5 ms·

Churchill and His Money, or Lack of It

72 points by daddy_drank 11y ago

tim333 11y ago
cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xG5T5D7W_jIJ:www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2015/12/30/other-peoples-yachts-churchill-and-his-money-or-lack-of-it/&hl=en&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xG5T5D7...
hackercanon 11y ago
What an incredible story. I must admit I had no idea that Churchill's status as a popular writer was one of his keys to power.
- visakanv 11y ago
  The relationship between the writing of doctrines, books, etc and people rising to power is a pretty interesting one. See also: Obama's Dreams From My Father, The Audacity of Hope. Trump's Crippled America. Hitler's Mein Kampf (the copyright on that is expiring very soon). Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book". In Ender's Game (fiction, but compelling), Ender's siblings go on to become incredibly influential because of their writings. And it's also why things like propaganda is so powerful, why we have phrases like "the pen is mightier than the sword", books like Farenheit 451, and even, if you think about it, the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. Books are powerful things, and people who seek power are typically associated with them one way or another.
  - _yosefk 11y ago
    I dunno. There are two kinds of such books - those published before the ascension to power and those published afterwards (the Little Red Book is one example of the latter.) Only books of the first kind might have contributed to the author's rise to power, but it's hard to tell how much, and at least intuitively it doesn't seem like any of the leaders you mentioned rose to power mainly due to their writing ability. I think it's interesting to read the writings of an influential person, and sometimes it is mandatory to read them even if it's not that interesting, but I doubt that these people mainly become influential through their writing (at least the effect seems much smaller than the reverse - books becoming widely read because of the author's influence on world events.) It certainly works in both directions, I just think one is much stronger than the other. The pen and the sword... well, persuasion is mightier than an individual's brute force because you can mobilize the force of others through persuasion. But is "pen" the right metaphor for persuasion in a world where both dictators and democratically elected leaders rely on the support of huge groups of people, many of whom rarely read, have poor reading comprehension (don't we all? especially when reading what we disagree with?), and are most easily swayed by simple ideas boiling down to "the source of your troubles whom you should rob to improve your life is X"? If the world is run a by a literate few born into a powerful minority, then perhaps a pen might be more powerful. As to religious texts... I think they're kinda different in that say Lenin's writing could rival the popularity of religious texts for a while, at a time when printing was very cheap, but it no longer can. Contrast that to religious texts which remained popular for hundreds and thousands of years at a time when reproducing texts was very expensive. And there was never a lack of either tyrants or statesmen with popular support during those years, moreover, quite a few of those tyrants were worshiped as gods, and both tyrants and elected politicians wrote texts. None of these texts are remotely as widely read as religious texts. So whatever the cause, the handful of popular prophets are vastly more popular than any of history's politicians, and are way better at maintaining their influence from their graves.
    - visakanv 11y ago
      Yeah, it's much more complex than I let on in my previous comment. You're absolutely right about it being hard to isolate causal factors, and right as well that the "powerful, popular people get read more" phenomenon is stronger than "authors accumulate power" phenomenon. I still do think that the "pen" is a lot more powerful than people tend to give it credit for, just that its influence tends to operate over a long timeframe. I suppose in today's context, the "pen" = your ability to engage with people. In this sense, Donald Trump is wielding his "pen" terrifyingly well. You're totally right as well, of course, that popular religious texts will be more popular and more powerful than any politician's. These texts are woven into people's lives much more intimately. Your last sentiment is interesting, though. I generally feel that while the various prophets' work (as interpreted and re-interpreted by others, mostly) is incredibly popular, their "influence" is sorta... corrupted? Exploited? I"m reminded of a quote often attributed to Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Not sure if he actually said that, but you get the idea. (Applies to practically all major organized religions, I don't mean to single out Christianity.)
  - marincounty 11y ago
    There's a lot of people who become filthy rich, and get to publish a book. Kim Kardashian could string a few sentences together, and it would be a best seller. I am throughly shocked at what people read. I just don't get it. (One day I will read Obama's first book. Why--because I believe he will go down in history as one of our better presidents.)
