Galloway, Respect MP, Rightwing Reactionary

[TC]

George Galloway, Respect and abortion

A recent article in The Independent on Sunday (4 April 2004) quotes George Galloway as saying that he is ‘strongly against abortion. I believe life begins at conception and therefore unborn babies have rights. I think abortion is immoral...I believe in God. I have to believe that the collection of cells has a soul’. This reactionary position will be a surprise to many people but in fact it is consistent with his record as a Labour MP. The completely reactionary Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child lauds him as a ‘courageous fighter’ in defence of the ‘unborn child’.

http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com...79/179_gal.html (http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/179/179_gal.html)

Speaking to The Independent on Sunday, Galloway said that he is “strongly against abortion. I believe life begins at conception and therefore unborn babies have rights. I think abortion is immoral.” He added: “I believe in god. I have to believe that the collection of cells has a soul” (April 4). In a certain sense this is not really news, of course. When he was in the Labour Party Galloway had a consistent record of opposition to a woman’s right to choose. The website of the reactionary campaigning organisation, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, characterises him as a “courageous fighter” for his stance on this and related questions (www.spuc.org.uk).

But he is no longer a Labour Party backbencher. George Galloway is the leading figure in Respect - he also heads our London list for the EU elections. With that there comes collective responsibility. Otherwise the danger is that what George Galloway says will be equated in the public mind with what Respect thinks.

For example, MAB’s press release “welcomed” his “statements on faith and god” and concluded that British muslims will now “see Respect as a real alternative to the main political parties” (April 24). This use of George Galloway’s reactionary views - crucially on abortion - to justify support for Respect obliges its executive to immediately make its position absolutely clear. The suggestion of waiting till after the June 10 elections for an autumn conference is a nonsense - there can be no fudging on this issue: people have the right to know what they are voting for.

Respect’s founding declaration is for “the right for self-determination for every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices”. Most in and around Respect would have regarded this as a fairly routine defence of basic democratic rights, not least those relating to a women’s control over her own fertility. Yet after comrade Galloway’s interview and its subsequent welcome by MAB it is clear that this formulation needs clarification.


http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/527/01openletter.html


'I have religious beliefs and try to live by them,' Galloway tells me. 'I have all my life been against abortion and against euthanasia - in fact, on Question Time two weeks ago I was the only panellist to inveigh against the creeping euthanasia in our society. I am not surprised if my position on these issues strikes a chord.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/st...1461669,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1461669,00.html)

[Okocim]

this is the exact kind of thing I was talking about in the other thread.

[RebelDog]

I occasionally listen to his talk show on the radio, and whilst I knew he believed in god, I am suprised by his views on obortion. I am sure there will now be elements within Respect and the SWP who will want him removed as leader. He's retiring from parliament at the next elections so I'm sure he has some great ideas on how to get even richer, US speaking tours, books, appearances etc. Perhaps him and Tony Blair could tour the US together.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More smears Tragic?

And this from a comrade who links to a site that extolls the virtues of Saddam Hussein!

And Galloway is not the SWP's MP.

He is not even in the SWP.

But, why let truth stand in the way of a good lie, eh? ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Okocim:


this is the exact kind of thing I was talking about in the other thread.

Yes, you seem to like lies and smears.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter, if you have listened to all he has said, not the edited highligts TC relies on, you will know that these are his personal views, but he defends the right of any woman to decide what happens to her body; it is not up to the state or the church to interfere.

He has said that more times than I care to mention.

But, of course, the 'lovers of truth' here, like TC, ignore this since it doea not fit their a priori prejudices.

You will also notice that Tragic spends more time here attacking comrades and other lefties than she does the real enemy.

Classic sectarian.

[BobKKKindle$]

One of the defining characteristics of the Respect coalition is that it is composed of a very broad range of different groups and ideologies, the reason for which is that the Coalition is derived from the Stop-the-war coalition that was founded in order to protest the war in Iraq and is now trying to prevent the build-up of aggression against Iran

That is the idea of a coalition - people putting aside their differences in order to further interests they hold in common.

Galloway's stance does not reflect that of the entire coalition and certainly not the SWP. The SWP is in fact known for its emphasis on Womens' Struggle - I would like to draw your attention in particular to the work of Lindsey German, and also note that at Marxism 2006 an event held by the SWP, numerous talks took place on Women's Oppression, one of which was entitled 'The fight for Abortion rights - avaliable here should you doubt this -

http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp/m2006home.htm

The SWP has done far more than other parties to try and develop class consciousness in Britain and plays an active role in covering and participating in working class struggles. I agree with Rosa in that the criticisms listed by other members are sectarian and not conducive to the interests of leftists or the working class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Quite right Bob, as he pointed out in a letter to the Guardian, TC neglected to quote:


Sacha Ismail manages three inaccuracies in 100 words (Letters, June 4). I am not opposed to a woman's right to choose and neither is the Respect coalition: we recognise people's right to express their own views and choices on this matter....

