Thanks George [Archive]

Vanguard1917

6th January 2006, 02:32

WAIT WAIT WAIT!

I NEVER said Galloway was a good thing for the left. But I mean that he does, unfortunately, represent the left to the British public. I couldn't give a fuck if he embarrasses himself or his "party". But along with that will come embarrassment of all of us on the left.

I see your point but what i'm saying is that if the left 'appoints' such a person as its representative, it deserves all the embarrassment that it gets.

Let's get this straight here.

I support Galloway and his politics and Respect unequivocally and still do.

I just think that for him personally, this is a poor move.

Still, I guess the Palestinian charity receiving his half a million pounds fee will be less critical.

You say you support Galloway's politics. But Galloway is now a celebrity. I think there is a fundamental difference between a person engaged in political activity for a cause greater than one's own self and a person engaged in fame-seeking self-promotion.

And the Palestinian people don't need charity, especially charity funded by Channel 4's 'Celebrity Big Brother'. The Palestinian people need a serious political movement of solidarity.

Galloway has taken part in such attention-seeking self-promotion in the past. He is merely abiding by existing political trends. 'Politics' now is more and more about personality, and less and less about politics. Galloway has clocked on. Instead of attempting to rise above the current political climate, he has decided to follow the trend... in one of the cheapest way that i can think of. That's why i'm not at all shocked or suprised that tonight he's sleeping under the same roof as Jodie Marsh, Dennis Rodman and Michael Barrymore in the most famous reality TV show on British television.

Socialsmo o Muerte

6th January 2006, 02:37

Agree.

redstar2000

6th January 2006, 04:46

"Shock and dismay" among our British cousins. :o

In America, this sort of thing has been going on for decades.

How many times must it be said?

Bourgeois electoral politics is a show...it has nothing to do with politics in any meaningful sense of the word.

Want to get your "socialist candidate" some real publicity? Have him "streak" a few nationally televised football games. :lol:

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

Sir Aunty Christ

6th January 2006, 08:44

God how I wish I were a celebrity because then I'd go in there and - more or less - shout in his ear: WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING? Of course I'd be more tactful and have an argument prepared. Which he probably wouldn't listen to.

Josh said:

he's baisically saying fuck representing my constituency in the commons, it's more important going on BB

Yep. He doesn't give a fuck about Bethnal Green and Bow. He just wanted an easy seat to win as a platform for his ego.

I actually hope he proves to be a decent bloke while he's there but I suspect he'll make a complete arse of himself.

Vanguard 1917 said:

You say you support Galloway's politics. But Galloway is now a celebrity. I think there is a fundamental difference between a person engaged in political activity for a cause greater than one's own self and a person engaged in fame-seeking self-promotion.

And the Palestinian people don't need charity, especially charity funded by Channel 4's 'Celebrity Big Brother'. The Palestinian people need a serious political movement of solidarity.

Galloway has taken part in such attention-seeking self-promotion in the past. He is merely abiding by existing political trends. 'Politics' now is more and more about personality, and less and less about politics. Galloway has clocked on. Instead of attempting to rise above the current political climate, he has decided to follow the trend... in one of the cheapest way that i can think of. That's why i'm not at all shocked or suprised that tonight he's sleeping under the same roof as Jodie Marsh, Dennis Rodman and Michael Barrymore in the most famous reality TV show on British television.

Agreed. If Galloway weren't such a populist and if RESPECT was a big parliamentary party he'd be their Charles Kennedy - a liability.

bolshevik butcher

6th January 2006, 12:46

Well, I lost my respect for George Galloway as an individual a long time ago. He does occassionally do the left a good turn. For instance at the U$ senate but he's not paticualrly radical, respect are really just social democrats and not even paticularly hardline ones. As for this, what little integretty he had left is ebbing away.

The Feral Underclass

6th January 2006, 13:11

It's simply a trick in order to reach out to younger people. He has the biggest, most contemporary, mainstream soap box he could possibly have hopped for.

This is what bourgeois politicians do all the time.

Alexknucklehead

6th January 2006, 13:23

This could heavily work in his advantage, as Anarchist Tension said, he now has the largest soapbox in the country and a direct link to possibly millions of politically unaligned young people...and I'm sure he is well aware of the fact and looking to milk it as much as he can.

Sir Aunty Christ

6th January 2006, 13:34

This is true but considering previous behaviour, I'm not convinced reaching out young people was his primary motive when he decided to go on the show. It's not even on a par with Germaine Greer last year who thought it would be an interesting social experiment but soon realised she'd made a huge mistake.

Of course I hope that a generation of apolitical young people will be influenced by him being in the house and shift to the left and I hope I'm wrong about his motives but I'm cynical.

The Feral Underclass

6th January 2006, 13:37

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 6 2006, 02:45 PM
Of course I hope that a generation of apolitical young people will be influenced by him being in the house and shift to the left and I hope I'm wrong about his motives but I'm cynical.
I wasn't implying that it was a good thing, but of course that's precisly why he's gone into the house.

YKTMX

6th January 2006, 14:57

I think there is a fundamental difference between a person engaged in political activity for a cause greater than one's own self and a person engaged in fame-seeking self-promotion.

I think this is a bad move, but I don't think George is anything like the person you describe. Having met with him and spoke with him briefly lots of times he seems like a down to earth sort of guy.

The Palestinian people need a serious political movement of solidarity.

Agreed. But money helps.

Yep. He doesn't give a fuck about Bethnal Green and Bow. He just wanted an easy seat to win as a platform for his ego.

Don't talk about things you don't know about.

Galloway is a brilliant constituency MP. He has fought hard for Bethnal Green. And how is it an 'easy seat to win'? If it was such an easy win, why hadn't someone on the left won there before?

Honestly, I think more guff is written about Galloway than anyone else on here.

If Galloway weren't such a populist

What's wrong with populism?

Alexknucklehead

6th January 2006, 15:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:08 PM
And how is it an 'easy seat to win'? If it was such an easy win, why hadn't someone on the left won there before?

A combination of Galloway's personality and his virtual monopoly on the Muslim anti-war vote, combined with the demographic of voters in Bethnal Green and Bow made it an incredibly easy seat for him to win.

You honestly are a tad deluded mate if you see Galloway as some sort of saviour for the British left, sure he's put it in the media spotlight again to a certain extent...but not for its policies, his careerist personality and exploding ego is the only reason frankly that anyone knows who he is. He was elected on an oppertunist anti-war vote in possibly the most convenient seat that would have got him elected quickly.

h&s

6th January 2006, 16:14

What's wrong with populism?
What's right with it?

Kez

6th January 2006, 16:23

populism and opportunism go hand in hand, this is why RESPECT and SWP members dont have a problem with it.

marxists, however do. thus we see the difference between members of the 2 (or one, whichever way u like to look at it) groups and marxism.

bunk

6th January 2006, 16:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:08 PM

Don't talk about things you don't know about.