    - visakanv 11y ago
      Dreams From My Father is a pretty good book. He wrote it before he started running for President, so it's actually quite a nice insight into his mind. It's worth reading just to get to know a hard-working, successful biracial man who had some very interesting experiences.
    - Someone 11y ago
      But it, IMHO, is unlikely Kim Kardashian would be awarded the Nobel prize for literature (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1953/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/...)
    - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      > one of our better presidents I guess it depends on your metric of choice: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/oct/01/fact-checking-war-comparisons-between-obama-and-bu/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/oct/01/fac...
  - jordanb 11y ago
    You could add Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage" and a few others I think (Huey Long and "Every Man a King" for instance). In the case of both Kennedy and Obama the book was used in combination with great oratory skill to introduce the candidate to the people: You hear an amazing speech by the candidate and want to learn more. You find they have written a book and decide to read it. The book gives you a feeling of intimacy with the candidate which turns you into a supporter.
  - cafard 11y ago
    a) I didn't know that Trump had written something called "Crippled America." b) Explaining Obama's rise by means of his books is a stretch; how many people actually bought and read them? c) It seems to me that the popularity of the Little Red Book came from Mao's power, and not vice-versa.
- pjc50 11y ago
  I'm not sure it was a big part of his rise to power, but it definitely helped him in the popular memory. Along with the famous radio speeches. "We shall fight them on the beaches" is his great legacy and memorial. Remember, Churchill was a member of the hereditary aristocracy with inherited wealth, which he seems to have spent or misinvented to a great extent - that's the point of the book being reviewed here. That was a big key to power.
  - hackercanon 11y ago
    This is true. It seems that if you're looking to leverage your literary talents for political/commercial ends (Cicero, Pierre Trudeau, Paul Graham?, Locke, Franklin, Václav Havel, Michael Ignatieff, etc.) you probably need access to wealth to fund your writing career in the first place. The lone exception being that excitable German with the Charlie Chaplin moustache...
    - maaku 11y ago
      What do you need the wealth for? Presumably to have your basic needs taken care of while you focus on writing. Being in prison also accomplishes that goal.
      - djhn 11y ago
        That's somewhat hard core. Ideally you should be in prison for political reasons, because most other crimes may be detrimental to improving social status in the future. And countries that put you in prison for political reasons have no overlap with countries that have comfortable prisons that encourage and nurture self-improvement, contemplation and creative pursuits.
        achamayou 11y ago
        I think the point here was that the excitable German with the Charlie Chaplin mustache in question did write his famous book in a German prison in the mid-1920s. Being jailed by your political opponents, whatever the reason, is generally unlikely to hurt your social status if you do get to power eventually, since even non-political charges can be dismissed as politically motivated.
djhn 11y ago
Wealth and social standing do allow you to bend the rules quite a bit. What are the best ways to get and leverage so much credit intelligently, without having such initial wealth and status? Are there institutions that offer credit based on some measure of g/educational attainment/"future earnings potential"?
- pjc50 11y ago
  The student loan system? (both US and UK, although they're slightly different).
- nicklovescode 11y ago
  Upstart at least initially did this, by letting you sell a percentage of your future income.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- visakanv 11y ago
  The short answer is to make stuff people really, really want. You get wealth by creating it, and you get status from creating wealth. It could be software, but it could be anything, really. If you build a startup that has users who love you, you can raise money from investors, get press attention, etc. Caveat being that it's a really, really hard thing to do.
Animats 11y ago
There's a funny scene in some extra-long Churchill documentary, in the episode that covers Churchill out of power after WWI. Scenes of Churchhill building brick walls, chopping down trees, and pontificating about minor stuff. ("Winston Churchill, the Boring Years.", basically.) Churchill is talking to Bernard Baruch, the financier, who, going into 1929, says the stock market is overpriced and there is going to be trouble. Churchill is portrayed as very Churchillian about investing - "We must be bold, and press on with resolve", rather than getting out of the market. That doesn't work out well for him.