George Galloway MP

Respect, Glasgow Kelvin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1232817,00.html

And he answers some of his critics here:

http://www.traprockpeace.org/george_gallow...lies-by-others/ (http://www.traprockpeace.org/george_galloway_tour/index.php/george-galloways-reply-to-greg-palast-with-replies-by-others/)

[Demogorgon]

People will be surprised about this? He has never tried to hide it. He has said as long as I can remember that he is personally against abortion but will leave it up to women to choose. What more can you want? Him to change an emotional reaction that he nonetheless does not force upon anyone else?

Some people won't be happy until they have a complete saint representing the socialist movement. I thought socialism was a human thing, aren't humans allowed faults?

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:57 am

Some people won't be happy until they have a complete saint representing the socialist movement. I thought socialism was a human thing, aren't humans allowed faults?
The majority of people on this forum are coffe shop revolutinaries. Anyone that has a slightly different view then their own is suddenly labeled a rightwing reactionary, regardless of what good they have done and stood up for.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Demogoron, get real: we already have such a saint -- she is called 'Tragic Clown'

Now say three hail TC's and sacrifice five turtle doves, in penance, you naugthy boy! :angry:

And Grove Street, you have hit upon one of the left's major weaknesses: several of the comrades here regard other comrades as bigger enemies than the ruling class -- or they talk that way.

So the bosses laugh all the way to the next attack on our side.

But, with such sectarians, this will not even go in one ear, never mind out the other!!

At this rate we will never see socialism!

[Which makes one wonder how much some are being paid by the CIA/MI6....]

[Herman]

Galloway is saying one of his personal opinions. Okay, what else? What's the point?

So he's suddenly a right-wing reactionary because he believes in God and is not in favour of abortion, in his own personal belief?

[fashbash]

It should be pointed out that George Galloway is not a socialist, nor is RESPECT a socialist party.

While RESPECT does a good job in bringing long-ignored issues affecting the asian community to the foreground, and opposing the war, at no point does Galloway mention class. Quite simply, RESPECT does not set itself out as a working class party, and therefore cannot be socialist. It may have some policies which bear relevence to the left, but it is a race party not a class party. It doesn't even claim to be a working class asian party. And so in this way, Galloway cannot be considered a socialist.

Personally I think George Galloway is damaging to our cause. The man is a prat, anyone who saw him on CBB can tell you that, and when people associate him with socialism they get very turned off. We as leftists should openly distance ourselves from him and his party. It amazes me that the SWP should support him, but then again, the SWP are just coffeetable communists.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:54 pm
It should be pointed out that George Galloway is not a socialist, nor is RESPECT a socialist party.

While RESPECT does a good job in bringing long-ignored issues affecting the asian community to the foreground, and opposing the war, at no point does Galloway mention class. Quite simply, RESPECT does not set itself out as a working class party, and therefore cannot be socialist. It may have some policies which bear relevence to the left, but it is a race party not a class party. It doesn't even claim to be a working class asian party. And so in this way, Galloway cannot be considered a socialist.

Personally I think George Galloway is damaging to our cause. The man is a prat, anyone who saw him on CBB can tell you that, and when people associate him with socialism they get very turned off. We as leftists should openly distance ourselves from him and his party. It amazes me that the SWP should support him, but then again, the SWP are just coffeetable communists.
I think labeling a party a 'race party' just because it contains a large proportion of non white members also damages our cause, comrade. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red H:


Okay, what else? What's the point?

He was answering a question

The reason why this point itself is being made in this thread is that certain sectarians here are trying to potray him as anti-choice, when he is not.

[fashbash]

True Rosa Lichenstein but that wasn't the point I meant to make. By Race party, I mean his issues are largely race based and orientated. He sets out to protect people of a particular race, and we as leftists know that Race is not the real issue, but Class. I don't care what the demographic of it's members is, but I do care about the policies it has. And they are policies based on the assumption that race is key not class, therefore RESPECT is not a socialist party.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FB:


Personally I think George Galloway is damaging to our cause. The man is a prat, anyone who saw him on CBB can tell you that, and when people associate him with socialism they get very turned off. We as leftists should openly distance ourselves from him and his party. It amazes me that the SWP should support him, but then again, the SWP are just coffeetable communists.

No need for that sectarian jibe, comrade.

The SWP does not support him, just aspects of his politics that are part of the united front.

And, even though he made a twat of himself on CBB, he stood up to the US congress like no other person ever has, or ever could, I think.

I certainly could not do it, and I rather suspect you could not, either.

So, as Demogoron said, if you are looking for a saint to be a figurehead on the left, you will have a long wait ahead of you.

He is, like all of us, a mixture of different character traits.

Unless, of course, that does not apply to you, since you, like TC above, are already a saint.

[Andy Bowden]

Its not just Galloways personal opinion though - its part of his actions in parliament. Galloway signed an EDM by a "pro-life" MP to review abortion law.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails....935&SESSION=875 (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=30935&SESSION=875)

This is despite the fact that RESPECT supports abortion rights, at least on paper - http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=506

So not only is the guy anti-feminist, he doesnt even care about what his own party votes for.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I like to listen to his radio talk show, he really blows the shit out of all the people who call up and are defending the bourgeoisie and he explains how foolish it is.