Galloway is a brilliant constituency MP. He has fought hard for Bethnal Green. And how is it an 'easy seat to win'? If it was such an easy win, why hadn't someone on the left won there before?

Honestly, I think more guff is written about Galloway than anyone else on here.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_ga...bow#performance (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_galloway/bethnal_green_and_bow#performance)

http://beta.cergis.com/george/

YKTMX

6th January 2006, 16:58

A combination of Galloway's personality and his virtual monopoly on the Muslim anti-war vote, combined with the demographic of voters in Bethnal Green and Bow made it an incredibly easy seat for him to win.

Yes, and why did he have that 'virtual monopoly' on the anti-war vote? After all, the Liberal Democrat in Bow ran on a anti-war slate and was also Muslim. Maybe it was because GG was seen as a consistent anti-imperialist and a socialist - but you wouldn't want to countenance that, would you?

He was elected on an oppertunist anti-war vote in possibly the most convenient seat that would have got him elected quickly.

This pisses me off...how the fuck is it opportunist?

Working class Muslims and a large section of working class white people in a working class area of London wanted a anti-war left candidate and Respect offered one, and he one. What is the problem with that?

It's like saying that the Anarchists were 'oppotunistically playing' on a anti-state 'feeling' in the 'working class community' during the Spanish Civil War.

The latent racism here is quite astonishing.

What's right with it?

Lots of things.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/george_ga...bow#performance

http://beta.cergis.com/george/

He doesn't go to Parliament...so what?

That's got nothing to do with being a good constituency MP.

Scottish_Militant

6th January 2006, 17:05

There's a tube strike going on with many of the strikers working in my constituency, any real socialist would be on the picket lines with them. Not GG though, a disgrace and an arsehole of a Man :angry:

Jimmie Higgins

6th January 2006, 18:23

There is a very narrow range of what an electoral left-winger can do to help or hurt the wider left, s the real question here is what does this mean for the left; is it an embarassment which discredits the anti-war movement or is it a platform as TAT said?

The personality stuff, the ego stuff is all pretty irrelevent and, frankly, moralistic bs.

Is he using this opportunity to bash blair and the war or is he joking around and trying to show what a great guy he is. In the US, Clinton and Bush appear on MTV or Popular talk shows to make some very carefully orhecstrated chit chat, but never rally talk about politics (as if they did in other venues anyway).

In the US, I think Galloway's breif appearence was benificial because it is very rare for someone to go to congress and call them on the b.s. It is even more rare for someone on the left to call liberal politicians on their b.s. and debate them as well.

Alexknucklehead

6th January 2006, 19:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:09 PM

A combination of Galloway's personality and his virtual monopoly on the Muslim anti-war vote, combined with the demographic of voters in Bethnal Green and Bow made it an incredibly easy seat for him to win.

Yes, and why did he have that 'virtual monopoly' on the anti-war vote? After all, the Liberal Democrat in Bow ran on a anti-war slate and was also Muslim. Maybe it was because GG was seen as a consistent anti-imperialist and a socialist - but you wouldn't want to countenance that, would you?

He was elected on an oppertunist anti-war vote in possibly the most convenient seat that would have got him elected quickly.

This pisses me off...how the fuck is it opportunist?

Working class Muslims and a large section of working class white people in a working class area of London wanted a anti-war left candidate and Respect offered one, and he one. What is the problem with that?

It's like saying that the Anarchists were 'oppotunistically playing' on a anti-state 'feeling' in the 'working class community' during the Spanish Civil War.

The latent racism here is quite astonishing.

You misunderstand me comrade, I am not commenting on any kind of political comings and goings of the war vote or the role of the Muslim working class, I am commenting on the personality of George Galloway. I am saying that he is an oppertunist, a careerist with an overwhelming ego to fulfill. I am saying that he saw a chance to get his face in the public's eye once again and grabbed it, it being the Muslim anti-war vote in a constituancy with a high Muslim population. As to being accused of being a racist, I am extremely offended and have at no point made any kind of racist remarks whatsoever.

ReD_ReBeL

6th January 2006, 20:13

jee who really cares he said the only reasons he went into celeb big brother was to try and spread the anti-war movement. to me that is a good thing, Iraq is in a devastating situation and needs the british publics full support in getting Britain as well as other nations out of there.

Scottish_Militant

6th January 2006, 20:23

As to being accused of being a racist, I am extremely offended and have at no point made any kind of racist remarks whatsoever.

Sadly comrade this seems to be the way with many RESPECTites, they call anyone who disagrees with them or is critical of them "anti-muslim" and "racist" because they have no real political arguments or comebacks.

Scottish_Militant

6th January 2006, 20:26

jee who really cares he said the only reasons he went into celeb big brother was to try and spread the anti-war movement.

I think he did it for the same thing that he does everything for - the cash.

He is a publicity and wealth whore, everything that he does has a pot of gold at the end of it - for himself of course!

Intifada

6th January 2006, 20:50

When I first heard this, I was truly gobsmacked.

I have never been that gobsmacked in my entire life.

Comrade Yastrebkov

6th January 2006, 21:18

George, Goerge what are you doing?...

Amusing Scrotum

6th January 2006, 21:33

From BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4587448.stm)....

Originally posted by George Galloway
"I'm a great believer in the democratic process. Big Brother is watched by millions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm watching it now, the man didn't even bring slippers.

James

6th January 2006, 21:39

Its interesting to compare him to the others in the house (all wankers trying to relaunch some form of a career!). It is a truely pioneering use of the word "celebrity" that they are using!

YKTMX

6th January 2006, 22:14

I am saying that he is an oppertunist, a careerist with an overwhelming ego to fulfill.

Yes, I know what you're saying, but sadly for you it has no basis in reality.

And careerist? He risked his seat in parliament and his membership of the Labour party to criticise the government. In what sense is such a move "careerist"?

As to being accused of being a racist, I am extremely offended and have at no point made any kind of racist remarks whatsoever.

I didn't accuse you of racism, I accused you of latent racism.

Tell me, when describing the Labour party voters, do you use the term 'protestant, white' vote?

I wonder.

Rawthentic

6th January 2006, 22:28

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 5 2006, 02:09 PM
So Galloway will end any credibility that left-wing ideas still have by his "appearence" on Big Brother.

How fucking embarrassing. For all of us associated with anything left wing, this will make us laughing stocks.
oh man. what did he do? i havent found out yet

James

7th January 2006, 11:48

He doesn't go to Parliament...so what?

Well that is the point of being am MP. That is; a member of parliament. If he wanted to just be a local man, he should have run for the council.

That's got nothing to do with being a good constituency MP.

A debatable idea.
But please provide evidence of how he is a good constituency MP (because he certainly does not do a good job representing them in the national forum.).

How is being on big brother being a "good constituency MP"?

Today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../07/ixhome.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/07/ngallo07.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/07/ixhome.html)

George Galloway faced a backlash from his constituents yesterday who accused him of abandoning them for television fame on Celebrity Big Brother.