72 points by daddy_drank 11y ago

cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xG5T5D7W_jIJ:www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2015/12/30/other-peoples-yachts-churchill-and-his-money-or-lack-of-it/&hl=en&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xG5T5D7...

hackercanon 11y ago

What an incredible story. I must admit I had no idea that Churchill's status as a popular writer was one of his keys to power.

visakanv 11y ago
The relationship between the writing of doctrines, books, etc and people rising to power is a pretty interesting one. See also: Obama's Dreams From My Father, The Audacity of Hope. Trump's Crippled America. Hitler's Mein Kampf (the copyright on that is expiring very soon). Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book". In Ender's Game (fiction, but compelling), Ender's siblings go on to become incredibly influential because of their writings. And it's also why things like propaganda is so powerful, why we have phrases like "the pen is mightier than the sword", books like Farenheit 451, and even, if you think about it, the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. Books are powerful things, and people who seek power are typically associated with them one way or another.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  I dunno. There are two kinds of such books - those published before the ascension to power and those published afterwards (the Little Red Book is one example of the latter.) Only books of the first kind might have contributed to the author's rise to power, but it's hard to tell how much, and at least intuitively it doesn't seem like any of the leaders you mentioned rose to power mainly due to their writing ability. I think it's interesting to read the writings of an influential person, and sometimes it is mandatory to read them even if it's not that interesting, but I doubt that these people mainly become influential through their writing (at least the effect seems much smaller than the reverse - books becoming widely read because of the author's influence on world events.) It certainly works in both directions, I just think one is much stronger than the other. The pen and the sword... well, persuasion is mightier than an individual's brute force because you can mobilize the force of others through persuasion. But is "pen" the right metaphor for persuasion in a world where both dictators and democratically elected leaders rely on the support of huge groups of people, many of whom rarely read, have poor reading comprehension (don't we all? especially when reading what we disagree with?), and are most easily swayed by simple ideas boiling down to "the source of your troubles whom you should rob to improve your life is X"? If the world is run a by a literate few born into a powerful minority, then perhaps a pen might be more powerful. As to religious texts... I think they're kinda different in that say Lenin's writing could rival the popularity of religious texts for a while, at a time when printing was very cheap, but it no longer can. Contrast that to religious texts which remained popular for hundreds and thousands of years at a time when reproducing texts was very expensive. And there was never a lack of either tyrants or statesmen with popular support during those years, moreover, quite a few of those tyrants were worshiped as gods, and both tyrants and elected politicians wrote texts. None of these texts are remotely as widely read as religious texts. So whatever the cause, the handful of popular prophets are vastly more popular than any of history's politicians, and are way better at maintaining their influence from their graves.
  - visakanv 11y ago
    Yeah, it's much more complex than I let on in my previous comment. You're absolutely right about it being hard to isolate causal factors, and right as well that the "powerful, popular people get read more" phenomenon is stronger than "authors accumulate power" phenomenon. I still do think that the "pen" is a lot more powerful than people tend to give it credit for, just that its influence tends to operate over a long timeframe. I suppose in today's context, the "pen" = your ability to engage with people. In this sense, Donald Trump is wielding his "pen" terrifyingly well. You're totally right as well, of course, that popular religious texts will be more popular and more powerful than any politician's. These texts are woven into people's lives much more intimately. Your last sentiment is interesting, though. I generally feel that while the various prophets' work (as interpreted and re-interpreted by others, mostly) is incredibly popular, their "influence" is sorta... corrupted? Exploited? I"m reminded of a quote often attributed to Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Not sure if he actually said that, but you get the idea. (Applies to practically all major organized religions, I don't mean to single out Christianity.)
- marincounty 11y ago
  There's a lot of people who become filthy rich, and get to publish a book. Kim Kardashian could string a few sentences together, and it would be a best seller. I am throughly shocked at what people read. I just don't get it. (One day I will read Obama's first book. Why--because I believe he will go down in history as one of our better presidents.)