Though we have got to remember he is a member of parliament, he is old too, and has split loyalties.

But, really, he would make a much worse enemy than an ally, and due to his quick wit and broad knowledge he can tear apart pro war fucks like Hitchins.

With regards to his views on abortion is that feminist maxim relevant 'the personal is the political' or something like that.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:54 pm
It should be pointed out that George Galloway is not a socialist, nor is RESPECT a socialist party.

While RESPECT does a good job in bringing long-ignored issues affecting the asian community to the foreground, and opposing the war, at no point does Galloway mention class. Quite simply, RESPECT does not set itself out as a working class party, and therefore cannot be socialist. It may have some policies which bear relevence to the left, but it is a race party not a class party. It doesn't even claim to be a working class asian party. And so in this way, Galloway cannot be considered a socialist.

Personally I think George Galloway is damaging to our cause. The man is a prat, anyone who saw him on CBB can tell you that, and when people associate him with socialism they get very turned off. We as leftists should openly distance ourselves from him and his party. It amazes me that the SWP should support him, but then again, the SWP are just coffeetable communists.
just out of curiousity, do you support any parties fashbash? or are you a revvy, pure and simply?

[fashbash]

Do you have a DAB radio or digital TV? Listen to TalkSport from ten on a Friday night, he has his own show.

He may not be a saint, nobody is (in fact historically, many saints did not behave in very saintly ways), but he is still not the right figure head for modern british socialism. His ego is greater than the cause to him, and he sees anyone who disagrees with him as being less intelligent than him. He behaves less like a politician than a celebrity, and he turns people off.

And quite simply, he is not a socialist. His views are not leftist. He does not argue for socialism, he argues for special Galloway brand Socialism Lite.

[fashbash]

I am a proud and fully paid up member of The Socialist Party.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

If you look at his early day motion, its wording says nothing about limiting choice, nor does it even hint at it.

Nice try, only it wasn't.

So, can I change the wording of this sentece of yours so that it is more accurate:


So not only is Andy Bowden anti-SWP, he doesnt even care about accuracy..

Now, had you posted that, I would have agreed with you whole-heartedly.

Glad I could help.... :)

[Hit The North]

I don't care what the demographic of it's members is, but I do care about the policies it has. And they are policies based on the assumption that race is key not class, therefore RESPECT is not a socialist party.

The main policy thrust of RESPECT is opposition to the occupation of Iraq and Afganistan and the possible invasion of Iran. In that case it appeals directly to British Muslims. Nevertheless, mobilizing opposition to the war and to the Islamophobia which our ruling class exploits to initiate such wars and threats of war is not a race issue but a class issue. It's about mobilizing opposition at home to imperialism abroad.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FB:


but he is still not the right figure head for modern british socialism. His ego is greater than the cause to him, and he sees anyone who disagrees with him as being less intelligent than him. He behaves less like a politician than a celebrity, and he turns people off.

So, set your own figure-head, and we'll see if he/she is as successful as that gang who ran Liverpool in the 1980's (or even as successful as Peter Taafe...). :rolleyes:

And if you do not like ours, tough!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

So, set your own figure-head, and we'll see if he/she is as successful as that gang who ran Liverpool in the 1980's

What happened in Liverpool in the 1980's?

[Andy Bowden]

Rosa, the EDM signed by Galloway is proposed by Geraldine Smith who is a member of the all-parliamentary pro-life group. The EDM calls for a review into abortion law.

What the fuck do you think a "review" into abortion law demanded by someone who is pro-life going to consist of? <_<

Its been roundly condemned by pro-choice organisations who defend a womens right to choose.

http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/137/49/

[fashbash]

So you&#39;re saying, Miss Lichenstien ;) , that he is indeed a figure head for modern socialism? Arthur Scargill was the best figurehead the left has ever had in this country (although my Dad tells me he was a wanker in real life, apparently he refered to himself in the third person), can you see Galloway mobilising the working class in the same way?

I&#39;m not saying I disagree with everything RESPECT stands for, I think Islamophobia is threat to all of us, but I maintain that it is not a socialist party. How can it be? It bases its issues on race not class. And also I think Galloway is a pompous prat, who isn&#39;t even very good at public speaking. On his radio show he doesnt even challenge his caller&#39;s views he just cuts them off. James Whale who&#39;s on the rest of the week might be a right wing bastard but at least he doesnt cut his callers off if he disagrees with them. And he&#39;s a twat.

[fashbash]

So, set your own figure-head, and we&#39;ll see if he/she is as successful as that gang who ran Liverpool in the 1980&#39;s I assume you mean the militants?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCS, the forerunner to that mass party (The Socialist Party) was the Militant Tendency; under Peter Taffe&#39;s expert guidance it &#39;grew&#39; from 5-7000 to under 1000 today. :o

With the saintlike leadership of an ex-comrade (and now right wing wide boy), Derek Hatton, among others, Militant took control of Liverpool council, and despite all the warnings we on the left issued, they refused to listen. They were so triumphalist, they could not even bring themselves to say the word &#39;defeat&#39;, so that stopped them heeding the many warnings they received. Result: Thatcher made mince meat of them.