Outside Mr Galloway's constituency office yesterday, protesters shouted "waste of space" and held up banners saying "Get back to work Galloway" and "Where's our MP?"

His comments on entering the house that his favourite things included sunbathing - he has a house in Portugal - and sex, also seemed to infuriate some Muslims in his constituency.

A website was quickly set up by Mr Galloway's critics which said: "Contestant George Galloway - why isn't he at work?"

It included a ticker estimating how much he had earned as part of his £61,700 MP's annual salary while he was inside the Big Brother reality TV house.

Others, who had supported him as he overturned the pro-war Labour MP Oona King in Bethnal Green and Bow, said they had turned against him as he followed his quest for fame.

Abdul Majid, 32, a waiter at the Preem restaurant in Brick Lane, which served as Mr Galloway's headquarters during the election campaign, said: "It is like he has just disappeared for three weeks without asking anyone. Does he think that being famous is more important than representing us?

"We voted him in, expecting him to do something better and different for us. How can he do that if he is swanning off to be on a TV show?"

Mohammed Salim, 25, a former supporter and the manager of the Clipper restaurant on Brick Lane, said: "He promised to do so much for us and he has done nothing. Now he has shown his true colours: he just wants to be on TV.

"How are we supposed to take him seriously now? He gives the impression that he'll do anything for fame."

The Feral Underclass

7th January 2006, 12:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:34 PM
is it an embarassment which discredits the anti-war movement or is it a platform as TAT said?
What anti-war movement?

Anyway, the only person it is embarresing is George Gallaway and the RESPECT coalition. But it is, beyond a doubt, an attempt at a soap box.

The Feral Underclass

8th January 2006, 15:38

Just for everyone’s information. George Galloway missed the anti-terrorist legislation vote in Parliament. The vote that stripped away civil rights, especially for immigrants. The vote that the government won by one vote. It appeared that Galloway was enjoying his speaking tour of America far too much to take the time out to stop the British government from turning our society into a proto-fascist one. He made tens of thousands of pounds doing that.

Incidentally, Ofcom have stated that Galloway cannot use Channel 4 as a soap box as all channels have to have a non-biased view on political issues, meaning they would have to censor anything he said on the Iraq war. Surely he knew that when he went in there?

James

8th January 2006, 15:51

In the Mail on sunday today, it was reported that the large amount of money offered is what made him ultimately go into the house. As well as being allowed to smoke cigars.

Conghaileach

8th January 2006, 15:56

Well, if the Mail said it then it must be true.

The Feral Underclass

8th January 2006, 15:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:02 PM
In the Mail on sunday today
:lol:

Climb back in ya whole!

James

8th January 2006, 16:19

Well, if the Mail said it then it must be true.

Harldy. And the opposite assumption (it must be wrong) is equally unlikely. Remember this is george... he makes newspapers pay him lots of money when they say things that are not true.

+ + +

Climb back in ya whole!

What?

YKTMX

8th January 2006, 16:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:02 PM
In the Mail on sunday today, it was reported that the large amount of money offered is what made him ultimately go into the house. As well as being allowed to smoke cigars.
His fee is going to a Palestinian charity.

James

8th January 2006, 16:26

I didn't know that.
Source?
I did know that if you call to keep him in, then the money for the call goes to said charity.

Jimmie Higgins

8th January 2006, 18:37

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 8 2006, 03:49 PM
Just for everyone’s information. George Galloway missed the anti-terrorist legislation vote in Parliament. The vote that stripped away civil rights, especially for immigrants. The vote that the government won by one vote. It appeared that Galloway was enjoying his speaking tour of America far too much to take the time out to stop the British government from turning our society into a proto-fascist one. He made tens of thousands of pounds doing that.
I'm a bit confused on your stance on parlementaryism now. I thought the criticism of Galloway was that he is a parlementary socialist; but now it seems like you are knocking him for not being reformist enought and being too much of an activist (the anti-war speaking tour set up by anarchists and socialists in the US) to bother with parlementariyism.

Then people call him an opportunist; yet as far as I know, people in the US don't get to vote in UK elections, so a speaking tour in the US would not seem very opportune for a UK politician.

Far more damning, though is that he can not use his position on the show to promote the anti-war movement.

ReD_ReBeL

8th January 2006, 21:15

insteading of guessing why he went in......Why dont we read why he went in from his own mouth and own words.
Galloway statement (http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=960)

James

8th January 2006, 21:54

If he wanted to do this, i don't understand why he didn't do a tony benn. Benn quit parliament to "spend more time on politics". If that's what george wanted to do; then that is what he should have done.
Someone else could have been the people's MP in that area, and actually done some work. Work for the money that UK tax payers have paid him to do.

farleft

8th January 2006, 22:27

It's not really a suprise, as I have said in other threads related to RESPECT and George Galloway, these are not communists, they are not socialists, the are liberal reformist twats, Galloway is a capitalist.

Youknowtheymurderedx good to see you have finally seen the truth, shame you couldnt have seen this as clearly as the rest of us before this happened, remember, question everything.

Sir Aunty Christ

9th January 2006, 15:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 11:05 PM
If he wanted to do this, i don't understand why he didn't do a tony benn. Benn quit parliament to "spend more time on politics". If that's what george wanted to do; then that is what he should have done.
Someone else could have been the people's MP in that area, and actually done some work. Work for the money that UK tax payers have paid him to do.
You don't get paid for spending more time on politics.

Jim

9th January 2006, 17:00

True. But you get paid for going on speaking tours, books, events, going on big brother, getting a normal job etc etc. If he wants to be an MP, he should be an MP. If he doesn't: he shouldn't be an MP.

Conghaileach

9th January 2006, 22:16

Business as usual in Galloway's constituency office? ...

Business as usual
07/01/2006

George Galloway’s office was dealing with constituents’ problems on Friday just as we do every day of the week, including Christmas and New Year. Our office was, to my knowledge, unable to respond to only two calls from people saying they wanted to raise constituency problems - one who did not leave a phone number to return their call on and one where it was not possible, despite repeated attempts, to hear the number left. And this despite the fact that we were bombarded with dozens of fatuous calls from journalists like Vikram Dodd from The Guardian and that BT, unfortunately, failed to install the phones in our new office which was due to open on Friday.

Most MPs did not hold surgeries on Friday because of the parliamentary recess. But we did. A dozen constituents came to the surgery which we hold every Friday from 4pm to 7pm. The issues were predominantly the same as they always are - appalling housing conditions resulting from the year’s of neglect and lack of investment by the New Labour government in Whitehall and the New Labour Council in Tower Hamlets, and immigration and asylum problems arising from this government’s iniquitous, racist immigration and asylum legislation.

