Churchill the REAL man

Winston Churchill is rightly remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour – but what if he also led the country through her most shameful hour? What if, in addition to rousing a nation to save the world from the Nazis, he fought for a raw white supremacism and a concentration camp network of his own? This question burns through Richard Toye's new history, Churchill's Empire, and is even seeping into the Oval Office.

George W Bush left a bust of Churchill near his desk in the White House, in an attempt to associate himself with the war leader's heroic stand against fascism. Barack Obama had it returned to Britain. It's not hard to guess why: his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill's watch, for resisting Churchill's empire.

He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three "savages".

The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced "the minimum of suffering". The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about."

Many of his colleagues thought Churchill was driven by a deep loathing of democracy for anyone other than the British and a tiny clique of supposedly superior races. This was clearest in his attitude to India. When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Churchill is a man whose name is used by people to further their own ends.

He hated socialism, so the right drag up his quotes against it.
He hated the Islamic faith and had a brutal view of colonial subjects, so bigots churn up his views on Islam.
He was a major voice in the post-war days calling for 'some sort of United States of Europe'.

Funny how the same people who use his quotes on the first two completely neglect his view on Europe.

Didge now tags Churchill's quote on socialism but I better he wouldn't be too keen on parading the views you post above veya haha.

Funny, I used to have Churchill's Europe quote as a sig on flap, yet no one considered it.

He is the unofficial god of Right Wing conservatives yet they are selective in which parts of what he says they choose to put on a pedestal.

Although Churchill could inspire people with his speeches, those things have always made me think that underneath the facade was quite a black soul. I think that the famine in Bengal and the consequent starvation that he refused to allay was completely unforgiveable and the blood of those people was on his hands.

BTW Les, Churchill didn't hate Islam, he wanted to convert to it.

Sir Winston Churchill 's family feared he might convert to Islam
The discovery of a letter to Sir Winston Churchill from his future sister-in-law has thrown new light on his fascination with Islam and Muslim culture

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11314580/Sir-Winston-Churchill-s-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html

Perhaps in view of the things above he did, he might have ended up as a fundamentalist!

Well he didn't have much nice to say about it in his writing, from The River Wars:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/churchillislam.asp#ToyiSUA41oGvqw66.99 wrote:

Having a deep fascination of a particular culture does not mean there is a real risk of conversion. Even embracing certain elements just points to seeking a greater understanding of something (and of course this letter comes 8 years after his quote above).

Ok so maybe not hated, but certainly scathing in his views.

it is pretty apparent he hated everything not 'Proper British'
his depth of racism extended to white people born in the colonies Let alone Blacks and Arabs.

I think Les is right about the Muslim thing I think it was an interest and he was never really looking to convert to it.

Churchill made a lot of noise, but Stalin won WWII.

Original Quill wrote:Churchill made a lot of noise, but Stalin won WWII.

Did he?
That is news to me and every historian going.
All played there part and without western help Russia would have been defeated and in fact it nearly was in both 1941 and 1942, factors played a part in the survival of Russia, espcially the convoys of the allies to Russia itself. In fact the veichles supplied by the west wihich the Russians did not have played a vital role in their battles of encirclement would not have been impossible. Even at the battle of Kursk, they were battlians of Shermans and Churchill tanks that made up the Russian army, showing that Russia had not built up its production by then and was reliant on help from the west. Russia paid the price in blood that is for sure but without western conveys would not have survived in 1941 and 1942.

Chruchill had a respect for the Arabs and its cultures, not so much Islam itself because he also had good and bad points to say on Islam. His family believed because he viewed and dressed like an Arab enjoying its culture but there is no reason to believe he would have converted, just because one family member feared this.


Dr Dockter, who assisted Boris Johnson on his book The Churchill Factor, said: “Not many people are aware that Churchill and T E Lawrence were friends or that they worked together to solve the riddles of the Middle Eastern settlements. Understanding these settlements is paramount to understanding the legacy of Britain in the Middle East.”
Of course, Churchill did not convert to Islam, and Dr Dockter concludes that his fascination was “largely predicated on Victorian notions, which heavily romanticised the nomadic lifestyle and honour culture of the Bedouin tribes”.
Such was his limited understanding of Islam that as colonial secretary during the early 1920s he had to ask what the difference was between Shia and Sunni Muslims, the two major groupings whose long-standing animosity is currently playing out in Syria and Iraq.
As Dr Dockter points out, at least he had the good sense to ask the question in the first place, regarding an issue which bedevils the West’s involvement in the region to this day.

Eilzel wrote:Churchill is a man whose name is used by people to further their own ends.

He hated socialism, so the right drag up his quotes against it.
He hated the Islamic faith and had a brutal view of colonial subjects, so bigots churn up his views on Islam.
He was a major voice in the post-war days calling for 'some sort of United States of Europe'.

Funny how the same people who use his quotes on the first two completely neglect his view on Europe.

