“One idiot is one idiot. Source > Two idiots are two idiots.
>
Ten thousand idiots are a political party.”
This biting observation captures the frustration of modern politics perfectly. It suggests that individual stupidity amplifies when people group together. Most readers immediately attribute these words to Franz Kafka. Indeed, the cynicism fits his literary style perfectly. However, literary detectives tell a different story. The true history of this quote is a fascinating journey through translation and misattribution.
Franz Kafka | Biography, Books, The Metamorphosis, The Trial, & Facts | Britannica
The Myth of Franz Kafka
We often associate Franz Kafka with bureaucratic nightmares. His novels depict individuals crushed by faceless systems. Therefore, this quote seems like something he would say. It reflects the absurdity of collective human behavior. Consequently, you will find this saying on thousands of memes featuring Kafka’s face. Merchandisers even print it on t-shirts and coffee mugs under his name.
Nevertheless, the attribution is false. Source Scholars have combed through Kafka’s diaries, letters, and novels. They found absolutely no evidence of this sentence. . The style is similar, but the words are not his. In fact, the quote is likely too direct for Kafka’s typically surreal approach. He usually dealt with vague authorities rather than specific political parties. Thus, we must look elsewhere for the real author.
The True Author: Leo Longanesi
The trail actually leads to Italy. Leo Longanesi was a journalist, writer, and illustrator. He possessed a sharp, satirical wit. In 1938, he wrote a diary entry that contains the DNA of this famous quote. Specifically, he recorded his thoughts on December 15 of that year.
Longanesi did not use the word “idiot.” Instead, he used the Italian word “stupido” (fool). Furthermore, he did not explicitly mention a “political party.” His original Italian text reads: “Uno stupido è uno stupido. Due stupidi sono due stupidi. Diecimila stupidi sono una forza storica.”
Translated, this means: “A fool is a fool. Two fools are two fools. Ten thousand fools are a historical force.”
This version appeared in his 1947 book, Parliamo dell’Elefante. Clearly, the core concept belongs to him. He observed how individual foolishness transforms into power when multiplied. Yet, the phrasing differs significantly from the modern version.
How the Quote Evolved
Language evolves constantly. Quotes often mutate as they travel across borders. In this case, the transition from “historical force” to “political party” is crucial. It changes the meaning from a philosophical observation to a specific political critique.
Additionally, the switch from “fool” to “idiot” adds a harsher tone. We can trace these changes through the internet’s early days. For example, Italian newsgroups in the late 1990s began circulating altered versions.
One specific post in 1999 credited Kafka with the “political party” variation. This appears to be ground zero for the misattribution. Before this date, the Kafka connection was virtually non-existent. Subsequently, the internet amplified the error.
People prefer attributing quotes to famous figures. Sociologists call this the “Matthew Effect.” We lend more weight to a statement if a genius like Kafka said it. Longanesi is famous in Italy but less known globally. Therefore, the collective consciousness reassigned his wit to a more recognizable name.
French and English Precedents
Interestingly, other authors explored this math of stupidity too. Ideas often emerge in multiple places simultaneously. For instance, the French playwright Jean Anouilh wrote a similar dialogue.
In his 1959 play L’Hurluberlu (The Fighting Cock), a character analyzes the sacred nature of crowds. He argues that adding fools together does not create wisdom. He states: “Two fools are one fool plus another fool… And a thousand fools are 999 fools plus another for good measure.”
This sentiment echoes Longanesi’s earlier diary entry. Moreover, Victorian poet Robert Browning touched on this theme decades prior. In 1871, he wrote about “divers hundred thousand fools” voting together. He noted that they might elect a criminal instead of a savior.
Thus, skepticism about mass political judgment has deep roots. Writers have long questioned the wisdom of the crowd. Longanesi simply gave us the most memorable structure for this thought.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the quote serves as a warning. It reminds us to think critically, even when we are part of a group. While Franz Kafka gets the credit, Leo Longanesi deserves the applause. He identified the terrifying power of collective foolishness first.
The mutation from “historical force” to “political party” perhaps reflects our modern cynicism. We no longer fear vague historical forces. Instead, we fear organized political incompetence. Regardless of the author, the math remains frighteningly accurate.