It was New Labour’s propaganda before last May’s election that George would not represent his constituency properly and it has remained so ever since. And yet not only has George held surgeries almost every week since his election and taken up and vigorously pursued hundreds of constituents’ problems, he has spoken at more public meetings on campaigning issues around the constituency than his New Labour predecessor did in all the eight anonymous years of her incumbency. He has combined this with taking the Respect message around the country speaking to thousands and playing a very significant role building the international anti-war movement.

Rob Hoveman, Assistant to George Galloway MP

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=961

The Feral Underclass

10th January 2006, 13:51

Originally posted by Gravedigger+Jan 8 2006, 07:48 PM--> (Gravedigger @ Jan 8 2006, 07:48 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 8 2006, 03:49 PM
Just for everyone’s information. George Galloway missed the anti-terrorist legislation vote in Parliament. The vote that stripped away civil rights, especially for immigrants. The vote that the government won by one vote. It appeared that Galloway was enjoying his speaking tour of America far too much to take the time out to stop the British government from turning our society into a proto-fascist one. He made tens of thousands of pounds doing that.
I'm a bit confused on your stance on parlementaryism now. I thought the criticism of Galloway was that he is a parlementary socialist; but now it seems like you are knocking him for not being reformist enought and being too much of an activist (the anti-war speaking tour set up by anarchists and socialists in the US) to bother with parlementariyism.

Then people call him an opportunist; yet as far as I know, people in the US don't get to vote in UK elections, so a speaking tour in the US would not seem very opportune for a UK politician.

Far more damning, though is that he can not use his position on the show to promote the anti-war movement. [/b]
I was highlighting the lies, betrayls and uselessness of reformist politics and politicians. Including those on the "left." In fact, they seem to be the worst.

Jim

10th January 2006, 15:32

Just whilst we are on the subject of george and his credibility.
Came across this today:

BBC and Galloway

Eddie Mair presents Radio 4’s ‘PM’. He is an attractive presenter with a nice line in dry wit. But on Thursday he fell victim to a bad script. In his best sneery, what-are-the-Yanks-up-to-now voice, he said, “[The Senate report] prints a picture of Mr Galloway meeting Saddam Hussein and calls the MP “an outspoken supporter of the Iraqi regime” and it cites in its first paragraph the now famous line used by Mr Galloway, ‘I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability’, but does not acknowledge in the body of the report Mr Galloway’s insistence that that remark was directed at the Iraqi people in general’.

Now this is what is known as ‘spinning’. Galloway first denied meeting Saddam Hussein, saying. "I had no opportunity because we were in a group of about fifty people. I didn't actually speak to him face to face." (Daily Record, 21st January). When TV pictures showed the opposite was true Galloway adopted the ‘I-was-speaking-to-the-Iraqi-people explanation. But the full peroration makes clear that this was not the case either. Galloway stood before Saddam Hussein and said ‘Your Excellency, Mr President. I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq. "I greet you too, in the name of the Palestinian people…..I thought the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam…Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory until Jerusalem." (The Times, 20th January, 1994). (AJ)
http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000537.html

I've been looking for the best part of the last hour, and still can't find the full script of his conversation with Galloway.
Thought that this raises an interesting set of points though.

First he lied about meeting the president (thus demolishes the credibility of "his word").
Then he said that he was directing it to the people of iraq. This seems unlikely, considering the transcript (or as much as i can find anyway) suggests that he was talking to directly to saddam. If he had wanted to speak to the people, surely he would have said, "i salute the people of iraqi; your courage etc etc". Not sir.

The only reason for thinking he's talking to the people is his claim. But as has already been established, he lied before on the matter.

It seems to come down to his word Vs the text. The text does not support his word. Nor is his word credible.

Really don't understand why people like the guy so much.

fpeppett

10th January 2006, 16:53

Yeah I agree that George is probably not going on Big Brother for the reasons he intended and personally I think he is someone who loves thw sound of his own voice.......BUT, this isnt an embarrasment for the left, in know way will one mp going on a reality show discredit a whole political point of view.

To be honest if anythying comes out of it for the left it will be good, he may educate some of the viewers, but seeing as most of the people who watch big bro are so politically inept they dont even know what a political spectrum is.............I doubt it.

Noah

10th January 2006, 21:35

'The ordinary Iraqi was not against Saddam Hussein' - Galloway... WTF

Most Iraqi people hated Saddam they were just terrified...all my relatives were terrified of him.

If they liked him they wouldn't be storming the streets taking down his statue!

Quzmar

11th January 2006, 02:33

If they liked him they wouldn't be storming the streets taking down his statue!

I’m not defending him and I know just how much people hated him but that was staged

Ownthink

11th January 2006, 03:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:44 PM

If they liked him they wouldn't be storming the streets taking down his statue!

I’m not defending him and I know just how much people hated him but that was staged
Yeah Noah, he's right. There was only a specific amount of pro-Intervention, Anti-Saddam (Shi'ites, mostly) Iraqis allowed within the square, which was also blocked off carefully by Abrams'.

The defacing of the statue was a carefully staged PR trick, as most of anything supposedly "good" America does is.

ReD_ReBeL

11th January 2006, 03:45

The defacing of the statue was a carefully staged PR trick, as most of anything supposedly "good" America does is.

Is this your opinion? or do you actualy have a source or some kind of proof that it was staged?

James

11th January 2006, 11:53

'The ordinary Iraqi was not against Saddam Hussein' - Galloway

because if they were, they went missing.

kingbee

11th January 2006, 12:55

As Galloway himself said in The Morning Star, the first reason he is in is for the money that will go to charity- his choice being a Palestinian charity, Interpal.

"Like me, Interpal has faced the witch-hunters in Washington and the zionist movement in London.... It doesn't really get many opportunities to raise really serious amounts of money. My appearance on Big Brother will give it a chance to move up to the Premier League"

Also, he says that he is trying to reach the "Generation X Factor"

"Second, I'm doing it for the audience....reaching them is a crucial part of the equation on the road to the removal of the corrupt and discredited government and its replacement with a genuinely socially democratic one......If I win, it will be the my greatest election victory since, well, my last one"

"He just wanted an easy seat to win as a platform for his ego."

If Bethnal Green was "an easy seat", then I'd like to see a hard one!

'The ordinary Iraqi was not against Saddam Hussein' - Galloway

because if they were, they went missing.

But you need to remember that the ordinary Iraqi also got stability and facilities under Saddam.

Quzmar

11th January 2006, 14:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:56 AM

The defacing of the statue was a carefully staged PR trick, as most of anything supposedly "good" America does is.

Is this your opinion? or do you actualy have a source or some kind of proof that it was staged?
:huh: you only have to look at Iraq now, plus every one had the old Iraqi flag, which means they came from out side Iraq, and it was the Americans who started broadcasting it and the others started broadcasting without questioning just so they don’t miss out, but after that the realized and most of them said it but who cares it had being already broadcasted when it mattered! Plus I have an Iraqi friend and confirmed that she added: (Baghdad is one of few places in Iraq where saddam was actually liked so you’d think a few people would have tried to spoil the scene.) “Every in Iraq has weapons every house!.