Didge now tags Churchill's quote on socialism but I better he wouldn't be too keen on parading the views you post above veya haha.

Funny, I used to have Churchill's Europe quote as a sig on flap, yet no one considered it.

He is the unofficial god of Right Wing conservatives yet they are selective in which parts of what he says they choose to put on a pedestal.

He is one of the greatest leaders Britain has ever had Eilzel and I condemn views and acts he did in India for example.
That shows I recognise he did both good and bad, it does not make his views on socialim any less because he had a poor attitude towards Africans and Asians. If we took that stance nobody would have anything of worth to say on the bad things they said or did.
My quote stands as one that is very true, so why would people quote bad things said or done, would you do that of any that you have chosen Eilzel about people?
Of course not and really is a absurd position to take of people like Churchill.
I certainly am one of the first to denounce bad things he did, but he is one of our greatest leaders and also admire his vision of a united Europe.

Also to claim Churchill hated everything non-British shows they have never studied Churchill or know about his help and action in helping the Arabs of the Middle East.
I wish people would actually study people from history and not invent history to back their poor agenda of hate against the British because they are a sour grapes Frenchie who just cannot get over the fact the British have kicked their butts countless times in history and come to save their arses twice in two world wars.

Original Quill wrote:Churchill made a lot of noise, but Stalin won WWII.

Actually the USA did... when it defeated Japan the Nation that started the War

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007306

September 2, 1945
Having agreed in principle to unconditional surrender on August 14, 1945, Japan formally surrenders, ending World War II.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Churchill made a lot of noise, but Stalin won WWII.

Actually the USA did... when it defeated Japan the Nation that started the War

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007306

September 2, 1945
Having agreed in principle to unconditional surrender on August 14, 1945, Japan formally surrenders, ending World War II.

Wrong again the Allies won the war, no one side won this on their own or could have won this on their own.

But didge you cannot cite Churchill's opinion as though it were substantial when you denounce his opinions on other things. And Churchill's views on socialism are very much just opinion as much as those on Muslims.

Eilzel wrote:But didge you cannot cite Churchill's opinion as though it were substantial when you denounce his opinions on other things. And Churchill's views on socialism are very much just opinion as much as those on Muslims.

Of course I can, as what relevance does his opinions on socialism have to do with his racist views on Asians and Africans? There is no law or concept to make a stance as to what I can or cannot do Eillzel based on views people had in history, to the point if one view is wrong it then makes all others wrong. That is just illogical.
They are opinions, ones which I share his views on socialism, which I think are bang on the money.

However, if you are using Churchill as though his opinion has weight because of who he is then that is devalued if you think some of his views were badly misplaced.

For me and any other leftie here Churchill's views on socialism are as skewed as those on natives.

Eilzel wrote:However, if you are using Churchill as though his opinion has weight because of who he is then that is devalued if you think some of his views were badly misplaced.

For me and any other leftie here Churchill's views on socialism are as skewed as those on natives.

Again that has no bases, if the views are unconnected.
If the views were based on races, then of course they would be of no bearing, but these are two different topics.
One is political views, the other is racial, so why would one be diminished by the other? What you are then saying is for example Blair's views on everything are nullified by his views on war with Iraq, being as these views were wrong and that he lied. Is that what you are claiming?
If his views on race are poor it does not mean his views on political ideas are.
To me he is bang on the money with socialism, it is most definately based on the worst negativity within humans.

Socialism is anything but negative, it is an idealist ideology based on inate human goodness. Churchill is only held in high regard for the war effort- not his philosophy.

Eilzel wrote:Socialism is anything but negative, it is an idealist ideology based on inate human goodness. Churchill is only held in high regard for the war effort- not his philosophy.

That is your opinion mate, I will disagree completely here with you as again it is born from the worst pessimism and negativity. There is nothing ideal about it as it brings about takes away an incentive for people to have goals in their lives to bring about equal misery. People would have no need to do jobs that have skilled education, because all jobs would be basically equal in pay and rewards. The difference is so minimal it brings about a lack of incentive. What need to people have to do this roles, when there is little reward for doing them. This is why socialism has never worked, because it seeks to enforce work roles onto people as it has done in history and always ends up as a Totalitarian system.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Socialism is anything but negative, it is an idealist ideology based on inate human goodness. Churchill is only held in high regard for the war effort- not his philosophy.

That is your opinion mate, I will disagree completely here with you as again it is born from the worst pessimism and negativity. There is nothing ideal about it as it brings about takes away an incentive for people to have goals in their lives to bring about equal misery. People would have no need to do jobs that have skilled education, because all jobs would be basically equal in pay and rewards. The difference is so minimal it brings about a lack of incentive. What need to people have to do this roles, when there is little reward for doing them. This is why socialism has never worked, because it seeks to enforce work roles onto people as it has done in history and always ends up as a Totalitarian system.

So many errors so little time:

1. What pessimism is socialism born from? You can't just make a statement like that without going into details.

2. It is ideal as it involves all people working together with none of the exploitation that takes place (however big or small) in the capitalist system.

