Election 2005: The Respect Coalition

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I've found it increasingly worrying to hear in the Socialist Worker newspaper, as well as on many left-wing party websites, that we should be voting for Respect candidates in the up and coming election. Ever since it's glorious beginnings I've seen this joke of a party as being just as reactionary as Galloway. He and his candidates keep telling us that we need peace and that the left doesn't condone war. As an ardent left-winger and very much an anti-Blair voter, I supported the war in Iraq fully for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It will probably be the only thing I'll ever agree with Tony Blair on. The Respect Coalition are doing just what the Conservatives are doing: reacting to the mainstream media's *****ing about issues. With the Tories it's immigration, with Respect it's the war. So Saddam was no threat to British security and so British soldiers have died. But is internationalism not the essence of Socialism? I therefore see need to praise Tony Blair for those exact reasons, i.e. Hussein was no threat to Britain, because does this not show he acted from an internationalist stance? Don't get me wrong though, I despise Tony Blair.

So why vote Respect? If they get a seat in Parliament, what will they say? "The war was illegal and wrong and innocent people have died". Superb. Thanks for that George. I heard Galloway say "our aim is to prevent future wars". What a genius. He's going to prevent all of those planned wars we've heard about from happening. We've just finished war with Iraq and countries with weapons are agreeing to talk. The chances of war at this point in time are zero. So Galloway is going to prevent what? Arguing to prevent war at the moment is the easiest job in the world because it is not going to happen. A frog could do it.

I also heard him say he would fight for ethnic communities and speak in Parliament to unite people of all races. This I heard just days before I read in the Socialist Worker that he had spoken at an Asian-only British Asian Council meeting. That must've been quite a meeting in which to help unite races. These different "communities", "councils" and "committees" of ethnic minority groups do just as much to divide Britains races as the BNP. And I am the son of an African Muslim immigrant who recognises this.

I find it peversely hysterical that the websites of The CPGB, The CPB, The SWP, The SSP, The Socialist Alliance, as well as The Socialist Worker Newspaper and, to an extent, The Morning Star ALL promote a vote for Respect. It speaks volumes for what the left-wing is today and for what it's leaders are today: cowardly reactionaries. Unfortunately, unsuspecting youths who want to help the left-wing cause will be drawn into this reactionary spirit and they will vote Respect. I would urge anyone who would be voting for them to change their mind. It will not further the voice of the left-wing nor it's negligable input into modern day Britain. Yes, we need unity, but not behind the reactionary followers of Galloway and Respect. We need unity behind a party and leaders who have a pro-active vision and a plan for Britain. A set of reasonable ideals we can put forward to an irrate British people, not just arguments against a war that is finished and that was anyway, in my view, worth it to rid the world of a killing machine.

Do not put your X in the Respect box.

[COLOR=red]Sorry for all the spelling errors for those who read this early on, and also the spelling error in the title! Dodgy sticky keyboard!

[redstar2000]

Why the urge to vote at all? It's a meaningless ceremony that has no effect on real political power in the U.K.

However, if you are unfortunately possessed of an "irresistible itch" to vote, I see no reasonable objection to voting for RESPECT...those votes, whatever their number, will be perceived as opposition to the war criminal Tony Blair and his lackeys.

What's the matter with that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Jersey Devil]

The war isn't even going to be that big of an issue in the election. If it were, then the Lib Dems would way ahead in the polls.

[OleMarxco]

I think soldifying a whole election concentrated on one big fat fuckin' issue, is ridicilous. WHAT ABOUT THEIR INLAND LEADERSHIP THEN, HUH!? THEIR HANDLING OF ECONOMICS? Is what all matters is the BLOODY WAR?! To hell with it, just overthrow the whole goddamn shit, I don't give a fuck.

[bunk]

Vote green party, George Galloway is an idiot, who drives a mercedes

[bolshevik butcher]

SSP isn't a bad option but they only run in scotland, and while Galloway himself is a prick he does a good job of highlighting issues on the left, and does make good speaches. He is unfortunatley an egotisitcal prick.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:40 AM
However, if you are unfortunately possessed of an "irresistible itch" to vote, I see no reasonable objection to voting for RESPECT...those votes, whatever their number, will be perceived as opposition to the war criminal Tony Blair and his lackeys.

What's the matter with that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The matter is that 'Respect' is at the pinnacle of reactionary thought. They run on only the loosest left-wing basis, using race as an issue wherever they stand - they are the opposite of the BNP, but still use race in a reactionary way.
They stand their candidates as 'the only Muslim candidate' in areas full of other ethnic minorities in such a way that offends others, and they support faith schools to appease the Muslim Council of Britain.
A vote for them is wasted - if there is no left winger, spoil your paper - thats the way to protest against the war without voting for twats.

[h&s]

I find it peversely hysterical that the websites of The CPGB, The CPB, The SWP, The SSP, The Socialist Alliance, as well as The Socialist Worker Newspaper and, to an extent, The Morning Star ALL promote a vote for Respect. It speaks volumes for what the left-wing is today and for what it's leaders are today: cowardly reactionaries.
Hey, the AWL tell you to vote for Labour not Respect if there are no left-wingers in the area!
How does that work?
:blink:

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 3 2005, 03:33 PM

I find it peversely hysterical that the websites of The CPGB, The CPB, The SWP, The SSP, The Socialist Alliance, as well as The Socialist Worker Newspaper and, to an extent, The Morning Star ALL promote a vote for Respect. It speaks volumes for what the left-wing is today and for what it's leaders are today: cowardly reactionaries.
Hey, the AWL tell you to vote for Labour not Respect if there are no left-wingers in the area!
How does that work?
:blink:
Maybe its based on labour having union links? Personally i'd much rather vote respect, i don't have a vote anyway.

[h&s]

No they are trying to claim that there are more Lefties in Labour than Respect!
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/40...4d0e4e80eff366d (http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/4049?PHPSESSID=da2327f619f1bebae4d0e4e80eff366d)
:blink:

[bolshevik butcher]

strange, wouldn't greens be a good choice if you hate respect that much.

[h&s]

Nah, just make a new box on your ballot slip, write 'socialist' and make your cross there. ;)
The Greens do good things, but not anything for the working class

[bolshevik butcher]

h and s surley it's better to vote green than not at all?