Conghaileach

11th January 2006, 15:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:56 AM

The defacing of the statue was a carefully staged PR trick, as most of anything supposedly "good" America does is.

Is this your opinion? or do you actualy have a source or some kind of proof that it was staged?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=30996

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm

Noah

11th January 2006, 16:39

Ok, the pulling down of the statue may have not been a good example...but are you telling me, the Iraqi people, no matter what denomination of Islam (Sunni's weren't safe under Saddam too), liked Saddam?

All my dad's comrads in Iraq went missing like James said and were never found. Saddam's operatives would go into schools and ask schoolkid's what their parent would say or do when they saw Saddam on the TV or newspaper. If it was offensive (like spitting on his picture or swearing at him) then they would be taken away and probably never found again.

So of course Iraqi people will say they like him or else they are done for.

To be honest, I don't know much about George Galloway but the image he is letting out in this show doesn't want to make me support him.

Baghdad is one of few places in Iraq where saddam was actually liked

This may be applicable to some people (aka Generals in the army) but it certainly wasn't to alot of underground groups that operated in Baghdad.

bolshevik butcher

11th January 2006, 16:44

His latest claim is that he has the youth onside! Ironically enough this claim was made when there was a vote on in parliment that could give 16yr olds the vote.

James

11th January 2006, 18:49

But you need to remember that the ordinary Iraqi also got stability and facilities under Saddam.

Ah the classic defence of authoritarian rule.
I don't buy it either. Not only did sanctions, caused by his actions, cripple the country, but it seems hihgly likely that he exploited the system further to reduce available facilities.
The so called stability (since when has that been something which revolutionary socialists liked??) was based on manipulation of few facilities (a useful anti-western/american tool), and his totalitarian system of rule (no democracy, no rival claims, no dissent allowed etc) that resulted in many being mass murdered (they don't know how many; they are still being dug up), or tortured/murdered.

And what about the Kurds? Are they not ordinary iraqis? Or the marsh arabs? Or the sourth in general?

So no, i do not think that fascism is "ok" because it provided the "ordinary Iraqi" with "stability" and "facilities".

Thus why i'm glad that he has gone. (although of course, the situation at the moment isn't brilliant! : they at least have a chance. I suppose this is where we put our faith in the people: if iraqi's choose to do so, they will pick themselves up).

This is not a defence of imperialism.

+ + +

George also manages to fail to be a decent MP on friday; when he is going to miss a commons debate regarding a road that affects his continuency.
what a wanker... If he didn't want to represent them: why not let another, who WOULD?

kingbee

11th January 2006, 19:22

Ah the classic defence of authoritarian rule.
I don't buy it either. Not only did sanctions, caused by his actions, cripple the country, but it seems hihgly likely that he exploited the system further to reduce available facilities.
The so called stability (since when has that been something which revolutionary socialists liked??) was based on manipulation of few facilities (a useful anti-western/american tool), and his totalitarian system of rule (no democracy, no rival claims, no dissent allowed etc) that resulted in many being mass murdered (they don't know how many; they are still being dug up), or tortured/murdered.

And what about the Kurds? Are they not ordinary iraqis? Or the marsh arabs? Or the sourth in general?

So no, i do not think that fascism is "ok" because it provided the "ordinary Iraqi" with "stability" and "facilities".

Thus why i'm glad that he has gone. (although of course, the situation at the moment isn't brilliant! : they at least have a chance. I suppose this is where we put our faith in the people: if iraqi's choose to do so, they will pick themselves up).

This is not a defence of imperialism.

Sorry. I realise that I sound like I'm defending Saddam- I'm not- I just think that some ordinary Iraqis didn't mind Saddam, for the reasons I stated above.

since when has that been something which revolutionary socialists liked

I think with my own head, rather than with the thoughts of others. I think that we do have to consider that people do prefer stability to freedom, especially in the third world (in some instances).

Noah

11th January 2006, 19:56

Is Iraq considered 'third world'? :rolleyes:

kingbee

11th January 2006, 20:16

I would say so. Or, I suppose, it should be a "developing country".

James

12th January 2006, 14:20

Sorry, i probably went a bit over the top. I agree; i think many iraqi's liked his rule. Partly because of the personality cult/propaganda, but also because many simply liked his rule.
I still think though that this was a minority, and was regional. I don't think the south liked him one bit; nor of course, the northern kurds.

I think with my own head, rather than with the thoughts of others. I think that we do have to consider that people do prefer stability to freedom, especially in the third world (in some instances).

Well said: and i quite agree.
As you can probably guess though, i am in no way a "revolutionary".

Amusing Scrotum

12th January 2006, 23:23

Originally posted by Noah+Jan 11 2006, 08:07 PM--> (Noah @ Jan 11 2006, 08:07 PM) Is Iraq considered 'third world'? :rolleyes: [/b]

I'd say its part of the (lower half of the) "Second World". During the 70's before the Iran-Iraq War, it looked like Iraq was about to become part of the First World. Now it looks like it could fall even lower.
_____

Back to the issue of George Galloway, from BBC News....

Originally posted by Minister starts Galloway [email protected]
A petition accusing MP George Galloway of egotism for entering the Celebrity Big Brother house is being launched by a Cabinet minister.

Chief whip Hilary Armstrong will start the petition in Mr Galloway's Bethnal Green and Bow constituency.

It says the Respect MP has shown a "shameful lack of respect" for his constituents by going on the show.

But Mr Galloway says it is good for politics and his party says his office is working as usual.

'Lounging about'

The new petition urges Mr Galloway to "represent and respect his constituents, not further his own ego, as he is by remaining totally out of touch in the Big Brother house".

Ms Armstrong said: "This week he missed a vote in the House of Commons on Crossrail and next week, he could miss the chance to speak on the Equality Bill and the Work and Families Bill.

"Does he honestly think that his constituents would prefer to see him lounging about in the Big Brother House rather than debating issues as serious as equality?"

Labour MP Ed Balls also criticised Mr Galloway on BBC Question Time saying he was patronising young people if he was seriously trying to engage them in politics by appearing on the show.

Reaching out?

Mr Galloway's spokesman said earlier this week that the constituency office was open as normal.

"It is his hope that Big Brother would provide the kind of platform that the media does not normally provide for him," he said.

"He is coming across as a human being, while the press have tried to demonise him in the past."

But the party is sending a letter of complaint to Channel 4 claiming his conversations with other housemates about the Iraq war and other political issues have not been shown.

Channel 4 has denied censoring Mr Galloway and said highlights were selected on editorial grounds.

'Bullying'

Mr Galloway has been nominated for eviction from the reality television show along with glamour model Jodie Marsh and transvestite Pete Burns.

Miss Marsh's parents have said their daughter is suffering the kind of bullying she endured at school.