3. All jobs wouldn't be equal in pay and reward. This is a myth. SOME socialist thinks MAY have that view but it isn't a prerequisite of socialism.

4. Socialism does not seek to enforce works rules on people.

What you are describing, in a very clunky, ham-fisted way, is socialism/communism as it has been practiced by certain regimes throughout the last 100 years. But saying all those different examples are perfect examples is incorrect.

Socialism seeks a world where everyone works together and no one is taken advantage of.

Socialism would allow REAL equal opportunities for all people.

Socialism would not allow a massive chunk of the global wealth to be controlled by a tiny minority, nor allow 2/3 of the world to live in conditions first worlders wouldn't even consider.

I will show you why it always utterly fails by a simple experiment used by a teacher:


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.
There are five morals to this story:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
I’ll make one final point. There are five morals to the story, but there are dozens of nations giving us real-world examples every day.
Sort of makes you wonder why some people still believe this nonsense? 

Seen it before- again its based on the false premise that socialism seeks to make everyone earn the same.

This is wrong.

1. Socialism doesn't want to make the rich poor.
2. Socialism doesn't want to give people anything for nothing.
3. Under Socialism government shouldn't take from one to give to another- the government should simply ensure those who make profit from the state pay a fair price and that all have equal opportunity to make their way in the world.
4. Socialism doesn't try to multiply money by dividing it, it uses money to ensure everyone has a chance to earn and spend and do well.
5. Again a false premise. Socialism does not want to give money to people for nothing.

The stupid teacher's tale is as can be seen based on a totally false notion of what socialism is. One propagated by the stagnant Right to try and push the idea that socialism is about making people lazy. It is so simple I'd have hoped you wouldn't be so taken in.

But I see how it is- you are happy supporting a capitalist system that can ONLY work by exploiting most of the world and keeping developing countries in perpetual poverty.

Idealism is obviously not something you'd consider.

Eilzel wrote:Seen it before- again its based on the false premise that socialism seeks to make everyone earn the same.

This is wrong.

1. Socialism doesn't want to make the rich poor.
2. Socialism doesn't want to give people anything for nothing.
3. Under Socialism government shouldn't take from one to give to another- the government should simply ensure those who make profit from the state pay a fair price and that all have equal opportunity to make their way in the world.
4. Socialism doesn't try to multiply money by dividing it, it uses money to ensure everyone has a chance to earn and spend and do well.
5. Again a false premise. Socialism does not want to give money to people for nothing.

The stupid teacher's tale is as can be seen based on a totally false notion of what socialism is. One propagated by the stagnant Right to try and push the idea that socialism is about making people lazy. It is so simple I'd have hoped you wouldn't be so taken in.

But I see how it is- you are happy supporting a capitalist system that can ONLY work by exploiting most of the world and keeping developing countries in perpetual poverty.

Idealism is obviously not something you'd consider.

Utter babble again I am afraid Eilzel because the bases and premises does not make any incentive for people to place effort into what they are doing with any reward.
Socialism is nothing short than the envy to deny people the rights to their own rights as people to make a living for themselves as dictated by the power that may be. The teacher is showing on a very basic principle why such a system has and always has failed because it does not understand the human mind or how it fails to factor in human emotions. What you want is what has happened through history is for people to become robots to a system that will never. It is nothing short but a pipe dream that brings equal misery for people based off a poor idea that people should share the same utter misery. You are inventing your own socialism to make something fit when again every example shows why it has never worked in history.

Do not attempt to insult me because I do not share your delusions Eilzel over a system that has never worked because it fails to understand human needs. Just because you fail to provide anything substancial to show in anyway that it can work. It will make people lazy, unless they are forced or given an incentive. Take the USSR where it was patriotism in a war for survival that provided the idealism for the greater production output that followed. Up until that point the USSR had struggled with its output, showing again there is no incentive for people to do better in something that nobody gains anything from. That proves that socialism is not an idealism, it is the opposite.
The fact is this simple experiment shows the short falls in socialism because it fails to factor in the human mind and spirit and seeks to make humans into drones of no idealism. It is a false premises to say it is an ideal, it maybe for you but for the many who have ever lived under such a regeime it has brought nothing but misery.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Seen it before- again its based on the false premise that socialism seeks to make everyone earn the same.

This is wrong.

1. Socialism doesn't want to make the rich poor.
2. Socialism doesn't want to give people anything for nothing.
3. Under Socialism government shouldn't take from one to give to another- the government should simply ensure those who make profit from the state pay a fair price and that all have equal opportunity to make their way in the world.
4. Socialism doesn't try to multiply money by dividing it, it uses money to ensure everyone has a chance to earn and spend and do well.
5. Again a false premise. Socialism does not want to give money to people for nothing.

The stupid teacher's tale is as can be seen based on a totally false notion of what socialism is. One propagated by the stagnant Right to try and push the idea that socialism is about making people lazy. It is so simple I'd have hoped you wouldn't be so taken in.

