from classic capitalist corruption where various self interested parties vie for influence but instead there are simply no alternatives. Under these models “Sole Payee” degrades over time into “Sole Provider” and all services become the purvey of the state. Social justice by tick box and various mills that churn based on stated policy rather than broader consent. Social programs are not “socialism” ; The USA has ample social programs and no one is calling them Socialists. Exploitation is not Capitalism; Ask anyone who has succeeded at their own endeavor.
Here in the west the debate seems to be which is better at the extreme.
We have neither,
Speaking specifically about the 2 quotes, Churchill was of course referring to Soviet Collectivism.
At the end of imperial rule the Bolsheviks promised the people would succeed in stead. They did not. Inept management, commissioners with no experience regarding their portfolios, and the mantra that “the people united cannot fail” were a path to failure. By the 1930’s socialism could not produce enough to even feed their own people and the society on mass could not / would not admit this failure.
The “philosophy of failure” implies that socialism can only flourish in the wake of failed policy (Imperialism). And it did flourish. Consider that in our modern liberal democracies no one elects leftist when times are good and in some ways socialism is dependent on the people being in need.
“The creed of ignorance” surely alludes to control of information, knowledge, learning. Under socialism there is only one media, attitude, teacher. Define the difference between news and propaganda or education and indoctrination. One attempts to inform the other to convince. Indoctrination requires a firm foundation of ignorance. Note that while other types of societies use indoctrination, only Socialism is dependent on it.
Unlike other political philosophies Collectivism needs a villain. It is central to the ongoing “revolution”: the reason to soldier on for the common good. What better a villain than those that you envy? Owners of property. Captains of Industry, The rich. Not only are these people unfairly hoarding wealth but they are in fact, the cause of your problems. Wealth is so abhorrent you should not even want it, Beside “We” know you are better than that and better than them. Even today demonizing the wealthy is a staple of left wing governments.
The short snippets Churchill uses compartmentalize broader debates. Slogans like “Lock Her Up” , Love Trumps Hate”, “Black Lives Matter” resonate today and gain traction for the same reasons, Churchill you could say was the king of the sound bite. At the very least he understood that short and simple had more lasting impact than long winded meaningful dissertation.
Perhaps a reason envy is the way socialism gains ground is that we are selfish. We need parents to train us up in loving our God and our neighbor. Envy is the common default, we envy the rich, and embrace a philosophy that says if we rise up and put socialist leaders in office we can be fairly provided for and never struggle again. It’s not good for us to support taking from everyone by taxing us all so the bureaucrats can tell us what we can or cannot do.