[viva le revolution]

No use voting! Britain's political party's are all capitalistic with backing from Upper-class financiers. Vote green whatever! No party has a true marxist agenda. i'll bet if u ask Galloway about deposing the monarchy he would consider it politically incorrect to answer! The only way to ensure worker's rule is through revolution! not some meaningless drama! What will u gey when u ask a politician about kicking out the upper class he will look at you as if you were from the moon. If there was a marxist party it would working to bring about a revolution and not contesting some stupid election riding a mercedes!

[h&s]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 3 2005, 07:32 PM
h and s surley it's better to vote green than not at all?
Because they are capitalists.... :rolleyes:
I'd rather not vote at all than have to pick the least capitalist party.
They claim to be against privatisation and the like, but just look at their record - they backed the privatisation of council housing in Brighton, claiming that's what the people wanted. They ignored the fact that the survey they based their figures on was based on so few people it was "statistically meaningless." (UNISON)
Plus what left-wing things the Greens would do would not be done on a revolutionary basis, let alone a class basis, so why should I vote for them?

[YKTMX]

The Labour candidate George Galloway is standing against is a totally reprehensible war mongering Blairite called Oona King.

Let me discount Socialismo's support for the organised bloodbath in Iraq - that's ridicilous even on its own terms.

But what about the issue of "voting" itself. Does voting/standing mean you legitimate the "whole shabang"?

The answer clearly is no.

If socialists want to make the "revolution" happen, then they have to tackle the tricky issue of actually talking to ordinary people.

It simply won't suffice to take part in endless obscure talking shops about "fraudulent bourgeois democracy".

The goal to win is to win people to radical, working class ideas - not engaging in youthful shouting about "glorious days", "urban guerilla warfare" or even, dare I say it "Marxism". What the British working class needs more than anything right now is a bit of representation, and Galloway and Respect will provide that better than anybody else right now. That - and that fact that he's a strident anti-imperialist - means he deserves the COMPLETE support of all real revolutionaries, socialists or whatever.

Still, no doubt nutcases like the AWL and the Anarchists will take no heed.

[bolshevik butcher]

I agree, it's better George Galloway than some blairite.

[FriedFrog]

There is really no point of voting reactionary. Really, if you want a protest vote, go and hold up a big banner outside the polling station and take a leaf out of h&s' book. Give the vote counters a laugh and hopefully they'll lose count and have to start counting their little batch again ;)

[YKTMX]

Oh yeah, that's the way to go - idiot.

[bolshevik butcher]

what do you expect froma guy who's name is based on a stalin quote? There's no point, it's better to have the lesser of the evils on offer.

[redstar2000]

The Ghost of Labour's Past. (http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/)

Scroll down the page a little for a brief and interesting history of the wretched "Labour" Party.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

That's an excellent Blog Red, I'm an avid reader.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well the result is imminent and I think we all know what it's going to be.

For all of you who talk about some radical, overthrowing revolution, you are idiots. The only way Socialism is going to return to British politics is through progression. Have you not studied the sociology of this country. Revolution is completely not going to happen. We have neither the right society or a people with the right mindset. Even things such as top-up fees, NHS plans and wars which many people disagreed with did nothin to rouse any sort of attitude to commit to serious revolt.

It is also insulting and degrading when you say how useless the vote is. Those of you who are saying it is useless are probably from the typical white middle class families who have done so much to devalue the vote, but people fought for years to allow me to be in the position to vote for my government and I for one am not going to call it useless. There are whole classes, genders and races who gave eveything to get a vote and you all go around saying it's worthless. Well go back and sit in front of the fire with Mummy and Daddy while we all go and try to help this country progress. Fuckin yuppies.

For those of you who are respondingly intelligently to this debate, I found it interesting that The Morning Star was pushing for a Labour vote this morning. Merely as a "lesser of two evils" vote, but this still suprised me. It also mentioned the fact that Brown may be taking over as a positive thing. I would like to think Brown would do more to return Labour to old ways, but I can't say I'm wholly confident. For the Morning Star to suggest this is very interesting.

YouKnowTheyMurderedX, you'd prefer more Iraqis to be being tortured, killed and living in fear? Yes, many died, but people die for causes. How many innocents died in the war against Hitler? Or do you not think that was a justified war either?

[LSD]

How many innocents died in the war against Hitler? Or do you not think that was a justified war either?

Hitler invaded Poland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Britain, Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Italy, Morroco, Egypt, and Danizg...

Who did Iraq invade again?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o Muerte
For all of you who talk about some radical, overthrowing revolution, you are idiots.

et tu? :lol:


It is also insulting and degrading when you say how useless the vote is. Those of you who are saying it is useless are probably from the typical white middle class families who have done so much to devalue the vote, but people fought for years to allow me to be in the position to vote for my government and I for one am not going to call it useless. There are whole classes, genders and races who gave everything to get a vote and you all go around saying it's worthless. Well go back and sit in front of the fire with Mummy and Daddy while we all go and try to help this country progress. Fuckin yuppies.

Helping the country "progress" by voting for the war criminal party.

Hey, what a great idea! :lol:

The fact is, guy, you have insulted and degraded yourself...the most we "idiots" are guilty of is pointing out the obvious.

See you in Basra, sucker!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chebol]

questions and challenges for the British comrades on these forums:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/47.stm

Result: Bethnal Green & Bow
RES GAIN FROM LAB

TOP THREE PARTIES AT A GLANCE
Respect-Unity Coalition 35.9%
Labour 34.0%
Conservative 14.2%
Swing: 26.2% from LAB to RES
IN DETAIL
Name Party Votes % +/- %
George Galloway Respect-Unity Coalition 15,801 35.9 +35.9
Oona King Labour 14,978 34.0 -16.5
Shahagir Faruk Conservative 6,244 14.2 -10.1
Syed Dulu Liberal Democrat 4,928 11.2 -4.3
John Foster Green 1,950 4.4 +0.1
Ejiro Etefia Alliance for Change 68 0.2 +0.2
Celia Pugh Independent 38 0.1 +0.1
Majority 823 1.9
Turnout 44,007 51.2 +1.0

[Edward Norton]

Well the result is imminent and I think we all know what it's going to be.

For all of you who talk about some radical, overthrowing revolution, you are idiots. The only way Socialism is going to return to British politics is through progression. Have you not studied the sociology of this country. Revolution is completely not going to happen. We have neither the right society or a people with the right mindset. Even things such as top-up fees, NHS plans and wars which many people disagreed with did nothin to rouse any sort of attitude to commit to serious revolt.