But I see how it is- you are happy supporting a capitalist system that can ONLY work by exploiting most of the world and keeping developing countries in perpetual poverty.

Idealism is obviously not something you'd consider.

Utter babble again I am afraid Eilzel because the bases and premises does not make any incentive for people to place effort into what they are doing with any reward.
Socialism is nothing short than the envy to deny people the rights to their own rights as people to make a living for themselves as dictated by the power that may be. The teacher is showing on a very basic principle why such a system has and always has failed because it does not understand the human mind or how it fails to factor in human emotions. What you want is what has happened through history is for people to become robots to a system that will never. It is nothing short but a pipe dream that brings equal misery for people based off a poor idea that people should share the same utter misery. You are inventing your own socialism to make something fit when again every example shows why it has never worked in history.

Do not attempt to insult me because I do not share your delusions Eilzel over a system that has never worked because it fails to understand human needs. Just because you fail to provide anything substancial to show in anyway that it can work. It will make people lazy, unless they are forced or given an incentive. Take the USSR where it was patriotism that provided the idealism for the greater production output that followed. Up until that point the USSR had struggled with its output, showing again there is no incentive for people to do better in something that nobody gains anything from.
The fact is this simple experiment shows the short falls in socialism because it fails to factor in the human mind and spirit and seeks to make humans into drones of no idealism. It is a false premises to say it is an ideal, it maybe for you but for the many who have ever lived under such a regeime it has brought nothing but misery.

The highlighted part- where the heck did you drag up this idea?

And again, and I am repeating myself but then you are repeating a tired mantra yourself- socialism DOES NOT seek to make everyone earn the same amount.

Ok, a question- and answer it IF you can.

How would socialism make people lazy if the idea is to give equal opportunity, what EXACTLY is going to make them lazy?

And socialism has only failed for the majority of people in the same countries where capitalism has failed those same people- in fact socialism in parts of South America today is doing MORE than capitalism ever did. Don't see the socialism/capitalism comparison through the lens of US and UK 'success'.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Utter babble again I am afraid Eilzel because the bases and premises does not make any incentive for people to place effort into what they are doing with any reward.
Socialism is nothing short than the envy to deny people the rights to their own rights as people to make a living for themselves as dictated by the power that may be. The teacher is showing on a very basic principle why such a system has and always has failed because it does not understand the human mind or how it fails to factor in human emotions. What you want is what has happened through history is for people to become robots to a system that will never. It is nothing short but a pipe dream that brings equal misery for people based off a poor idea that people should share the same utter misery. You are inventing your own socialism to make something fit when again every example shows why it has never worked in history.

Do not attempt to insult me because I do not share your delusions Eilzel over a system that has never worked because it fails to understand human needs. Just because you fail to provide anything substancial to show in anyway that it can work. It will make people lazy, unless they are forced or given an incentive. Take the USSR where it was patriotism that provided the idealism for the greater production output that followed. Up until that point the USSR had struggled with its output, showing again there is no incentive for people to do better in something that nobody gains anything from.
The fact is this simple experiment shows the short falls in socialism because it fails to factor in the human mind and spirit and seeks to make humans into drones of no idealism. It is a false premises to say it is an ideal, it maybe for you but for the many who have ever lived under such a regeime it has brought nothing but misery.

The highlighted part- where the heck did you drag up this idea?

And again, and I am repeating myself but then you are repeating a tired mantra yourself- socialism DOES NOT seek to make everyone earn the same amount.

Ok, a question- and answer it IF you can.

How would socialism make people lazy if the idea is to give equal opportunity, what EXACTLY is going to make them lazy?

And socialism has only failed for the majority of people in the same countries where capitalism has failed those same people- in fact socialism in parts of South America today is doing MORE than capitalism ever did. Don't see the socialism/capitalism comparison through the lens of US and UK 'success'.

Seriously, you are the one repeating the same old tired drivel here Eilzel because you believe in a system that has no understanding of the human mind which seeks to make people basic slaves to a system, it denies them their freedom to choose based on what you are deciding for them.
What equal opportunity?
If someone has to study 10 years to then do the role of a doctor and is pain the same as someone who cleans the toilets that requires little skill, what opportuinity is there in that, of that the pay difference is minimal? Why bother having to study at all if you can gain the basic pay that others have of being able to do lesser skilled work

It has worked in South America?

::::rotgdflmmfa

Really show me any examples?

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The highlighted part- where the heck did you drag up this idea?

And again, and I am repeating myself but then you are repeating a tired mantra yourself- socialism DOES NOT seek to make everyone earn the same amount.

Ok, a question- and answer it IF you can.

How would socialism make people lazy if the idea is to give equal opportunity, what EXACTLY is going to make them lazy?

And socialism has only failed for the majority of people in the same countries where capitalism has failed those same people- in fact socialism in parts of South America today is doing MORE than capitalism ever did. Don't see the socialism/capitalism comparison through the lens of US and UK 'success'.