Even now they think that &#39;growing&#39; from 8000+ in the mid 1980&#39;s to under 1000 these days is a major advance, and nothing you say will shake that belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_Tendency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_Tend...nt_in_Liverpool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_Tendency#The_Militant_in_Liverpool)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Par...gland_and_Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_England_and_Wales)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Hatton

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Andy:


Rosa, the EDM signed by Galloway is proposed by Geraldine Smith who is a member of the all-parliamentary pro-life group. The EDM calls for a review into abortion law.

Still clutching at straws I see; read it carefully, it says nothing about limiting choice.


What the fuck do you think a "review" into abortion law demanded by someone who is pro-life going to consist of?

In the absence of proof, all you have is this vague, rhetorical question.

That is it; that&#39;s your best &#39;evidence&#39;&#33;

A rhetorical question&#33; :o


Its been roundly condemned by pro-choice organisations who defend a womens right to choose.

Looks as if they like rhetorical questions too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FB:


So you&#39;re saying, Miss Lichenstien , that he is indeed a figure head for modern socialism? Arthur Scargill was the best figurehead the left has ever had in this country (although my Dad tells me he was a wanker in real life, apparently he refered to himself in the third person), can you see Galloway mobilising the working class in the same way?

Ok, smarty pants, who do you suggest: Peter &#39;I have lost 7000 members&#39; Taafe?


On his radio show he doesnt even challenge his caller&#39;s views he just cuts them off. James Whale who&#39;s on the rest of the week might be a right wing bastard but at least he doesnt cut his callers off if he disagrees with them. And he&#39;s a twat.

That&#39;s not what I hear him doing when I listen to his show.

And I wish you&#39;d stop using such complex techical terms from political science (like &#39;twat&#39;); it prevents us from working out if you like him or not....

[Andy Bowden]

Still clutching at straws I see; read it carefully, it says nothing about limiting choice.

Most welfare reform bills dont say shaft the poor, help the rich on them either - bourgeois politics is a little bit more sophisticated.

Should Galloway or any Left MP sign an EDM calling for a review into welfare or immigration reform proposed by an ultra-right Tory MP, on the basis that its "ambiguous"?

The point is what kind of reform or review would a pro-life MP want in regards to abortion if not to restrict it?&#33;?


Looks as if they like rhetorical questions too.

No, theyre just not into intellectual gymnastics to defend the indefensible. They know exactly what kind of reforms a pro-life MP wants in regard to abortion and the effect it would have on women. Galloway doesn&#39;t.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Once more Andy substitutes another rhetorical question for evidence:


Should Galloway or any Left MP sign an EDM calling for a review into welfare or immigration reform proposed by an ultra-right Tory MP, on the basis that its "ambiguous"?

E-mail him; I am sure he will explain himself to you.

And just to make sure we spotted his rhetorical question (even though I have already commented on it), he very helpfully repeated it:


The point is what kind of reform or review would a pro-life MP want in regards to abortion if not to restrict it?&#33;?

To save him the trouble of doing this again, here it is once more:


The point is what kind of reform or review would a pro-life MP want in regards to abortion if not to restrict it?&#33;?

Now, asking it four times certainly transforms it into solid evidence, don&#39;t you think?

I know I do. ;)


No, theyre just not into intellectual gymnastics to defend the indefensible. They know exactly what kind of reforms a pro-life MP wants in regard to abortion and the effect it would have on women. Galloway doesn&#39;t.

As I said, they like inferences and rhetorical questions, like you.

Now, can we move on?

[Andy Bowden]

Now, asking it four times certainly transforms it into solid evidence, don&#39;t you think?

I know I do.

Im not asking rhetorical questions (ok, im probably not going to get a reply, but Id still like one). Im asking one of George Galloways supporters (Rosa) what kind of reform she thinks a pro-life MP wants into abortion law. Does she seriously think it will be anything other than anti-choice?

Rosa?

[MarxistFuture]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:31 pm

So, set your own figure-head, and we&#39;ll see if he/she is as successful as that gang who ran Liverpool in the 1980&#39;s

What happened in Liverpool in the 1980&#39;s?
Militant Tendency.

We (the people of Liverpool) got fucked basically.

[BobKKKindle$]

I would contest the idea that RESPECT is a &#39;race-based&#39; party. The organisation may indeed have the support and membership of groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, and opposition to the Iraq war may be an important part of RESPECT&#39;s politics, but that does not suggest that the party puts ethnicity before the idea of class struggle. I would advise all members who think so to examine the manifesto of RESPECT which places heavy emphasis on issues relating to the financial and material hardship that the working class faces both explicit demands and implicitly through the language used in the manifesto. If we are going to try to label a party, surely it is a good idea to refer to documents in which its aims and ideas are expressed - unless any of our sectarians can actually name cases in which RESPECT has clearly placed the demands of an ethnic group above those of the working class?

http://www.respectcoalition.org/elect/news.php?ite=665

Any emphasis on the interests of the Muslim Community is entirely consistent with the principles of Socialism. In addition to supporting class struggle, surely we are also supportive of the concept of the multicultural society? By bringing together Muslim cultural groups and working-class organisations such as the SWP the RESPECT coalition aims to overcome the ethnic division and conflict within the working class - and in doing so is presenting opposition to groups such as the BNP.