It is also insulting and degrading when you say how useless the vote is. Those of you who are saying it is useless are probably from the typical white middle class families who have done so much to devalue the vote, but people fought for years to allow me to be in the position to vote for my government and I for one am not going to call it useless. There are whole classes, genders and races who gave eveything to get a vote and you all go around saying it's worthless. Well go back and sit in front of the fire with Mummy and Daddy while we all go and try to help this country progress. Fuckin yuppies.

For those of you who are respondingly intelligently to this debate, I found it interesting that The Morning Star was pushing for a Labour vote this morning. Merely as a "lesser of two evils" vote, but this still suprised me. It also mentioned the fact that Brown may be taking over as a positive thing. I would like to think Brown would do more to return Labour to old ways, but I can't say I'm wholly confident. For the Morning Star to suggest this is very interesting.

YouKnowTheyMurderedX, you'd prefer more Iraqis to be being tortured, killed and living in fear? Yes, many died, but people die for causes. How many innocents died in the war against Hitler? Or do you not think that was a justified war either?


Well when you say that revolution won't happen in Britain because of the 'sociology of the country' do you mean to imply that British capitalism is somehow immune to being abolished???

No capitalist system is everlasting. Thats basic Marxism!

If you have ever read Marx then you would be aware that revolutions would break out in the most ADVANCED capitalist countries, not the third world.

Although uprisings and civil wars do occur in the third world, they do not result in real socialist/communist societies, but anti imperialist regimes that usually develope their economies outside the scope of international capitalism and US led imperialism. This in itself only puts the third world on the path to communism as the third world countries will move from fuedalism with a peasant based population to developed capitalist systems with a large working class population. This process is needed for socialism/communism to even happen.

Britain is a developed industrialised capitalist state with a large working class population and there is NOTHING to indicate that Britain is somehow going to escape revolution.

This is based on the economic contradictions that exist in EVERY capitalist system, not on the unMarxist method of just saying that this or that wont happen because of some 'opinion poll' or what some teacher/lecturer/academic told you.

When this time comes, it will NOT be unique to this country. When the global economy takes a big drop, which it could well do in the next 5 to 10 years (based on the predictions of the global capitalist systems own economists), there would be working class unrest throughout the world and unrest in Britain would be tied with the wave of working class unrest that would be sweeping Europe. Britain is tied into Europe both economically and politically, not to mention socially, so any working unrest over in Europe would influence the conduct of what the working class would do in Britain.

Elections and Parliament are of NO use to the working class, both in Britain and abroad we have seen that EVERY attempt to establish a socialist system have FAILED! Some have failed in bloody counter revolution; like in Spain in 1936 and Chile in 1973 and Guatemala in 1954. Then you have other attempts that end in social democrats coming to power on a radical ticket and then as soon as they get into office they sell out the working class and implement attacks on the working class that are just as savage or even worse in some cases as their conservative oppenents; France 1983, Ecuador 2002, Brazil 2002 and every Labour government in Britain up until 1979 (I wont even put the Blairite Labour party in this catagory as they are an out and out right wing party).

Its so typical of reformists like yourself to label anyone how doesn't agree with your very confused and incoherent view of things as 'yuppies' or middle class 'armchair revolutionaries'. Yes there most likely are SOME people on this forum who fit that description (and I criticised those types on another post for being all talk and no action), but to label ALL of those who don't agree with you is just lazy and shows a lot of WEAKNESS in your own post. It's an age old tactic that if you can't win over your opponent with your own arguement you simply make personal attacks and do character assinations.

I would like to ask YOU if you are either A: a student, B: middle class or C: live with your parents?

If you answer yes to any of these then you will only expose yourself as a hypocrite as well.

And for your information, I disagree with you on your whole post. Elections achieve nothing, voting is nothing but a charade and revolution is the ONLY way out of capitalism. Yet Im not some well off yuppie or a student or some kid who lives at their parents. I have to work long hours and so far have never had any money for myself after paying my rent and bills. Infact I am backdating on my council tax by 3 months and had to borrow money from a friend just so I could pay my electric bill to save myself having to live in the dark.

So unless you actually KNOW of anyone and who they really are, don't fucking second guess and label people just because you can't put a coherent point across in a paragraph!

Another comical remark you make is that middle class people and the well off are somehow 'insulting the democratic system' that so many people had 'fought hard to win' by saying votes are a waste of time.

Do you live in a run down part of some city where most people live in council estates, are unemployed, kids end up going into crime because of the lack of any other alternative, homeless people on most street corners and nearly everyone fare dodges, because they cannot afford the train/bus tickets (including myself)?

I happen to live in a part of London like that. I can tell you now that the areas that are like the one I live in have much LOWER voter turnout than the nice green leafy middle class suburbs. Its a well known fact that the middle class voter turnout has always been HIGH compared to other classes.

And your mention that those critics of these fake elections are somehow a bunch of white rich kids, well its a well known fact that black people have the lowest voter turnout amongst any ethnic group in Britain, who can blame them when every party only promises more police and prisons, which means they end up with more oppression and police brutality instead of being taken out of poverty.

Now Labour have become the new party of business, the 'party of government' (which means the establishment party and the main capitalist party of the state) the workers see the complete futility of these so-called elections.

Why vote when both parties shape their policies to the needs of their capitalist paymasters, when both parties screw the workers at every chance they get?

Besides do you really think the capitalist class would allow capitalism to be 'voted out of office' (assuming your pie in the sky fantasy of a socialist election victory would take place)?

Capitalism has no 'moral hang ups' about spilling blood if it keeps them in power.

Look at the miners struggle of 1984-85, the right wing thugs the establishment likes to call the police put and end to any hope that peacful 'leagal' means would somehow benefit the workers.

You then use the old moral blackmail twist by saying that to criticise capitalist elections is somehow an insult to those who fought for it. Well with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, not to mention laws made by this 'elected' government that virtually make it illegal to be poor, like the recent anti begging law and new laws against living rough or sqautting, it seems that tohse who fought for the right to vote in the past WASTED THEIR TIME AND THEIR EFFORTS WERE IN VAIN!

And you make the equally stupid claim that Gordon Brown would somehow be a BETTER leader. This being the same man who has been responsible for most of the attacks on the working class since 1997 and who works hand in hand with all of the other reactionary 'Labour' cabinet ministers, including his alleged rival, Blair!