Her mother told GMTV: "This is exactly what happened then.

"There was one strong person at school - exactly like George Galloway - that turned everyone against her."

Earlier this week, Mr Galloway said he had expected there to be more debate, and to be asked questions such as what Tony Blair was like or about the Iraq war.

But, Mr Galloway, told actress Rula Lenska: "Someone of my age and class is not used to young women talking as they do in here, with no orifice left unopened."

He complained about Miss Marsh's "extraordinary stories which involve every orifice and fluid known to man", adding that he hoped his daughter never spoke like that.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4608082.stm).

Now, I don't give two hoots about the actions of an odious "Blairite", but this....

'Bullying'
But, Mr Galloway, told actress Rula Lenska: "Someone of my age and class is not used to young women talking as they do in here, with no orifice left unopened."

....begs two questions....

1) What "class" does Galloway think he is from? ....because a working class "bloke" wouldn't be surprised by such coarse language from Jodie Marsh (a working class "lass").

2) Does Galloway have a problem with women voicing their opinions about sex? ....does he think women should "keep quiet" about such things?

Conghaileach

12th January 2006, 23:49

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Jan 13 2006, 12:34 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Jan 13 2006, 12:34 AM)
'Bullying'
But, Mr Galloway, told actress Rula Lenska: "Someone of my age and class is not used to young women talking as they do in here, with no orifice left unopened."

....begs two questions....

1) What "class" does Galloway think he is from? ....because a working class "bloke" wouldn't be surprised by such coarse language from Jodie Marsh (a working class "lass").

2) Does Galloway have a problem with women voicing their opinions about sex? ....does he think women should "keep quiet" about such things? [/b]
Presuming that your family is working class, do your parents or grandparents talk like that?

Also, I believe that Galloway recently attacked abortion as well. I think that Respect is too willing to bow to pressure from less-than-revolutionary Muslims in order to get their support, and that seems to be waht Galloway's up to as well with these comments about women.

Amusing Scrotum

13th January 2006, 00:04

Originally posted by Conghaileach+--> (Conghaileach)Presuming that your family is working class, do your parents or grandparents talk like that?[/b]

Depends, some of the most foul mouthed (and funniest) people I've met have been Grandparents. Especially some of the younger Grandparents (50 to 60).

As they say, "times are a-changing." :)

Originally posted by [email protected]
Also, I believe that Galloway recently attacked abortion as well.

That stems from his "Catholicism" if I'm not mistaken.

Conghaileach
I think that Respect is too willing to bow to pressure from less-than-revolutionary Muslims in order to get their support, and that seems to be waht Galloway's up to as well with these comments about women.

Apparently (I didn't see it) he was blabbering about how nice Islam was in the jacuzzi the other night. :o

James

13th January 2006, 08:47

Did anyone see question time last night? Some good points were raised on it. Matthew Paris thought that the argument that he's missing parliament/constintuency is the weakest argument against george (as all MPs take time away; for example when he had to go to the senate): although this does of course miss the point that he missed a commons vote on a road that directly affects his constituency. Like i said before: if he couldn't be arsed being a proper MP, he should have let another be one.
Matthew Paris instead thought that it was a mistake: arguing that george was dead wrong in assuming the best forum for getting "young people into politics" was big brother. Which is a good point. One assumes that he watched one, before agreeeing to go on.

I think most people think that it is just egotism really. To think otherwise seems to be simply silly (as it is based on a misconception of what big brother is like/purpose etc etc).

Amusing Scrotum

13th January 2006, 20:40

More on "gorgeous" George....

Originally posted by BBC News
Galloway 'cat' act sparks anger

George Galloway has been branded a "laughing stock" by a Labour opponent after the Respect MP imitated a cat on Celebrity Big Brother.
Mr Galloway, 51, went on all fours, purred and pretended to lick cream from actress Rula Lenska's hands, as part of a task set on the Channel 4 show.

Labour London Assembly member John Biggs accused the Bethnal Green and Bow MP of neglecting his constituents.

But Mr Galloway says taking part in the programme is good for politics.

'Dr Doolittle?'

He missed a Commons vote on London's Crossrail project, which would run through his constituency, on Thursday.

Mr Biggs, City and East member on the assembly, said: "His antics on TV, just hours after missing a crucial parliamentary vote affecting his constituency, demonstrate that he is becoming one of the biggest laughing stocks in London politics since the Second World War."

During a Big Brother task to see whether "humans can communicate with animals", Mr Galloway asked Ms Lenska: "Now, would you like me to be the cat?"

He crawled on all fours and then pretended to lap from her hands as if drinking cream, after which she rubbed the "cream" from his "whiskers" and stroked his head and behind his ears.

Psychic goldfish

Earlier, Mr Galloway acted the role of "lab assistant" while Ms Lenska "read the mind" of a goldfish called Barry.

Labour Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong has launched a petition against Mr Galloway.

It urges him to "represent and respect his constituents, not further his own ego, as he is by remaining totally out of touch in the Big Brother house".

Ms Armstrong said of the "cat" act: "It made me cringe. I'm absolutely bemused that he decided to do something where he is uncontactable by the people he represents or works for.

"Something serious could happen here today and no-one can contact him, he could not say or do anything - and that to me seems a bit strange for someone who is, and has wanted to be, a publicly elected official."

Human being?

But Mr Galloway's spokesman said earlier this week that the constituency office was open as normal.

"It is his hope that Big Brother would provide the kind of platform that the media does not normally provide for him," he added.

"He is coming across as a human being, while the press have tried to demonise him in the past."

Lib Dem Northern Ireland spokesman Lembit Opik said politicians had to "connect" with the public.

He added: "We need to lighten up a little bit. George Galloway won't be the next leader of the Labour Party."

Respect is sending a letter of complaint to Channel 4 claiming Mr Galloway's conversations with other housemates about the Iraq war and other political issues have not been shown.

Peter Bazalgette, UK chairman of programme makers Endemol, told BBC One's This Week that Channel 4 had to abide by strict rules on broadcasting political opinions without opposing views to balance them.

He said producers were considering staging a political debate in the house to allow Mr Galloway to speak more freely.

The MP has been nominated for eviction from the show along with glamour model Jodie Marsh and transvestite singer Pete Burns.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4608082.stm).

I have to admit, the more I hear about this, the more I wished I'd watched it.

Intifada

13th January 2006, 20:43

I saw a clip of it on the news.

He is acting like an idiot, and simply giving ammo to his enemies.

James

13th January 2006, 21:20

richard and judy (yes i know i know... i have finally have to go back to work on monday though, so it is ok!) showed a longish clip of it. I think you have to see it, to understand people's (whom have seen it) reactions.

This guy is seriously wierd...

I think the only decent contestant on BB has got to be Jack Dee. And he hated it!

Intifada

14th January 2006, 18:10

I have heard of claims that he is being censored though.

They never show his political side, apparently.

Jack Dee was awesome.