[Vanguard1917]

It should be pointed out that George Galloway is not a socialist, nor is RESPECT a socialist party.

There it is right there. Galloway is not a socialist and Respect is not a socialist party. So why are we expecting non-socialists to uphold socialist principles?

Sure, Galloway was a kind-of-leftish Labour MP - though not exactly a militant: between 1997 to 2003 he&#39;s estimated to have rebelled in 32 of the 893 parliamentary votes he took part in. In other words, he agreed with the New Labour leadership 861 times.

Yes, he opposed Blair&#39;s Iraq invasion - but so did the likes of Robin Cook and Frank Dobson. Opposing a war which no one seems to support hardly requires courage.

I have a feeling that the future of the British left does not lie with Galloway and Respect. We need something different.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

well he was a member of the communist party in his earlier days, so he is some kind of leftist.

[Vanguard1917]

well he was a member of the communist party in his earlier days, so he is some kind of leftist.

British Home Secretary John Reid was also once a Communist Party member.

[RebelDog]

I was happy the night I seen Una King get a well-deserved bloody nose by Galloway. He&#39;s one of the old Labour politicians who could never fit in to New Labour but he&#39;d still be in that party if they didn&#39;t jettison him. His pro-superstitious Dawkins bashing on his radio show makes me want to vomit when I hear it but its up to him what garbage he wants to spout.


There it is right there. Galloway is not a socialist and Respect is not a socialist party. So why are we expecting non-socialists to uphold socialist principles?

Galloway gives the right-wing press a hard-on and they duplicitously portray him as the leader of the British left. The left in Britain is of course neither led or represented by him, thankfully.



well he was a member of the communist party in his earlier days, so he is some kind of leftist.

So was John Reid and look at him&#33;

[Vanguard1917]

Let&#39;s not forget that Galloway also supports immigration controls. But i guess that that&#39;s just his &#39;personal opinion&#39; (since &#39;no one is perfect&#39;) and isn&#39;t effecting Respect (and, indeed, SWP) policy-making. Actually it is:

Galloway joins in the numbers game (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm)

It’s quite nice today, George (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/567/swp.htm)

[BobKKKindle$]

Since when was it considered reactionary to promote the use of immigration controls? This is utterly absurd&#33; Those that choose to emigrate to the developed world from countries which are characterised by political instability and economic hardship are often the most innovative and well educated citizens, such that whilst immigration may be consistent with multi-culturalism, in the long run it harms developing countries, as the economy suffers a loss of human capital and families may be dependent on remmitances (assuming those that have emmigrated did so alone and choose to return part of their income to those remaining in their home countries) for material security.

Respect, however, still ensures that those who are forced to emmigrate as a result of the possibility of political persecution are given the asylum to which they are entitled - for example, allow me to quote just some of the terms of the RESPECT manifesto relating to this subject area:


1. End the use of detention centres for asylum seekers
2. End the White List of ‘safe’ countries and end deportations
3. Give asylum seekers and refugees the right to food and shelter,
plus access to education, health and social services

In addition, RESPECT recognizes that developed countries play an important role in sustaining the socio-economic conditions that drive people to emmigrate and an important part of the manifesto is dedicated to ways in which the dependency and control relationships that exist beween developed and developing countries could be dealt with in order to establish a more egalitarian world.

[Vanguard1917]

Since when was it considered reactionary to promote the use of immigration controls?

Since a very, very long time.


Those that choose to emigrate to the developed world from countries which are characterised by political instability and economic hardship are often the most innovative and well educated citizens, such that whilst immigration may be consistent with multi-culturalism, in the long run it harms developing countries

So the answer is to turn immigrants away?


Respect, however, still ensures that those who are forced to emmigrate as a result of the possibility of political persecution are given the asylum to which they are entitled

So do each one of the mainstream bourgeois parties. They love &#39;genuine asylum seekers&#39;.

Sort out your politics, &#39;bobkindles&#39;.

[Hit The North]

Bob:


Since when was it considered reactionary to promote the use of immigration controls? This is utterly absurd&#33;

Well, didn&#39;t you know the CPGB have a principled opposition to all immigration controls? It&#39;s a principle. But then the CPGB have principles coming out of their ears. That&#39;s why they remain small and isolated - no one can live up to their principles.

Still, when all you do is engage in sectarian anti-politics, having as many "principles" as possible helps these ultra leftists to survive.

Van1917:

Of course Bob is right. A principled rejection of all immigration control has nothing to do with Marxism. On what basis can it be a principle unless your principles are derived from liberal, individual human rights ideology?