This so-called Blair/Brown rivalry is nothing but an illusion. Its been hatched up by a disgusting combination of social democrats and the capitalist class. The social democrats don't like the fact that the workers are now COORECTLY seeing Labour as their enemy and are turing their backs on this party and the capitalist class who now reconise that Blair is unpopular and will now let him take the bullet for the problems that THEY have caused and they want people to let their anger be taken out on a lone individual (Blair) insted of letting it get to the stage where people would see through that and see that the system is at fault as a whole.

The Morning Star is the paper of the now VERY small pro Soviet CPB. An old husk of the once great Communist party that did exist before WW2. But their inability to reconise the failure of the USSR or the fact it wasn't even socialist/communist, their ritual of asking people to vote Labour at every election and of being totally absent in any workers/poor peoples struggle means that they are just one of many VERY small and irrelevant 'parties' (more like a groups and small social get togethers) that make up the pathetic state of the 'revolutionary' left in toadys Britain.

On Iraq you make the claim that proir to 2003 EVERYONE in Iraq lived in fear.

Yet somehow, now that whole cities are being bombed from the air by US/UK fighter jets, US/UK troops torturing Iraqi civilians at random to satisfy their racist bloodlust, their whole national infustructure destroyed (with no electricty, running water, jobs or health system) and their country under US occupation, that somehow they now live in 'peace and happiness' is the most stupid thing Ive read on this forum (even the opposing ideologies section, which personally I think you should belong anyways).

In 2 years of occupation, 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by US/UK forces. Saddam Hussien killed around 500,000 in 23 years of power, just on the numbers arguement alone, after 10 years of occupation, the US/UK would have KILLED MORE IRAQIS THAN SADDAM HUSSIEN!

Do you really think that the occupation is there for the 'benefit' of the Iraqis?

Well it isn't, it is there for many reasons, all revolving around the needs of America, Isreal and many multi national corporations.

Besides the oil, America wanted to shore up it's regional guard dog in the region, Isreal and to project and assert it's own power in the region, against other rising nations that threaten the monopoly America's tyrannical grip on the world.

You mentioned this in the context of internationalism, well working class internationalism has NOTHING to do with imperialist wars and racist bloodthirsty occupations, which is exactly what the occputation of Iraq is!

Sorry to break the bad news but the so-called 'democratic government of Iraq', the puppet regime installed by the US (despite the US hyping up the democratic element of this vile regime, most of them are exiles who came from abroad and don't represent the Iraqi people in any way), doesn't even make the laws in Iraq, 250 or so laws the US made regarding privitisation and the US getting/stealing Iraqi oil are unable to be reversed by this so-called 'democracy' in Baghdad.

So much for liberation!!!

Most Iraqis hate the Americans and are bravely fighting them, against all the odds. Unlike you, who would most likely cheer on when some US warplane blows an Iraqi town to bits, I support, with great pride, the Iraqi resistance. Anti imperialism is a VITAL cornerstone in the workers stuggle as every third world land liberated from imperialism means the lessening on capitalist exploitation of the third world, no more cheap sweatshops or the plundering of resources that are not our in the first place. This in turn means that the capitalist system has less to exploit and therefore a lower profit margin, which in turn opens up the contradictions in its system that need to be shown if capitalism is to collapse.

At the end of the day the Iraqi resistance has mass support and will drive the US/UK out like the NLF did in Vietnam, regardless of how 'noble' you think the invasion was, as at the end of the day, the Iraqi people don't give a shit about what you think, who the fuck are you to dictate to them about the 'benefits' of occupation anyway.

Your disgusting and vile, not to mention downright racist, remark that 100,000 Iraqis had to die for a "cause", an imperialist cause at that which no sane left winger would ever support, would get you lots of attention in Iraq if you were there.

And here do you expose your OWN hypocracy, its ok to have a go at labelling people 'yuppies/rich kids' when they don't agree with your stupid and imperialistic views, yet are YOU in Iraq, if you believe in the "cause" so much???

Like I said, say what you said about shrugging your shoulders at the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis in Iraq instead of in the comfort of your own home, the Iraqis you kill you on the spot for that remark.

Mind you they may do everyone on this board a favour!

Since your NOT a Marxist, a socialist, a communist or a left winger of any sort, why don't you either piss off to opposing ideologies of piss off altogether as I can't understand why you would even be attracted to this forum!

[RedAnarchist]

More people didnt vote than those who voted Labour&#33; <_<

There&#39;s a lot of talk about this election result "punishing" Blair for the whole Iraq fracas, but i dont think it will stop him trying to do the same thing again. You have to remember that he only wants one more term - and a Premier like that is a very dangerous man to have as your country&#39;s Prime Minister in many ways.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

More people didn&#39;t vote than those who voted for Labour last year as well. That was no suprise.

As for Edward Norton&#39;s post: you&#39;ve been here for 85 posts, so don&#39;t question why I joined the forum as you&#39;ve no knowledge of anything else I&#39;ve posted. Also, seeing that you&#39;ve been here such a short time, I&#39;ll forgive the fact that your last post has been an argument put forward god-knows how many times in forums on the war. I&#39;m not going to reply again with the same answers as I have before. You&#39;ll find I&#39;m not the only one here who supported the war. Try posting your holy thread to the Kurdish member we have on here, I&#39;m sure he&#39;ll gratify you with a response as to why Saddam Hussein needed to be ousted.

[bolshevik butcher]

Predictable result, at least galloway got in.

[h&s]

I think the thing about Respect is not really its policy, but the people who run it. I&#39;ve just read through their manifesto-thingy on their website, and there is nothing fundamentaly wrong with it (as in there aren&#39;t attacks on workers), but obviously it is not really socialist.
Judging by this alone I wold have no problem voting for them - you might as well vote for someone who sticks up for you. The trouble is the method of Respect - why the hell do they only ever go on about the war? They are disproportionatly obsessed with imperialism. Why? It needs to be stopped, but why go on about it so much?
People only really see Respect as an anti-war party using that in a reactionary way. They don&#39;t see them as party that will stand up for their rights. They are seen as just a bunch of middle-class liberals.
And why are the SWP so supportive of them? Could it be because Respect are a middle-class organisation? :P ...


Predictable result, at least galloway got in.
Also predictable in the fact that Celia Pugh from the Communist League only got 38 votes&#33; :lol:
You just have to laugh&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by h&s
The trouble is the method of Respect - why the hell do they only ever go on about the war? They are disproportionately obsessed with imperialism. Why? It needs to be stopped, but why go on about it so much?

I don&#39;t know why they do, but I know why it&#39;s a good thing that they do.

1. Unsuccessful imperialist war has proven in the past to be a crucial factor in alienating people from capitalism as a system.