Amusing Scrotum

14th January 2006, 18:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:21 PM
They never show his political side, apparently.

They're not allowed, something which I think is well known. This makes Galloway's assertion that he is going on there to encourage more "kids" to take an interest in politics, all the more dubious.

Big Brother has never had political discussions.

YKTMX

14th January 2006, 19:18

Also, I believe that Galloway recently attacked abortion as well.

He has a moral objection to abortion, as do many socialists. However, he does and has always supported a woman's right to choose.

think that Respect is too willing to bow to pressure from less-than-revolutionary Muslims in order to get their support

How do you mean "less-than-revolutionary". Are you saying that left wing groups should only "accept" or seek support from people who are already revolutionary, because that will get you nowhere.

Andy Bowden

14th January 2006, 19:35

RESPECT's biggest donor is Mohammed Nasseem, someone who is in the leadership of "The Islamic Party of Britain". Here are their views on Homosexuality, http://www.islamicparty.com/question/ans41.htm.

The fact Galloway has accepted money from someone in an organisation such as this is an inditement of his "socialist" politics.

YKTMX

14th January 2006, 19:44

Respect's biggest "donor" are their membership and close supporters, a number supposed to be in the 10 thousand range.

If anyone wants to see how much the execrable Dr. Naseem has donated they can look - it isn't much at all, I promise you.

Andy's just representing (fairly enough) the feeling that many in SSP have - they don't like Galloway.

It's actually a fairly hypocritical and misguided view, but that's fair enough.

Andy Bowden

14th January 2006, 20:05

If anyone wants to see how much the execrable Dr Naseem has donated they can look - it isnt much at all I promise you

He is RESPECT's single biggest donor. In any case, IMO the volume of money is irrelevant, it is that the money has been accepted by such a character - and that he was a RESPECT candidate in the general election.

Don't you think it is disgusting that RESPECT is working with such a character YKTMX?

Andy's just representing (fairly enough) the feeling that many in the SSP have - they don't like Galloway

And with damn good reason.

It is actually a fairly hypocritical and misguided view, but thats fair enough

In what respect is it hypocritical or misguided?

James

15th January 2006, 02:12

Just got back from night out, watched 4 whilst eating pizza. Some wierdo is alseep/ People choose to stay up and watch this?

Even some of the snoring is edited out.

Does anyone thinnk he did this "for politics"?
If so, do you think it has been a success?

Amusing Scrotum

15th January 2006, 02:20

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
How do you mean "less-than-revolutionary". Are you saying that left wing groups should only "accept" or seek support from people who are already revolutionary, because that will get you nowhere.

Should revolutionary groups accept members who are racists, homophobes etc. etc.???

A revolutionary group, as a rule of thumb, should only have revolutionary members. Of course RESPECT is not a revolutionary group, it is a political party and its aims are winning seats in Parliament. For this purpose anyone can (and is) accepted as a member.

Really RESPECT's membership policies (as with its actual policies) should be of little interest to anyone here.

Noah

15th January 2006, 13:01

Does anyone thinnk he did this "for politics"?

Who knows?

If so, do you think it has been a success?

Far from it BB is not the way to go about getting to the youth, the youth (or the majoirty of them) don't want to sit down and watch an old man talk about the left.

RedAnarchist

15th January 2006, 13:09

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2006, 06:37 PM
Big Brother has never had political discussions.
Reality television shows are not exactly the epitome of intellectual discussion.

Why would any sane person wish to be locked up with a number of other people in a building, where they are watched by cameras all the time and are allowed no communication with the outside world? It's pure insane vanity of the "i wanna be famous" brigade (and that includes the nobodies in the current uk series)

Amusing Scrotum

15th January 2006, 20:58

Originally posted by xphile2868+Jan 15 2006, 01:25 PM--> (xphile2868 @ Jan 15 2006, 01:25 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 14 2006, 06:37 PM
Big Brother has never had political discussions.
Reality television shows are not exactly the epitome of intellectual discussion. [/b]

That wasn't my point. I'm pretty sure political discussions are simply not allowed on reality TV shows. Therefore they're edited out (that's why you hear the chickens and birds etc.).

bolshevik butcher

15th January 2006, 21:30

yeh I dont think the prime audience wants to hear Galloways view on this or that, they'd much rather see him doing something sutpid with another celebrity. And to pretned that he was niaeve enough to know this before going onto the show is a poor defence to say the least.

YKTMX

15th January 2006, 21:35

He is RESPECT's single biggest donor. In any case, IMO the volume of money is irrelevant, it is that the money has been accepted by such a character - and that he was a RESPECT candidate in the general election.

As I said, he's not as significant a character as you make out. I'm not saying he's of no significance, but certainly his more extreme views have no influence on Respect.

Don't you think it is disgusting that RESPECT is working with such a character YKTMX?

As I've said before, in the course of building a broad cross-class electoral alliance, you will find yourself in league with people with whom you have severe disgareements.

No one in Respect, as far as I can tell, denies that.

All political parties are coalitions to some extent.

And with damn good reason.

Or petty sectarian ones?

As far as I can see, you have a lot in common with Galloway. You're both in awe of the Stalinism under the palm trees for one, eh, comrade?

In what respect is it hypocritical or misguided?

Well, one of the main criticisms some in the SSP have of Galloway is that he stayed in the Labour Party. Now, where does the SSP come from? It's a party founded by formers members of the Militant Tendency - a Labour party entrist group! A group who only gave up that venture when they were removed from the Labour party by it's leadership!

Also, lots of people dislike him because he's against Scottish independence. I happen to be marginally in favour of Independence, but I can most certainly see a strong case for being against it. The reason people in the SSP are so annoyed at Galloway on this is because their call for an "Independent Socialist Scotland" is much more about nationalism than class politics. And he exposes that to some extent.

YKTMX

15th January 2006, 21:42

Should revolutionary groups accept members who are racists, homophobes etc. etc.???

They, of course, shouldn't admit committed racists or homophobes, but I don't think people should be automatically excluded from activity because they initially hold this or that reactionary view.

A revolutionary group, as a rule of thumb, should only have revolutionary members.

God, you do talk some rubbish.

People are not "born" revolutionary, they become revolutionary. Working class people might come to reject capitalism, but still hold some "bourgeois" views. The goal of the revolutionary party is not to collect the "pure bloods" who have all the answers. The goal is to collect the people who have made a break with bourgeois ideology, and then go through a process of winning them to revolutionary socialism - and, of course, purging them of their "old" opinions.

Really RESPECT's membership policies (as with its actual policies) should be of little interest to anyone here.

Agreed. Because most people here are only interested in talking to themselves in endless circular arguments, while other people actually are interested in winning the broad masses to progressive social change.

I know Respect annoys lots of the ultra leftist armchair socialists like yourself.

Good, it's supposed to.

