Socialism is the equal sharing of misery

PUBLISHED: November 25, 2025 | www.baltimoresun.com

Approximately 40% of Americans currently hold a favorable opinion of socialism, according to polling from the Cato Institute/YouGov. Among Americans under 30, the figure is 62%. It is safe to say that, unlike communism, socialism is not considered taboo, despite their fundamental similarities.

The growth is propelled by several factors, notably rising costs for essentials like housing, health care and food, along with student debt.

Socialism maintains the principle that no individual (aside from the ruling class) should possess an advantage over others. It should always be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Winston Churchill bluntly stated that the “inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Socialism does not alleviate poverty. It brings everyone down to the same level. Joy is questionable, excellence is expendable and the finer aspects of life are deemed sinful. In a socialist society, equity necessitates that we all suffer equally so that nobody suffers more.

Elected officials and candidates advocating for a socialist agenda frequently overlook that socialist programs provide immediate solutions that are accompanied by substantial long-term problems. They attempt to address issues that markets could resolve without issue. Capitalism provides a superior solution. Allow businesses to operate freely within reasonable bounds. Empower people to build and innovate.

Today, socialists use social media with smartphones manufactured by people who were motivated to innovate by the rewards of capitalism. Today’s technology is vastly superior to that of two decades prior, and, even better, it’s cheaper too.

Socialism is not the solution to any of our problems. Markets function well when laws protect open entry, fair dealing and real price competition. Though socialists are often quick to point to the Sherman Antitrust Act or specific drug-price negotiations as “anti-market,” evidence that socialism works, they miss the point. These tools intervene where competition is missing. The goal isn’t to pick winners; it’s to restore rivalry so prices fall and quality rises, and it works every time.

Socialists blame “greedy corporations” for our problems yet fail to realize that greed breeds competition and competition tames greed. In open markets, self-interest is forced to serve the customer. Pursue lower prices and better quality, or you lose to the next person. We have seen countless corporate behemoths fall fast because they failed to compete. Blockbuster lost to Netflix. Blackberry and Nokia lost to Apple and Android. Kodak lost to digital cameras and phones. Sears lost to Walmart and Amazon. When generic drugs enter markets, prices often drop by 70-80%. When budget airline Southwest enters a route, fares fall up to 30% among competitors. When T-Mobile killed its much-hated two-year phone contracts in 2013, every other major carrier followed suit and consumers won.

But, do we really need to continue to preach the virtues of capitalism? Socialism has been tried before. Over two dozen times in the last century, and the results repeat themselves over and over again. In Venezuela, formerly regarded as one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America, the government nationalized businesses, imposed price controls and increased the money supply, resulting in economic collapse, empty shelves and mass migration out of the country. In Cuba, the government stifled private companies, resulting in persistent shortages and poor wages, which led to the country’s full isolation from the global community. Today, doctors moonlight as taxi drivers. The Soviet Union’s government fixed prices and production, which crushed competition, resulting in substandard quality for goods and services and a system that ultimately collapsed. The collectivization policies and the Great Leap Forward during Mao-era China resulted in widespread hunger and the deaths of 36 million people. Only after China opened to markets did living standards rise. North Korea maintains stringent governmental control, resulting in today’s isolation and famine. Its citizens survive only at the government’s discretion.

The pattern is simple. When the government controls prices and production, you get scarcity and decline. But when it allows competition and entry, output grows, innovation flourishes and people are better off.

When socialists assert that “billionaires should not exist,” they are fundamentally contending that people should not be entitled to reap the rewards of capitalism. Wealthy individuals, like millionaires and billionaires, together with others who have dedicated significant effort to establishing successful companies, have lifted more people from poverty than any government effort could achieve. Nvidia serves as a perfect illustration. Nvidia employs 36,000 people, and approximately 80% are millionaires due to their stocks, with over half possessing a net worth exceeding $25 million. Thousands of individuals have gained generational wealth because one man risked everything to build and innovate.

When people assert that “real socialism has never been attempted the right way,” a more candid interpretation is that it has been repeatedly implemented across various regions, cultures and leaderships. Yet consistently, it has yielded the same results: shortages, fleeing, repression, death and ultimately a retreat to markets just to keep people fed.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.

©️ 2025 Baltimore Sun