2. Likewise, unsuccessful imperialist war delays or prevents imperialist intervention in other places...and sometimes even encourages further anti-imperialist resistance in other places.

I agree that RESPECT is probably not a "socialist" party in any meaningful sense of the word -- indeed, it probably is "the ghost of old Labour".

But I hope that Mr. Galloway will seize every opportunity in and out of parliament to pound that bastard Blair and his arse-kissers in blunt and unmistakable language.

If you&#39;re going to be a ghost, the least you can do is clank those chains loudly and fill the air with blood-curdling screams. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Massive congratulations to "Gorgeous George" for a well deserved victory&#33;
He will represent the people of Bethnal Green and convey our outrage against the illegal war in his no-nonsense, street fighting style.

Respect&#33;

[YKTMX]

Haha&#33; :D ]
So pleasing&#33; Galloway instead of King - it can&#39;t get better than that&#33;

[Intifada]

Did you see Oona&#39;s face&#33;

Stupid *****.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

The thing is many Labour mp&#39;s sucessfully distanced themselves from Tony and his war - not Oona, she supported it from the start.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:50 PM
Did you see Oona&#39;s face&#33;

Stupid *****.
Best bit was paxman afterwards.

[Intifada]

Best bit was paxman afterwards

I just saw that now, on Information Clearing House.

To be honest, Paxman&#39;s first question was ridiculously stupid.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yes, Paxman&#39;s question was typically "I want to be aggressive and controversial".

But how can you be happy that Galloway won? Did you not even hear him after winning? All he could talk about was how great he was because he won it, how he should be being praised for winning and how Blair should be sacked. Nothing about the constituency. Then he&#39;s seen milking the praise on the streets just after being whisked off in a limo, cigar lit and in mouth.

The guy is an egotistical prick who gives the left-wing a bad name. He&#39;s also an idiot, incapable of thinking of his own insults and instead using one-liners first coined by a judge he openly criticised (upon winning, he criticised the way the election was conducted, saying it "...would&#39;ve disgraced a banana republic"; the well publicised phrase used by the judge who sat on the case of the Birmingham Labour councillors who rigged postal votes).

He&#39;s a cock. No matter what he says, he played with the racial tensions in the area and his election will probably serve to heighten them as he plays with the minds of the disgruntled ethnic minorities in the area. Exploiting situations for personal gain? How very capitalistic of your "gorgeous George".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o Muerte
He&#39;s also an idiot, incapable of thinking of his own insults...

Here you go, George...

http://www.insultmonger.com/generators/index.htm


I refer to the latest discharge of patrician verbiage; in which, Blair has proven, once again, that there is no such thing as unutterable nonsense.

Here&#39;s a tip: no one will ever know that you&#39;ve had a lobotomy if you wear a wig to hide to the scars.

Blair, you are an unutterably cretinous miscreant and a debased, disease-ridden conglomerate of intellectual constipation.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Intifada]

But how can you be happy that Galloway won?

Because he is more leftist that that stupid BLiarite Oona Poona.


Did you not even hear him after winning?

Yes.

It was a tremendous speech.


All he could talk about was how great he was because he won it, how he should be being praised for winning and how Blair should be sacked.

Not really.

He dedicated the win to the Iraqi people, more or less. He warned Blair that he would be a thorn in his side, and he has succeeded in winning a New Labour constituency that was formerly led by an imperialist war-monger. I congratulate him on doing so.


Nothing about the constituency.

The constituency voted him in.

That speaks for itself.


The guy is an egotistical prick


He&#39;s also an idiot


He&#39;s a cock

:rolleyes:


he played with the racial tensions in the area and his election will probably serve to heighten them as he plays with the minds of the disgruntled ethnic minorities in the area.

This is a load of New Labour BS.

The fact is, that Oona King played the race card by trying to win the "white vote." The crap being spewed by New Labour lackeys, such as yourself, is completely untrue.

Just get over the fact that Galloway has won and that he has done it through democratic means.


Exploiting situations for personal gain?

Listen mate, if George Galloway was looking for personal gain, don&#39;t you think he would have just shut his mouth and stayed in-line with Blair&#39;s party rules?

He had a job in the New Labour party, but he gave that up because he believed, correctly, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and immoral.

[YKTMX]

The idea that Galloway&#39;s vote was merely a anti-woman, purely anti-war "Muslim" one is just silly.

Galloway was the only WHITE candidate there.

The Liberal Democrats were seen (falsely) as an anti-war party, and their candidate was a Muslim man.

Why didn&#39;t the people of BG&G vote for him then, eh?

It seems that Respect got a significant number of votes from the white w/c areas as well, and I&#39;m not surprised. People want an alternative to New Labour, and now there&#39;s a chance to offer one.

[bolshevik butcher]

Did anyone see the interview with paxman afterwards? Galloway won, it&#39;s the only time i was actaually rooting for galloway in an interview.

[h&s]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 6 2005, 05:22 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 6 2005, 05:22 PM)
h&s
The trouble is the method of Respect - why the hell do they only ever go on about the war? They are disproportionately obsessed with imperialism. Why? It needs to be stopped, but why go on about it so much?

I don&#39;t know why they do, but I know why it&#39;s a good thing that they do.

1. Unsuccessful imperialist war has proven in the past to be a crucial factor in alienating people from capitalism as a system.

2. Likewise, unsuccessful imperialist war delays or prevents imperialist intervention in other places...and sometimes even encourages further anti-imperialist resistance in other places.

I agree that RESPECT is probably not a "socialist" party in any meaningful sense of the word -- indeed, it probably is "the ghost of old Labour".

But I hope that Mr. Galloway will seize every opportunity in and out of parliament to pound that bastard Blair and his arse-kissers in blunt and unmistakable language.

If you&#39;re going to be a ghost, the least you can do is clank those chains loudly and fill the air with blood-curdling screams. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I agree that highlighting the nature of imperialism is good, and that it leads to good things, but Respect should be doing more than just that.
I&#39;m not saying that Respect should change into being a Marxist party (it ain&#39;t gonna&#39; happen), but they need to do more than be just anti-imperialist if they want to recieve any &#39;Respect&#39; in normal people. Working class people want to see people fight for issues that actually matter to them, not just see a party going around courting reactioary organisations.
Respect need to highlight real issues - at least old labour did that.


it&#39;s the only time i was actaually rooting for galloway in an interview.
You should support him on all interviews - all the hosts are just out to get him.