Andy Bowden

15th January 2006, 22:12

As I've said before, in the course of building a cross-class electoral alliance

Whoa there. How can Socialists build a "cross class" electoral alliance? Our job should be to push for our class, the working class. By all means accept recruits from the Middle class, but to put forward the idea that classes can "work together" is dangerous popular frontism and anti-Marxist IMO.

They of course, shouldn't admit committed racists or Homophobes

Why has Mohammed Nasseem been allowed in? He is a leading member of an explicitly homophobic organisation.

his more extreme views have no influence on RESPECT

Why then did RESPECT not include a mention of LGBT rights in their manifesto? This is an important issue, not including it in your manifesto is at best, a very stupid oversight, and at worst an example of diluting your politics.

This should have been apologised for, at least.

or petty sectarian ones?

No Galloways denunciation of the SSP as "trotskyite apparachiks", in none other than the virulently anti-working class Daily Mail is sectarian. Most Comrades I know object to him because he is not a Socialist, and does not hold up basic Socialist principles like a Workers Wage for example.

The objection to George Galloway from most SSP members, IMO is not based upon his lingering in the LP - many of the harshest critics of Galloway, the AWL for example still support an LP vote in areas - the major problem most Comrades have with Galloway is that he does not take a Workers Wage, accepts money from homophobes and appeals to people on a religous and not class basis.

This can be seen in his election material "George Galloway - Fighter for Muslims" -Muslims are not a homogenous group, I certainly dont want someone to fight for Mohammed al Fayed, Iqbal Sacranie or Mohammed Nasseem do you?

I want someone to fight for the working class, regarding of whatever religion they have - and there is not a fucking chance in Hell I would ever, ever, vote for Mohammed Nasseem. :angry:

Conghaileach

15th January 2006, 22:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:34 PM
How do you mean "less-than-revolutionary". Are you saying that left wing groups should only "accept" or seek support from people who are already revolutionary, because that will get you nowhere.
I could be wrong on this, but I believe that Respect has been criticised on numerous occassions because it has refused to address certain issues in favour of getting the support of more conservative Muslims.

Amusing Scrotum

16th January 2006, 02:13

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)but I don't think people should be automatically excluded from activity because they initially hold this or that reactionary view.[/b]

Well as they say, some reactionary views are more reactionary than others. It is therefore incredibly important that there are boundaries, if you think X, you not going to be able to be part of group A.

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)People are not "born" revolutionary, they become revolutionary.[/b]

A truism.

However before people become revolutionary, should they be part of revolutionary groups? ....there are a lot of examples (the American CP springs to mind) of revolutionary groups "liberalising" themselves by either accepting members who aren't revolutionaries (by this I mean Communists who want an end to wage slavery) or working with liberal groups.

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The goal is to collect the people who have made a break with bourgeois ideology, and then go through a process of winning them to revolutionary socialism

Are RESPECT doing that? ....by accepting money from a known homophobe, I'm inclined to think they will accept any Tom, Dick or Harry whether they hold reprehensible views or not.

[email protected]
I know Respect annoys lots of the ultra leftist armchair socialists like yourself.

You are fond of blowing smoke out of your ass aren't you?

Andy Bowden
Whoa there. How can Socialists build a "cross class" electoral alliance?

YouKnowTheyMurderedX seems rather fond (from what I can tell) of building alliances with anyone. To him it doesn't particularly matter if you're a large business owner, as long as you have a bit of Socialist rhetoric in your arsenal, you're a "revolutionary socialist".

ReD_ReBeL

16th January 2006, 02:23

yes i do like genuine revolutionary groups like the New Peoples Army but do you really think that a revolutionary group is going to get the power in the UK? The Socialist Workers Party are a sort of revolutionary group, they dont participate in elections, But they are now a part of the Respect Coalition, along with The Communist party of great britain. can you really see the masses of the UK supporting a violent revolution? Also George Galloway is not the Respect Coaltion, he is an MP in Respect.
isn't it not hypocritcal to dislike RESPECT for recieving funds of a homophode, when the poster boy of the Left Che Guevara openly didn't like gays?<that question is for Che supporters.

Amusing Scrotum

16th January 2006, 02:38

Originally posted by ReD_ReBeL+--> (ReD_ReBeL)but do you really think that a revolutionary group is going to get the power in the UK?[/b]

Through a Parliamentary election? ....well it is possible, I'd put the possibility at around 0.001, perhaps 0.002. :lol:

Given the past history of "radical" groups who have taken part in elections, I'd say there's a good possibility that as soon as the group became moderately important, it'd start abandoning its "principles".

Originally posted by [email protected]
can you really see the masses of the UK supporting a violent revolution?

Not now no, but does that mean this is going to be the same forever?

ReD_ReBeL
isn't it not hypocritcal to dislike RESPECT for recieving funds of a homophode, when the poster boy of the Left Che Guevara openly didn't like gays?

Not really.

"Che", like all of us, was a product of his times. Back then even progressives had a less than progressive view of gay people. Today that's not the case, which makes RESPECT happily receiving money of a (well known) homophobe a disgrace.

ReD_ReBeL

16th January 2006, 02:45

Not now no, but does that mean this is going to be the same forever?

No but we need action now, we can't wait till times change in the UK for people to accept a genuine violent revolution. So if a leftist reformist government is running even if not perfect we should still support it. I'm not comparing , but for a reformist look what Hugo Chavez has done for venezuela, poverty has almost halfed and the working peoples of Venezuela are doing much better.

"Che", like all of us, was a product of his times

How? Racism was very popular back then, was Che Racist? no he wasn't he liberated the blacks of Cuba as every1 else . So it's rather simplistic to say he was a product of his times

Amusing Scrotum

16th January 2006, 03:18

Originally posted by ReD_ReBeL+--> (ReD_ReBeL)So if a leftist reformist government is running even if not perfect we should still support it.[/b]

Okay, suppose we accept this and apply it to the U.K.

There is no "leftist reformist government", therefore should we support the Labour Party? ....or alternatively should we support one of the little parties (RESPECT, SWP etc.)? ....if we do support these parties then we should do some work for them, party-building etc. Then if they get into Government, they'll shit on us.

So we've spent maybe twenty years helping them party-build and yet what have we to show for this? ....nothing. Wouldn't it have been better just to try and start our own (exclusively revolutionary) movement?

Originally posted by [email protected]
but for a reformist look what Hugo Chavez has done for venezuela

Are these things still possible in Britain? ....with the (planned) selling off of the NHS etc. it looks like Britain can't afford to reform herself.

ReD_ReBeL
So it's rather simplistic to say he was a product of his times

So what? ....he had a pathological hatred of gay people?

Look at it this way. We all live within limits, this means that even the most advanced people of our time still have some of the characteristics of the society they are from.

Marx himself, despite being very advanced for his time, still on occasion used "ethnic slurs". Does this mean Marx was a racist? ....or rather does it mean that while Marx was able to rise above most of the cultural baggage of his time, he wasn't able to rise above it all?