[Vanguard1917]

Van1917:

Of course Bob is right. A principled rejection of all immigration control has nothing to do with Marxism. On what basis can it be a principle unless your principles are derived from liberal, individual human rights ideology?

Marxists are the only people who have consistently called for the removal of all anti-immigration laws and for an open-door policy on immigration.

Immigration controls are reactionary. They help to divide the working class, both domestically and internationally.

&#39;Immigration controls serve the capitalist system in two main ways. As stated above, they systematise the denial of rights as far as migrant workers are concerned. This allows them to become worst paid labour and suffer superexploitation. All of the abuses that Bridget Anderson details in her TUC report are made possible by this denial of rights.

&#39;The other purpose immigration controls serve is ideological. They are used to cut migrant workers off from their British brothers and sisters and turn them into scapegoats for crimes committed by the capitalist system itself. They encourage racism and national chauvinism in an attempt to divide and rule.&#39;
link (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/567/swp.htm)

Immigration controls are also a product of imperialism:

While capital is free to move across borders in the hunt for markets and sources of profit, the representatives of capital insist on their god-given right to tightly control the pool of labour they have available to exploit; and to keep those same borders sealed off to surplus labour of the ‘wrong’ type - whether that means workers with inadequate skills, unsuitable work culture or too great an instinct for class solidarity.

Border controls go hand in hand with the development of imperialism. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that immigration controls were introduced in most European countries and the United States. Previously, whole peoples were expelled if considered undesirable, but there had been no organised attempt to prevent immigration. England, for example, expelled all Jews in the 13th century, but it was not until the 1905 Aliens Act that measures were adopted to keep ‘undesirables’ out in the first place.
link (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/565/galloway.htm)

Also, anti-immigration anxieties in society are a primary reason for the BNP gaining support. We need to confront such anxieties and defend mass immigration. The SWP, of course, prefers to ask the bourgeois state to introduce laws against the &#39;Nazis&#39;.

[Vanguard1917]

Still, when all you do is engage in sectarian anti-politics, having as many "principles" as possible helps these ultra leftists to survive.

So if a group does not agree with the positions of the SWP and Respect, it&#39;s sectarian and ulta-left?

Don&#39;t flatter yourselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Andy:


Im asking one of George Galloways supporters (Rosa) what kind of reform she thinks a pro-life MP wants into abortion law. Does she seriously think it will be anything other than anti-choice?

Well, I am not going to speculate -- unlike you.

The wording of that EDM is quite clear; had it mentioned what you would like it have mentioned, he would not have put his name to it, as his clear statements (posted earlier) indicate.

Now, unless you have something better to offer, I suggest you drop this part of your witch-hunt.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917 (the supporter of one wing of big capital against a petty bourgeios wing):


There it is right there. Galloway is not a socialist and Respect is not a socialist party. So why are we expecting non-socialists to uphold socialist principles?

Proof? [Quoting other posters here is not proof.]

Oh, you have none -- you wait until Durkin does a documentary on something, then you believe all he says.

[TC]

Originally posted by Rosa+--> (Rosa)More smears Tragic?[/b]

Smears? I&#39;ve merely reposted news articles from sources who have merely quoted George Galloway.

Do you believe that letting people know what George Galloway&#39;s politics are actually like, in Galloway&#39;s own words, amounts to smears?



Originally posted by [email protected]
And this from a comrade who links to a site that extolls the virtues of Saddam Hussein&#33;

Um, wait, you&#39;re making this smear, just because i link to pro-resistance websites, in defense of George Galloway, who actually met Saddam when both were in office, and told Saddam in front of the media ""Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]."


So basically your position Rosa is:

Me linking to a pro-resistance website that may or may not (i wouldn&#39;t know) say something positive about Saddam in a language i can&#39;t even read: an outrage&#33;

Galloway saluting Saddam Hussein personally and extolling his virtues to his face in front of the media and shouting a Ba&#39;athist slogan: above reproach&#33;


And you have the nerve to call me sectarian :lol:



Rosa

And Galloway is not the SWP&#39;s MP.

He is not even in the SWP.

But, why let truth stand in the way of a good lie, eh?


Galloway is RESPECT, The Unity Coalitions (George Galloway)&#39;s MP, the Coalition refers to the coalition of the SWP, several muslim groups and George Galloway.

RESPECT is an electoral coalition formed by the SWP, led by a national committee consisting of George Galloway and SWP leaders such as Lindsey German and John Rees, that supports the SWP officially, which the SWP supports officially, organizes for and links to prominantly.

The SWP&#39;s support for George Galloway is public and uncompromising. He is their electoral candidate regardless of whether or not he is a member.


If you&#39;re so ashamed of SWP policies such as supporting George Galloway that you need to call them "lies", why don&#39;t you quit.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC:


Smears? I&#39;ve merely reposted news articles from sources who have merely quoted George Galloway.

Selective quotation amounts to a smear if it paints such a biassed picture.


Um, wait, you&#39;re making this smear, just because

See you do not like it, so stop doing it yourself&#33;

Now we get more distortion:


Galloway is RESPECT, The Unity Coalitions (George Galloway)&#39;s MP, the Coalition refers to the coalition of the SWP, several muslim groups and George Galloway.