[bolshevik butcher]

h and s, while i porbably should, don&#39;t you feel that george galloway is an egotistical prick?

[h&s]

Absolutly he is, but judging by the treatment he gets in the press, its not surprising.
Sometimes it is good for people to be egotistical pricks - its good to watch them making people you hate squirm&#33;

[bolshevik butcher]

heh, it&#39;s just there are much more likable socialists out there. I don&#39;t paticularly hate paxman because he has a go at everyone.

[h&s]

Paxman was bad, but i&#39;m not really thinking about him - other interviewers are far worse. On ITV the other day the host only took phone calls from people having a go at Galloway, and the host didn&#39;t talk about Respect once.
It would be nice to see other socialists on the TV, but untill then I will be rooting for Galloway (though not on the electoral front).

[bolshevik butcher]

In scotland there&#39;s the ssp. There on tv occassionally.

[Intifada]

The SSP election broadcast was pretty cool.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I agree that many w/c voters would&#39;ve turned to Respect as an alternative, but this is exactly my point. They look for an alternative, and all they have is Respect. This is why I said, in the opening post....


Yes, we need unity, but not behind the reactionary followers of Galloway and Respect. We need unity behind a party and leaders who have a pro-active vision and a plan for Britain. A set of reasonable ideals we can put forward to an irrate British people, not just arguments against a war that is finished and that was anyway, in my view, worth it to rid the world of a killing machine.

While some are hailing Galloway as some sort of saviour from New Labour, I think he is exactly what the left doesn&#39;t need at the moment. His attitude towards politics is just as dirty as the Conservative campaign and he will fuel the stereotypical view of the left-wing politician, bruising the name of left-wingers throughout politics who are working hard to try and make a difference, like a few of the famous Labour rebels. I&#39;ve even read in the Socialist Worker a comparison between Galloway and Tony Benn. That&#39;s disgraceful.

[h&s]

Galloway&#39;s parliamentary record:

Performance data
Spoke in 0 debates in the last year — 646th out of 659 MPs.
Asked 0 written questions in the last year — 542nd out of 659 MPs.
Has attended 3% of votes in parliament — 649th out of 658 MPs.
www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?pid=10218 (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?pid=10218)
He gets £55,118 a year (+ expenses), and he can&#39;t even be bothered to trun up for work?
And we&#39;re meant to respect him? :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 5 2005, 09:19 PM
For all of you who talk about some radical, overthrowing revolution, you are idiots. The only way Socialism is going to return to British politics is through progression. Have you not studied the sociology of this country. Revolution is completely not going to happen.
That could have been said about the Russian Revolution 1917, the Paris Uprising 1968 and Argentina 2001, but they happened all the same.

People don&#39;t want a revolutionary situation now that doesn&#39;t mean they wont or that they can never want it in the future.


We have neither the right society or a people with the right mindset.

What does this mean? How are you claiming this? You talk about society as if it were never changing and remained the same all the time. It doesn&#39;t. It changes, people change, things fluctuate and boil up to a point of action.


Even things such as top-up fees, NHS plans and wars which many people disagreed with did nothing to rouse any sort of attitude to commit to serious revolt.

This is due to the fact that the working class simply don’t believe they have the ability to change anything. Most people don’t bother to vote or have no real confidence in it and other than that, what can they do?

People need confidence and an understanding of society; at that point things change. You claim it&#39;s because people don&#39;t want to change society, but I put it to you that they don&#39;t believe it possible in the first place.

Also, the top-up fees and the war both had massive activist participation. Unfortunately the radical left didn&#39;t win the debate, but that doesn&#39;t mean that it&#39;s suddenly futile.


It is also insulting and degrading when you say how useless the vote is. Those of you who are saying it is useless are probably from the typical white middle class families who have done so much to devalue the vote

I&#39;m sorry, but fuck you&#33;

Don&#39;t generalise about people in such a vulgar way. Opposing the vote does not suddenly put you into a socio-economic race of people. It&#39;s quite outrageous that you can say something like that.

Opposing the vote is simply acknowledging what the system is. I&#39;m not entirely sure what it is you want, but for many people, myself included, we want the end of capitalism and the creation of a communist society, and in order to achieve that voting simply wont do it.

Participating in the system designed by capitalists in order to keep people out of the legislative decision as much as possible cannot destroy capitalism.


people fought for years to allow me to be in the position to vote for my government and I for one am not going to call it useless.

What? Do you honest believe that if voting changed anything they would continue to allow to exist? We&#39;re talking about people who exploit workers on a day-to-day basis in order to make a profit. If voting actually threatened that, do you think it would still exist?

Do you support capitalism?


There are whole classes, genders and races who gave everything to get a vote and you all go around saying it&#39;s worthless.

Everything? When? Where?


Well go back and sit in front of the fire with Mummy and Daddy while we all go and try to help this country progress. Fuckin yuppies.

You&#39;d better get out of this arrogant mind set mate. Voting is worthless and will solve nothing of importance. It has nothing to do with having parents or sitting in front of fires, it&#39;s about recognising the futility of being involved in bourgeois politics.

Voting is what they want us to do, anything else may tip the balance of power, and they certainly don’t want that.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I said:

"We have neither the right society or a people with the right mindset."

You said:

"What does this mean? How are you claiming this? You talk about society as if it were never changing and remained the same all the time. It doesn&#39;t. It changes, people change, things fluctuate and boil up to a point of action."

You&#39;ve taken it a little out of context to try and make me sound stupid. I said, in the present tense via use of the word "have", that we don&#39;t have the society or people with the correct mindset to create a revolution. Therefore, progression is the only option at the time being. Again, I explain to you how I used the word "have" to mean at this present time.

Then you said this:

"This is due to the fact that the working class simply don’t believe they have the ability to change anything. Most people don’t bother to vote or have no real confidence in it and other than that"

Which is exactly what I was saying when I said this:

"We have neither the right society or a people with the right mindset."

A quote which you then criticised. Just one part of the confused mess that was your last post.

When I said this:

"It is also insulting and degrading when you say how useless the vote is. Those of you who are saying it is useless are probably from the typical white middle class families who have done so much to devalue the vote"

You said:

"Don&#39;t generalise about people in such a vulgar way. Opposing the vote does not suddenly put you into a socio-economic race of people"

Of course, what I was saying was intended to be a quirky leftist joke to annoy the likes of you after realising that I&#39;d, probably, just described you in a nutshell.

I said:

"There are whole classes, genders and races who gave everything to get a vote and you all go around saying it&#39;s worthless."