  - visakanv 11y ago
    Dreams From My Father is a pretty good book. He wrote it before he started running for President, so it's actually quite a nice insight into his mind. It's worth reading just to get to know a hard-working, successful biracial man who had some very interesting experiences.
  - Someone 11y ago
    But it, IMHO, is unlikely Kim Kardashian would be awarded the Nobel prize for literature (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1953/ http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/...)
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > one of our better presidents I guess it depends on your metric of choice: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/oct/01/fact-checking-war-comparisons-between-obama-and-bu/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/oct/01/fac...
- jordanb 11y ago
  You could add Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage" and a few others I think (Huey Long and "Every Man a King" for instance). In the case of both Kennedy and Obama the book was used in combination with great oratory skill to introduce the candidate to the people: You hear an amazing speech by the candidate and want to learn more. You find they have written a book and decide to read it. The book gives you a feeling of intimacy with the candidate which turns you into a supporter.
- cafard 11y ago
  a) I didn't know that Trump had written something called "Crippled America." b) Explaining Obama's rise by means of his books is a stretch; how many people actually bought and read them? c) It seems to me that the popularity of the Little Red Book came from Mao's power, and not vice-versa.
pjc50 11y ago
I'm not sure it was a big part of his rise to power, but it definitely helped him in the popular memory. Along with the famous radio speeches. "We shall fight them on the beaches" is his great legacy and memorial. Remember, Churchill was a member of the hereditary aristocracy with inherited wealth, which he seems to have spent or misinvented to a great extent - that's the point of the book being reviewed here. That was a big key to power.
- hackercanon 11y ago
  This is true. It seems that if you're looking to leverage your literary talents for political/commercial ends (Cicero, Pierre Trudeau, Paul Graham?, Locke, Franklin, Václav Havel, Michael Ignatieff, etc.) you probably need access to wealth to fund your writing career in the first place. The lone exception being that excitable German with the Charlie Chaplin moustache...
  - maaku 11y ago
    What do you need the wealth for? Presumably to have your basic needs taken care of while you focus on writing. Being in prison also accomplishes that goal.
    - djhn 11y ago
      That's somewhat hard core. Ideally you should be in prison for political reasons, because most other crimes may be detrimental to improving social status in the future. And countries that put you in prison for political reasons have no overlap with countries that have comfortable prisons that encourage and nurture self-improvement, contemplation and creative pursuits.
      - achamayou 11y ago
        I think the point here was that the excitable German with the Charlie Chaplin mustache in question did write his famous book in a German prison in the mid-1920s. Being jailed by your political opponents, whatever the reason, is generally unlikely to hurt your social status if you do get to power eventually, since even non-political charges can be dismissed as politically motivated.

djhn 11y ago

Wealth and social standing do allow you to bend the rules quite a bit. What are the best ways to get and leverage so much credit intelligently, without having such initial wealth and status? Are there institutions that offer credit based on some measure of g/educational attainment/"future earnings potential"?

pjc50 11y ago
The student loan system? (both US and UK, although they're slightly different).
nicklovescode 11y ago
Upstart at least initially did this, by letting you sell a percentage of your future income.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
visakanv 11y ago
The short answer is to make stuff people really, really want. You get wealth by creating it, and you get status from creating wealth. It could be software, but it could be anything, really. If you build a startup that has users who love you, you can raise money from investors, get press attention, etc. Caveat being that it's a really, really hard thing to do.

Animats 11y ago

There's a funny scene in some extra-long Churchill documentary, in the episode that covers Churchill out of power after WWI. Scenes of Churchhill building brick walls, chopping down trees, and pontificating about minor stuff. ("Winston Churchill, the Boring Years.", basically.) Churchill is talking to Bernard Baruch, the financier, who, going into 1929, says the stock market is overpriced and there is going to be trouble. Churchill is portrayed as very Churchillian about investing - "We must be bold, and press on with resolve", rather than getting out of the market. That doesn't work out well for him.