This is oh so Marxist an analysis. A party is an individual. Brilliant&#33;

But your earlier allegation was (in the title of this smear campaign):


Galloway, Respect MP, Rightwing Reactionary, SWP&#39;s MP is against abortion and for God

Now you have been forced to back-track to this:


The Unity Coalitions (George Galloway)&#39;s MP, the Coalition refers to the coalition of the SWP,



So, you admit he is not in the SWP.

At least we have corrected one of your lies.


[b]If you&#39;re so ashamed of SWP policies such as supporting George Galloway that you need to call them "lies", why don&#39;t you quit.

Eh? :wacko:

[Redmau5]

Proof? [Quoting other posters here is not proof.]

But RESPECT is not socialist at all, and neither is Galloway. There has never been evidence to support that Galloway is a socialist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apart from what they themsleves say, that is.

But why let that fact ruin a nice fairy story.

[TC]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 08:12 pm

Galloway is RESPECT, The Unity Coalitions (George Galloway)&#39;s MP, the Coalition refers to the coalition of the SWP, several muslim groups and George Galloway.

This is oh so Marxist an analysis. A party is an individual. Brilliant&#33;

um, no, as i assumed you were aware, the full and legal name of the party is "RESPECT - The Unity Coalition (George Galloway)", with Galloway&#39;s name in parentheses, this is how the party appears on the ballot and in election results.

This is true not only for votes for Galloway but for other respect candidates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/news/election/...andidates.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/news/election/london_assembly_candidates.shtml)

The fact that they put galloway&#39;s name in the party&#39;s name shows how extremely central one individual is to the party.



So, you admit he is not in the SWP.

At least we have corrected one of your lies.

I never said that he was in the SWP, i said he was the SWP&#39;s MP, the only candidate the SWP runs successfully in parliamentary elections, through its electoral coalition, RESPECT.

Surely you understand that its possible to be a parties candidate without being a member of that party (for instance, Ralph Nader was both the Green Party and Reform Party candidate for president at various times without being a member of either party).




But RESPECT is not socialist at all, and neither is Galloway. There has never been evidence to support that Galloway is a socialist.


Apparently the "S" in RESPECT stands actually for "socialism" rather than "salafism" as is popularly believed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC, is back, but now getting so desperate, she is reduced to substituting a bourgeois legal form for reality:


um, no, as i assumed you were aware, the full and legal name of the party is "RESPECT - The Unity Coalition (George Galloway)", with Galloway&#39;s name in parentheses, this is how the party appears on the ballot and in election results.

So if a film had on it "The Departed, Scorsese&#39;s Greatest", on that basis you&#39;d think that that film director was his own movie, would you?

I suspect you would&#33;


This is true not only for votes for Galloway but for other respect candidates.

Aaanndd...??

TC before she was rumbled:


Galloway is RESPECT,

TC after she was confronted by reality:


The fact that they put galloway&#39;s name in the party&#39;s name shows how extremely central one individual is to the party.

Slowly moving in the right direction I see; from an identity statement earlier to an &#39;he&#39;s a central figure&#39; admission now.


I never said that he was in the SWP, i said he was the SWP&#39;s MP, the only candidate the SWP runs successfully in parliamentary elections, through its electoral coalition, RESPECT.

He is, on your own admission, Respect&#39;s MP (not the SWP&#39;s), and (according to you) identical with Respect, so you, even in your less sane moments, do not believe this guff.

And you must know that SWP members of Respect also stood for election.

So, your continual smears do not contain an atom of truth.


Surely you understand that its possible to be a parties candidate without being a member of that party (for instance, Ralph Nader was both the Green Party and Reform Party candidate for president at various times without being a member of either party).

Once more, even you acknowledge that he is a Respect candidate, so why you dredged this up, I haven&#39;t a clue

Except: I suspect that you can see how desperate your position is becoming, so you are trying to detract attention from your predicament.

All to no avial; I am quite happy to help turn the knife you have just inserted into your own sectarian chest.

And you wonder why you belong to such a vanishingly small &#39;group&#39;?

[Vanguard1917]

TC after she was confronted by reality:

The reality is that, on ballot papers and in the public consciousness, Respect is Galloway. A bit like Veritas and Robert Kilroy-Silk. (Though in the case of Veritas, at least Kilroy-Silk was the official leader of his party.)


Candidates for London Assembly Constituency Members
Barnet & Camden

Lucy Nevillia Anderson - The Labour Party

Brian John Coleman - The Conservative Party

Miranda Jane Dunn -
Green Party

Humberto Luis Domingue Heliotrope - Christian Peoples Alliance

Magnus Nielsen - United Kingdom Independence Party

Jonathan andrew Simpson - Liberal Democrats

Elisabeth Jane Wheatley - Respect - The Unity Coalition (George Galloway)
link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/news/election/london_assembly_candidates.shtml)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


The reality is that, on ballot papers and in the public consciousness, Respect is Galloway. A bit like Veritas and Robert Kilroy-Silk. (Though in the case of Veritas, at least Kilroy-Silk was the official leader of his party.)