To which you replied:

"Everything? When? Where?"

Now if that is an honest respone and you do not know the types of people I speak of, you need a history teacher.

And finally, and in my opinion most stupidly, you said:

"Voting is worthless and will solve nothing of importance"

Ahhh yes, of course. And sitting on your backside at home on polling day is going to change the world. Because it wasn&#39;t the power of the working class vote that, in 1945, enabled us to create our welfare state? It wasn&#39;t the mass vote that allowed Thatcher to have her wicked way with our country? The black vote in 1960&#39;s didn&#39;t in any way influence the electing of John F. Kennedy, arguably the most progressive President of the USA in history? No no no, voting is useless and can acheive nothing. Let&#39;s just watch the TV and shout at all those evil men in suits who are being gifted power because of our cynicism and idleness.

You truly are a Gandhi in the making.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

May I also thank H&S for giving me even more reason to despise everyone&#39;s "saviour", George Galloway

[h&s]

Anytime.... ;)

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2005, 04:40 PM
People don&#39;t want a revolutionary situation now that doesn&#39;t mean they wont or that they can never want it in the future.


And in the meantime whilst we continue to wait for that, George Galloway (a radical man) has sucessfully used the system to rid Bethnal Green of the incumbent Blairite warmongerer. And made a statement at a national level, why pore scorn on this tremendous victory, what have we got to benefit from that?

Progress, is progress. You can&#39;t make an omelete without breaking eggs, and Galloway has broken some and perhaps inspired others.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Inspired other eggs?&#33;? :D

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Broken eggs, fried eggs, scrambled eggs, inspired eggs, frightened eggs. Perhaps a metaphor for, umm.. Politics is all about eggs. Without eggs where would we be?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 10 2005, 04:45 PM
Therefore, progression is the only option at the time being. Again, I explain to you how I used the word "have" to mean at this present time.
There is nothing progressive about maintaining a capitalist system of economics.


"This is due to the fact that the working class simply don’t believe they have the ability to change anything. Most people don’t bother to vote or have no real confidence in it and other than that"

Which is exactly what I was saying when I said this

No, it is not exactly what you said. You don&#39;t use the language you used if you accept the need for revolutionary struggle. You opted for defeatism and completely missed out the point that I made. We all know that the workers don&#39;t want revolution right now, but there is a reason for it; a reason you decided to ignore.


"We have neither the right society or a people with the right mindset."

A quote which you then criticised. Just one part of the confused mess that was your last post.

I criticised it because it was defeatist and if you are now claiming that you accept the need for revolution, why did you not reiterate that point?


Of course, what I was saying was intended to be a quirky leftist joke to annoy the likes of you after realising that I&#39;d, probably, just described you in a nutshell.

These kinds of remarks are used by the bourgeois right to belittle the actions and beliefs of people who are angry and whom accept revolutionary ideals. It is not a new tactic.


Now if that is an honest response and you do not know the types of people I speak of, you need a history teacher.

Are you seriously attempting to claim that the world wars were to protect our right to vote? If you are you are in a very naive position indeed. The second world wars had nothing to do with our democratic rights, it was a struggle of domination between the European powers.

Are you implying that people like Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin actually respected the working class and their democratic rights?


Ahhh yes, of course. And sitting on your backside at home on polling day is going to change the world.

This would serve your reactionary beliefs very conveniently wouldn&#39;t it? Unfortunately for you, just because someone opposes the vote does not mean they are inactive.


Because it wasn&#39;t the power of the working class vote that, in 1945, enabled us to create our welfare state?

Oh yes, the welfare state.

One of the most oppressive institutions in this country. It cares absolutely nothing for desires, aspirations or regards for the lives of those it claims to serve. It forces people into mind numbing jobs regardless of any feeling the person may have and if you protest against this, you&#39;re measly £6 a day is taken away from you.

The unemployed in this country are the poorest in Western Europe and are officially classed below the EU poverty line. An outstanding achievement&#33;


The black vote in 1960&#39;s didn&#39;t in any way influence the electing of John F. Kennedy

Are you claiming that people should vote because we might get someone like John F Kennedy as our countries leaders? This man embraced war and capitalism like any other President or Prime Minister. He was as much a class enemy to the workers than George Bush&#33;


Let&#39;s just watch the TV and shout at all those evil men in suits who are being gifted power because of our cynicism and idleness.

I&#39;m amazed you can be so ignorant that you claim, just because someone doesn&#39;t vote means they are idle and cynical.

Actually, I am active and I have great optimism in the working classes ability to destroy capitalism and the state and create a communist society.

Do you?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Are you seriously attempting to claim that the world wars were to protect our right to vote? If you are you are in a very naive position indeed. The second world wars had nothing to do with our democratic rights, it was a struggle of domination between the European powers.

Are you implying that people like Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin actually respected the working class and their democratic rights?

Again, it appears a history teacher is needed. Also, where did you get this idea that I was talking about World War 2 just because I said you needed a history teacher to explain to you how people have given their lives for the vote? I haven&#39;t once said people fought for the vote in WW2, simply because it&#39;s not true.

So, again, if you honestly do not know the types of people who I talk about that fought and gave everything to get the vote, you need a teacher.


Oh yes, the welfare state.

One of the most oppressive institutions in this country. It cares absolutely nothing for desires, aspirations or regards for the lives of those it claims to serve. It forces people into mind numbing jobs regardless of any feeling the person may have and if you protest against this, you&#39;re measly £6 a day is taken away from you.

The unemployed in this country are the poorest in Western Europe and are officially classed below the EU poverty line. An outstanding achievement&#33;

History teacher again.

Do you not know the state that this country was in before the creation of the welfare state? You may been some blindly optimistic "revolutionary" who wants the world to be perfect at the swipe of a fist or the shot of a gun, but you can surely see how much of a revolution the creation of the welfare state was. I didn&#39;t say it was perfect, so your criticism of it was not needed. Everyone knows it wasn&#39;t perfect. But if you are saying the likes of Clement Atlee and Aneurin Bevan did no good for this country then your argument simply loses validity. So they did it through parliamentary and legislative methods and so it wasn&#39;t perfect. It was the first step of what was meant to be the creation of an amazing country. People just unfortunately spoiled the plan from then on. I don&#39;t know about you, but if it wasn&#39;t for the creation of this system which you criticise so sarcastically, I would have had a shit education up untill the age of 11, then been dumped into a factory where I would&#39;ve probably died from some disease which couldn&#39;t be treated as the lack of an NHS would&#39;ve meant me not being able to afford the price of healthcare. I&#39;d say that would probably be the same for a lot of people on this site.