Seriously, you are the one repeating the same old tired drivel here Eilzel because you believe in a system that has no understanding of the human mind which seeks to make people basic slaves to a system, it denies them their freedom to choose based on what you are deciding for them.
What equal opportunity?
If someone has to study 10 years to then do the role of a doctor and is pain the same as someone who cleans the toilets that requires little skill, what opportuinity is there in that, of that the pay difference is minimal? Why bother having to study at all if you can gain the basic pay that others have of being able to do lesser skilled work

It has worked in South America?

::::rotgdflmmfa

Really show me any examples?

Read up on places like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia- situations there are not ideal and still developing but HAVE improved with socialism. Looking only at the US and Europe when showing the success of capitalism is disingenuous, since our part of the world benefited massively from the exploitative years of empire and continues to live of its legacy.

And OMFG with the highlighted part- its like you are just ignoring EVERYTHING I've said about socialism not being about paying doctors the same as toilet cleaners- seriously didge that idea is just plain old stupid (the idea, not you, before you get all excitable ) - that is NOT socialism and as long as that's your view of socialism then it will remain clear you are full of rubbish where the subject is concerned.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Seriously, you are the one repeating the same old tired drivel here Eilzel because you believe in a system that has no understanding of the human mind which seeks to make people basic slaves to a system, it denies them their freedom to choose based on what you are deciding for them.
What equal opportunity?
If someone has to study 10 years to then do the role of a doctor and is pain the same as someone who cleans the toilets that requires little skill, what opportuinity is there in that, of that the pay difference is minimal? Why bother having to study at all if you can gain the basic pay that others have of being able to do lesser skilled work

It has worked in South America?

::::rotgdflmmfa

Really show me any examples?

Read up on places like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia- situations there are not ideal and still developing but HAVE improved with socialism. Looking only at the US and Europe when showing the success of capitalism is disingenuous, since our part of the world benefited massively from the exploitative years of empire and continues to live of its legacy.

And OMFG with the highlighted part- its like you are just ignoring EVERYTHING I've said about socialism not being about paying doctors the same as toilet cleaners- seriously didge that idea is just plain old stupid (the idea, not you, before you get all excitable   ) - that is NOT socialism and as long as that's your view of socialism then it will remain clear you are full of rubbish where the subject is concerned.

I knew you would say Venezuela, which clearly you have not read about in the news recently then I guess mate? Argentina?
That is wrong again.
Bolivia?

Sorry you are making me laugh now if you think they are the best you can come up with Eilzel
I am not ignoring anything you have said about socialsim, because again what pay difference and rewards woould each have then Eilzel based on your system of slavery, denying people the choice in life what they wish to earn?

It isn't slavery and they would have a choice on what to earn.

You evidently haven't listened to a single word I've said, so I'll leave it there with this one.

Eilzel wrote:It isn't slavery and they would have a choice on what to earn.

You evidently haven't listened to a single word I've said, so I'll leave it there with this one.

Really show me what difference and what rewards they would have in this Utopiaian existance which is not a reality?
I know all I need to know about socialism, the main reason it fails is because it fails to factor in human emotions and needs.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It isn't slavery and they would have a choice on what to earn.

You evidently haven't listened to a single word I've said, so I'll leave it there with this one.

Really show me what difference and what rewards they would have in this Utopiaian existance which is not a reality?
I know all I need to know about socialism, the main reason it fails is because it fails to factor in human emotions and needs.

A doctor would still earn more than a toilet cleaner under socialism (duh); the difference is that under socialism the cleaner would be earning a more respectable living AND his/her children would have EXACTLY the same  opportunity of being well educated as the children of the doctor.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Really show me what difference and what rewards they would have in this Utopiaian existance which is not a reality?
I know all I need to know about socialism, the main reason it fails is because it fails to factor in human emotions and needs.

A doctor would still earn more than a toilet cleaner under socialism (duh); the difference is that under socialism the cleaner would be earning a more respectable living AND his/her children would have EXACTLY the same  opportunity of being well educated as the children of the doctor.

How much more Eilzel?
Does he aslso benefit when he or she retires or do they both get the same?
I am not saying the cleaner should not recieve a decent living wage, made no issue on that, but the pay levels should be far apart based on having to learn skills and time it takes to do so.
So I have asked you again to say how much?

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

A doctor would still earn more than a toilet cleaner under socialism (duh); the difference is that under socialism the cleaner would be earning a more respectable living AND his/her children would have EXACTLY the same  opportunity of being well educated as the children of the doctor.

How much more Eilzel?
Does he aslso benefit when he or she retires or do they both get the same?
I am not saying the cleaner should not recieve a decent living wage, made no issue on that, but the pay levels should be far apart based on having to learn skills and time it takes to do so.
So I have asked you again to say how much?

A doctor would not be earning less than at the moment. But as the minimum wage should be at least £2 per hour higher than at present the cleaner could reasonably expect to be earning a much higher income. Meanwhile the children of the doctor and cleaner can expect their children to get an equal standard of education giving their children equal opportunities to set themselves up for a good position in the future- and if required the state will help support the cleaner's child through University.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

How much more Eilzel?
Does he aslso benefit when he or she retires or do they both get the same?
I am not saying the cleaner should not recieve a decent living wage, made no issue on that, but the pay levels should be far apart based on having to learn skills and time it takes to do so.
So I have asked you again to say how much?

A doctor would not be earning less than at the moment. But as the minimum wage should be at least £2 per hour higher than at present the cleaner could reasonably expect to be earning a much higher income. Meanwhile the children of the doctor and cleaner can expect their children to get an equal standard of education giving their children equal opportunities to set themselves up for a good position in the future- and if required the state will help support the cleaner's child through University.

That is not socialism on pay structure, you are again trying to make an impossible view fit, when it never does.
Now we are onto education, who said anything about them not have the same advantages?
Both children would grow up knowing they do not have to become a doctor as each knows the cleaner earns enough in life, so why even choose that path, when they both can become cleaners? They both choose the easier life, because the incentive for being a doctor takes years of study when they could be enjoyin themselves and the role of a doctor will have endless hours of stress.
This is why your system is so flawed Eilzel, why both going to all that trouble to have only so much more, when anyone can live well as a cleaner?

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

A doctor would not be earning less than at the moment. But as the minimum wage should be at least £2 per hour higher than at present the cleaner could reasonably expect to be earning a much higher income. Meanwhile the children of the doctor and cleaner can expect their children to get an equal standard of education giving their children equal opportunities to set themselves up for a good position in the future- and if required the state will help support the cleaner's child through University.

That is not socialism on pay structure, you are again trying to make an impossible view fit, when it never does.
Now we are onto education, who said anything about them not have the same advantages?
Both children would grow up knowing they do not have to become a doctor as each knows the cleaner earns enough in life, so why even choose that path, when they both can become cleaners? They both choose the easier life, because the incentive for being a doctor takes years of study when they could be enjoyin themselves and the role of a doctor will have endless hours of stress.
This is why your system is so flawed Eilzel, why both going to all that trouble to have only so much more, when anyone can live well as a cleaner?

Oh come on. The doctor still earns CONSIDERABLY more than the cleaner, the doctor does a more fulfilling job than the cleaner AND the doctor does a less demeaning and incredibly respectable job compared with the cleaner. But main thing is the money- the doctor can still afford a MUCH better standard of living under socialism, of course. Even today didge people can earn £9 an hour doing a much easier job than a doctor but people still want to be doctors.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

That is not socialism on pay structure, you are again trying to make an impossible view fit, when it never does.
Now we are onto education, who said anything about them not have the same advantages?
Both children would grow up knowing they do not have to become a doctor as each knows the cleaner earns enough in life, so why even choose that path, when they both can become cleaners? They both choose the easier life, because the incentive for being a doctor takes years of study when they could be enjoyin themselves and the role of a doctor will have endless hours of stress.
This is why your system is so flawed Eilzel, why both going to all that trouble to have only so much more, when anyone can live well as a cleaner?

Oh come on. The doctor still earns CONSIDERABLY more than the cleaner, the doctor does a more fulfilling job than the cleaner AND the doctor does a less demeaning and incredibly respectable job compared with the cleaner. But main thing is the money- the doctor can still afford a MUCH better standard of living under socialism, of course. Even today didge people can earn £9 an hour doing a much easier job than a doctor but people still want to be doctors.

It does not matter and this is what you fail to see. Now everyone only needs to be a clearner because life is easy being a cleaner much more so than the years of study needed to become a doctor. Seriously, if you can live very well as a clearner, are you going to waste 10 years of life studying to do a job which is filled with so much stress, when you can enjoy ten years of comfort doing a job which only pays less but brings you many comforts in the world?
You see there is little or no incentive to become a doctor, you have nullified the need to be one.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Oh come on. The doctor still earns CONSIDERABLY more than the cleaner, the doctor does a more fulfilling job than the cleaner AND the doctor does a less demeaning and incredibly respectable job compared with the cleaner. But main thing is the money- the doctor can still afford a MUCH better standard of living under socialism, of course. Even today didge people can earn £9 an hour doing a much easier job than a doctor but people still want to be doctors.

It does not matter and this is what you fail to see. Now everyone only needs to be a clearner because life is easy being a cleaner much more so than the years of study needed to become a doctor. Seriously, if you can live very well as a clearner, are you going to waste 10 years of life studying to do a job which is filled with so much stress, when you can enjoy ten years of comfort doing a job which only pays less but brings you many comforts in the world?
You see there is little or no incentive to become a doctor, you have nullified the need to be one.

Ok, so right now a factory worker can earn £15 or more with little stress and no qualifications. A cleaner under socialism still wouldn't earn that much.