Are you claiming that people should vote because we might get someone like John F Kennedy as our countries leaders? This man embraced war and capitalism like any other President or Prime Minister. He was as much a class enemy to the workers than George Bush&#33;

Did I say he didn&#39;t embrace war? Did I say he didn&#39;t embrace capitalism? No. I said he was probably the most progressive President in the history of the United States. Don&#39;t make arguments up.


Actually, I am active and I have great optimism in the working classes ability to destroy capitalism and the state and create a communist society.

Do you?

If your communist society involves lavishing life upon workers whilst forgetting about everyone else just because they are not working class, then no. Instead, I have great optimism in humanity&#39;s ability to destroy exploitation, greed and inequality. If this, the Socialism I believe in, is "too capitalistic" for you, then a capitalist I am. But your grand idea for the working class overthrowing everyone is just class-cleansing. Just like the ethnic cleansing practiced by someone like Mugabe. Good luck with it.

[Black Dagger]

If your communist society involves lavishing life upon workers whilst forgetting about everyone else just because they are not working class, then no.

In a communist society everyone becomes a worker by virtue of it being a communist society, there are no capitalists.



Instead, I have great optimism in humanity&#39;s ability to destroy exploitation, greed and inequality.

&#39;Destroy&#39; by reform or &#39;destroy&#39; by revolution? The former is hardly destructive, and would be a almost a contradiction in terms.



If this, the Socialism I believe in, is "too capitalistic" for you, then a capitalist I am.

Well if you don&#39;t own a piece of the means of production you&#39;re not a capitalist, &#39;the socialism&#39; you &#39;believe in&#39; makes you a reformist &#39;social-democrat&#39;, not a capitalist. Maybe we should forget about calling for history teachers and get someone to teach basic principles of marxism/anarchism instead?



But your grand idea for the working class overthrowing everyone is just class-cleansing.

Looks like we need to call the marxist/anarchist teacher again, where did anyone mention that revolution involved mass-extermination (&#39;class cleansing&#39;). The destruction of the state and capitalist apparatus destroys the capitalist class, there&#39;s no long a material basis for their existence as a &#39;capitalist class&#39;, because they no longer control the means of prodution.

edit:

Why is your username Socialsmo O Muerte? (which is also misspelt, Socialismo*) And your signature, &#39;HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE&#39;? These are slogans of a revolutionary, the &#39;class cleansers&#39; you hate so much, why do you embrace them? I don&#39;t see you anyone in a &#39;revolution&#39; of reform.

[viva le revolution]

Communism calls for the abolishment of all classes save that of the workers. One class for everybody, no bourgeois no middle class, only workers. If this is class cleansing then so be it, that&#39;s what we are fighting for.
Relying merely on human nature to do away with exploitation and greed is simply naive. It is the uncontrolled desires and decadence of human nature that resulted in imperialism and Capitalism. Therefore a revolution is needed, to keep these evils in check and ensure an egalitarian system for all.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Well if you don&#39;t own a piece of the means of production you&#39;re not a capitalist, &#39;the socialism&#39; you &#39;believe in&#39; makes you a reformist &#39;social-democrat&#39;, not a capitalist. Maybe we should forget about calling for history teachers and get someone to teach basic principles of marxism/anarchism instead?

Never have I called myself a Marxist or said I had a complete understanding of the theory. So, just like the other guy, you&#39;re putting words in my mouth to make up arguments.


Why is your username Socialsmo O Muerte? (which is also misspelt, Socialismo*)

If only you weren&#39;t so new and ignorant to this post, you&#39;d know I apologised for my typo a long time ago. But the fact that a simple slip of my finger interests you so much makes me very pleased.


These are slogans of a revolutionary, the &#39;class cleansers&#39; you hate so much, why do you embrace them?

They are words written by Che in his farewell letter to Fidel. I&#39;m a great admirier of Che Guevara for the way in which he stood up for what he saw as right. I also belive in Che&#39;s fundamentallly humanist principles, if not all of his beliefs. I &#39;embrace&#39; the &#39;slogans&#39; because I &#39;embrace&#39; him.

[Invader Zim]

This is due to the fact that the working class simply don’t believe they have the ability to change anything. Most people don’t bother to vote or have no real confidence in it and other than that, what can they do?

Apathy, is the problem. The government is not extreamist (or at least not seen to be) to invoke any major desire for revolution.

It is a sore point to recognise, but revolution can only occur in times of social, economic or political crisis. The way western capitalist governments run is designed (in my opinion, I have no evidence for this claim, just personal observation) to never stir up the people. After all the system of liberal democracy requires a party to be more popular than any other party, it is based on a posetive, revolution is born of the negative.

I think some major event would have to occur for a revolution to occur. Perhaps an economic crash, a major war or some other similar disaster.

I think that revolution in other less economically developed countries is far more likley to yield posertive results.

Logical, wouldn&#39;t you agree?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:14 PM
Apathy, is the problem.
Then why is there strike after strike? From bus drivers to teachers and students to post people.

People aren&#39;t apathetic, they&#39;re disillusioned. There is a vast difference.

Nice signiture by the way ;)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 12 2005, 12:11 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 12 2005, 12:11 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 11:14 PM
Apathy, is the problem.
Then why is there strike after strike? From bus drivers to teachers and students to post people.

People aren&#39;t apathetic, they&#39;re disillusioned. There is a vast difference.

Nice signiture by the way ;) [/b]

Then why is there strike after strike? From bus drivers to teachers and students to post people.

Perhaps your right, but certainly when its come to the elections, people simply don&#39;t seem to care who won, and to be honest, i can&#39;t say I blame them. I know I didn&#39;t care, after all whats the difference between one bag of shit and another?



Nice signiture by the way ;)

I think so. :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:08 PM
Perhaps your right, but certainly when its come to the elections, people simply don&#39;t seem to care who won, and to be honest, i can&#39;t say I blame them. I know I didn&#39;t care, after all whats the difference between one bag of shit and another?
People are just so disillusioned in voting that they don&#39;t even bother anymore, and rightly so.

[RedAnarchist]

I doubt even bringing in Proportional Representation would help raise the number of voters - which is good. People must start to lose faith altogether in the system.

[bolshevik butcher]

NO, they must become politically awhere, what we are vieing here is just general boredum with all politics. not just parlimentary politics.