So tell me didge why do we have doctors now when, according to your logic, they could just be factory workers?

You see your thinking has already failed in the face of the reality of today.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


It does not matter and this is what you fail to see. Now everyone only needs to be a clearner because life is easy being a cleaner much more so than the years of study needed to become a doctor. Seriously, if you can live very well as a clearner, are you going to waste 10 years of life studying to do a job which is filled with so much stress, when you can enjoy ten years of comfort doing a job which only pays less but brings you many comforts in the world?
You see there is little or no incentive to become a doctor, you have nullified the need to be one.

Ok, so right now a factory worker can earn £15 or more with little stress and no qualifications. A cleaner under socialism still wouldn't earn that much.

So tell me didge why do we have doctors now when, according to your logic, they could just be factory workers?

You see your thinking has already failed in the face of the reality of today.

You are just making things up and more right wing as you go along Eilzel.
This is why they more you make something equal in levels of pay and the less need there is of people to study and take on skilled work and at every turn you fail to see that.
Well Doctors earn 100k, a factory work 14K, one has to work until they are less than 60 the former, the later untill they are 68 if not longer.
Can you see the incentive there?
Its massive.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ok, so right now a factory worker can earn £15 or more with little stress and no qualifications. A cleaner under socialism still wouldn't earn that much.

So tell me didge why do we have doctors now when, according to your logic, they could just be factory workers?

You see your thinking has already failed in the face of the reality of today.

You are just making things up and more right wing as you go along Eilzel.
This is why they more you make something equal in levels of pay and the less need there is of people to study and take on skilled work and at every turn you fail to see that.
Well Doctors earn 100k, a factory work 14K, one has to work until they are less than 60 the former, the later untill they are 68 if not longer.
Can you see the incentive there?
Its massive.

Hmmm, my dad is a factory worker didge and he earns around £20K a year or more. That is an easily livable amount but clearly at 5x that rate there is plenty of incentive to be a doctor. That wouldn't disappear under socialism evidently. I'm talking about cleaners (and agency workers, bar workers etc) being closer to that 20K mark- still a massive amount less than a doctor, BUT still a livable amount.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You are just making things up and more right wing as you go along Eilzel.
This is why they more you make something equal in levels of pay and the less need there is of people to study and take on skilled work and at every turn you fail to see that.
Well Doctors earn 100k, a factory work 14K, one has to work until they are less than 60 the former, the later untill they are 68 if not longer.
Can you see the incentive there?
Its massive.

Hmmm, my dad is a factory worker didge and he earns around £20K a year or more. That is an easily livable amount but clearly at 5x that rate there is plenty of incentive to be a doctor. That wouldn't disappear under socialism evidently. I'm talking about cleaners (and agency workers, bar workers etc) being closer to that 20K mark- still a massive amount less than a doctor, BUT still a livable amount.

Sorry you want to quibble over 6k?
still an 80k difference?
That would n ot disappear under socialism?
PMSL Eilzel, you are just making your sopcialism more right wing by the minute.
You are saying there would not be a much closer gap beteen the two wages.
Yopu are telling porkies now Eilzel

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Hmmm, my dad is a factory worker didge and he earns around £20K a year or more. That is an easily livable amount but clearly at 5x that rate there is plenty of incentive to be a doctor. That wouldn't disappear under socialism evidently. I'm talking about cleaners (and agency workers, bar workers etc) being closer to that 20K mark- still a massive amount less than a doctor, BUT still a livable amount.

Sorry you want to quibble over 6k?
still an 80k difference?
That would n ot disappear under socialism?
PMSL Eilzel, you are just making your sopcialism more right wing by the minute.
You are saying there would not be a much closer gap beteen the two wages.
Yopu are telling porkies now Eilzel

6K is huge for someone earning 14-20K didge. Under certain interpretations of communism the gap would be smaller or non existent of course, but such a thing is not a prerequisite of socialism.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sorry you want to quibble over 6k?
still an 80k difference?
That would n ot disappear under socialism?
PMSL Eilzel, you are just making your sopcialism more right wing by the minute.
You are saying there would not be a much closer gap beteen the two wages.
Yopu are telling porkies now Eilzel

6K is huge for someone earning 14-20K didge. Under certain interpretations of communism the gap would be smaller or non existent of course, but such a thing is not a prerequisite of socialism.

Not to 100k it is not Eilzel.
I never made a view on whether it was a big deal to someone on 20k to 14k, i was using thwe average of a factoy worker, not what your dad earns.
I never said it would equal once, look back I said the structure would be minimal in difference. Again though as seen socialism would nullify the need for many people to do highly skilled jobs.

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

6K is huge for someone earning 14-20K didge. Under certain interpretations of communism the gap would be smaller or non existent of course, but such a thing is not a prerequisite of socialism.

Not to 100k it is not Eilzel.
I never made a view on whether it was a big deal to someone on 20k to 14k, i was using thwe average of a factoy worker, not what your dad earns.
I never said it would equal once, look back I said the structure would be minimal in difference. Again though as seen socialism would nullify the need for many people to do highly skilled jobs.

I'm going to break this down for you now so you shouldn't misunderstand again.

Socialism would pay people to earn a livable wage.
My dad earns the average for a (non-agency) factory worker- little more than 20K without OT.
Everyone should be earning closer to that amount (20K)
For people currently earning 14K the jump would clearly be immense and improve living standards.
This would encourage people to work and increase spending.
This would NOT remove the incentive to be a doctor, since a doctor would still earn much much more.
So everyone would be treated FAIRLY but the incentive to do highly skilled jobs would still exist BOTH it terms of job satisfaction AND income.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Not to 100k it is not Eilzel.
I never made a view on whether it was a big deal to someone on 20k to 14k, i was using thwe average of a factoy worker, not what your dad earns.
I never said it would equal once, look back I said the structure would be minimal in difference. Again though as seen socialism would nullify the need for many people to do highly skilled jobs.

I'm going to break this down for you now so you shouldn't misunderstand again.

Socialism would pay people to earn a livable wage.
My dad earns the average for a (non-agency) factory worker- little more than 20K without OT.
Everyone should be earning closer to that amount (20K)
For people currently earning 14K the jump would clearly be immense and improve living standards.
This would encourage people to work and increase spending.
This would NOT remove the incentive to be a doctor, since a doctor would still earn much much more.
So everyone would be treated FAIRLY but the incentive to do highly skilled jobs would still exist BOTH it terms of job satisfaction AND income.

Great you have no deflected away from the argument being made again onto what you think people should earn.
Epic fail
I certainly agree that the living wage should be better though 20k is too high, 18k is fine.
Second the point claiming the gap would still be as big is not socialism in any shape or form, it is still capitalism. The goal in socialism is to bring abvout a sensible range in income for people, of which the GP would be seen as too high in every scenario. Again if I earn enough and live comfortablly I have no utter need to become a GP, why bother, I now earn enough to live life well. I can be instead a planner and earn 60k which needs less education and training.
Seriously you are clutching at straws mate.

Your view that there is an amount that is enough for people to not want more totally fails when you consider many jobs pay 20K or more yet people still want to be doctors, bankers, businessmen etc- why do people do those jobs when they could work in a factory or be a sale rep for 20K?

Eilzel wrote:Your view that there is an amount that is enough for people to not want more totally fails when you consider many jobs pay 20K or more yet people still want to be doctors, bankers, businessmen etc- why do people do those jobs when they could work in a factory or be a sale rep for 20K?

Because 20k is not enough for many people, they want more and a better way of life, which 20k does not give them.
Can you not understand that.
It certainly is plenty to live on, what you fail to understand again is the human mind, why socialism never factors in the human mind and is flawed.
Is this starting to sink in yet?

OMG, I do understand that, but already explained the socialism simply seeks to give everyone a decent standard or living (which 20K does). And that is WHY socialism would NOT kill incentive.

Got it?

Eilzel wrote:OMG, I do understand that, but already explained the socialism simply seeks to give everyone a decent standard or living (which 20K does). And that is WHY socialism would NOT kill incentive.

Got it?

"Got it?"

Seriously this is why lefties are so intolerant.
"Yes boss, I get it, dont hit me boss because I disgaree with you boss, I will pick all the cotten in the fields boss".

I think lefties are more intolerant than the right.
You have no understood any of my points and still fail to Eilzel.
I have shown the flaws here, you choose not to accept them because you believe in an illusion that has never worked and will never work since its conception. The fact you fail to see that is because you refuse to accept it does not work.

Anyway as this was about you again trying to dictate what I should have as my quote. You made the really silly notion that a view had to be wrong based on racism which was absurd, when the view was on politics made by Churchill.
You do not like my quote, that is your problem Eilzel, not mine, but one thing I can see is how intolerant the left are of others if like me I disagree with them on a topic and why ideas always are bad whether religious or politics, they make people angry over nothing

.

Thank you Eilzel, I have learnt a valuable lesson today.

I said got it not out of intolerance but out of exasperation, as you have throughout this entire discussion fallen back on the tired and false belief that socialists want everyone to earn a similar income.

I'm done with this as well in any case.

Eilzel wrote:I said got it not out of intolerance but out of exasperation, as you have throughout this entire discussion fallen back on the tired and false belief that socialists want everyone to earn a similar income.

I'm done with this as well in any case.

So because you view me to a view of not taking on baord your views is a reason to being intolerant?
Is that what you are saying?
My view is wrong to you and you get annoyed over me not accepting your point of view.
I am showing clearly that the view has never worked and that it has flaws, you do not accept my position but I am not becoming frustrated like you are, am I?
What does that say about the two of us here and tolerance levels?


All the best.

You have told me that your version of what I think is wrong. You see the problem there? You are telling me what I think.