It is interesting to see what loopy ideas you lot will accept just to make a sectarian point.

So an individual is, according to you and TC, identical with a party&#33;

And you think ordinary folk are so stupid as to draw the same idiotic conclusion do you?

That is, that they think all the members, all the offices, all the candidates, all the canvassers, all the vehicles, all the leaflets, etc etc are identical with George Galloway? :blink:

You might be daft enough to believe this, but I suspect they are not.

I think you should get back to what you are good at: siding with big capital against petty bourgeois capital.

I think they both can use all the confused minds they can get.

And take TC with you -- let&#39;s see how long it is before you two fall out.

[Vanguard1917]

It is interesting to see what loopy ideas you lot will accept just to make a sectarian point.

Criticising Galloway does not equal sectarianism. Such an accusation is laughable.

The &#39;loopy idea&#39; is that Respect is involved in personality politics, where the Galloway brand and Respect have become so inseparable that they have to put &#39;Galloway&#39; in brackets after the party&#39;s name in order to remind the electorate who they&#39;re voting for.

Why not try to rise above the vacuous personality politics of the contemporary mainstream political climate?

[TC]

Whats really "loopy" is that Rosa introduces an idea, "that an individual is identical with a party", and than proceeds to criticize this idea as if it were one of ours, when in fact she was the person who introduced this idea to the thread by way of her misinterpretation of the official name of the party as if we had made it up, even when its been clarified that no one is suggesting anything as esoteric as she is. She&#39;s basically having a conversation with herself, its the ultimate straw man argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Criticising Galloway does not equal sectarianism. Such an accusation is laughable.

But true.


The &#39;loopy idea&#39; is that Respect is involved in personality politics, where the Galloway brand and Respect have become so inseparable that they have to put &#39;Galloway&#39; in brackets after the party&#39;s name in order to remind the electorate who they&#39;re voting for.

You are the one concentrating on personalities, sunshine.

Here is some excellent advice for you:


Why not try to rise above the vacuous personality politics of the contemporary mainstream political climate?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TC, before she was found out:


Galloway is RESPECT,

TC now:


Whats really "loopy" is that Rosa introduces an idea, "that an individual is identical with a party",

Your idea missy; you should be proud of it.

And now she thinks that her debating with me does not actually exist:


She&#39;s basically having a conversation with herself

:wacko:

I think you have been taking too much health advice from that wacko site you link to, girl.

[fashbash]

Actually yes Rosa, I can think of lots of people better than George Galloway to be the public figurehead of the left.

Every branch of every leftist party in the country has a member who is far more suited to the job: Rob Winsor for example, one of three Socialist Party Councillors for Coventry, or Dr Jackie Grunsell who is currently spearheading the &#39;Save Huddersfield NHS&#39; campaign, Ian Slattery who is standing in the upcomming local elections for Huddersfield Socialist Party.

When has Galloway ever done anything for the working class? Success of socialism depends on public figures like Galloway mobilising the working class on issues that affect them. Only recently, Sheffield Socialist Party has launched marches and petitions against Bus Fare rises in the area, the closure of a number of NHS facilities and the closure of council houses.

We cannot continue to recognise Galloway as a comrade if we want to proceed. Not only is he not a true socialist, he is a tw*t. Yes Rosa, a tw*t. That is my considered opinion based on political analysis of his work, and a character assesment. Put it simply, I would rather buy David Cameron a pint than that Galloway fool.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FB:


Actually yes Rosa, I can think of lots of people better than George Galloway to be the public figurehead of the left.

Fine, put your brillaint ideas to Peter &#39;I lost 7000 members&#39; Taafe, and see what he thinks.


Every branch of every leftist party in the country has a member who is far more suited to the job: Rob Winsor for example, one of three Socialist Party Councillors for Coventry, or Dr Jackie Grunsell who is currently spearheading the &#39;Save Huddersfield NHS&#39; campaign, Ian Slattery who is standing in the upcomming local elections for Huddersfield Socialist Party.

Yes, they certainly are as well-known as Galloway; and they too told the US Senate off in no uncertain terms (I think -- perhaps you can help me out here?).

So, all you have to do now is get the above worthies to join Respect, and we&#39;ll see if the membership thinks as highly of these characters as you do.


When has Galloway ever done anything for the working class?

He, like many others in Respect, are not substitutionists -- they believe in helping the working class do things for themselves.


Success of socialism depends on public figures like Galloway mobilising the working class on issues that affect them. Only recently, Sheffield Socialist Party has launched marches and petitions against Bus Fare rises in the area, the closure of a number of NHS facilities and the closure of council houses.

Yes, I can remember this sort of triumphalism back in the mid-1980&#39;s, in Liverpool, just before Thatcher knocked Militant for six.

You lot never learn.


We cannot continue to recognise Galloway as a comrade if we want to proceed. Not only is he not a true socialist, he is a tw*t. Yes Rosa, a tw*t. That is my considered opinion based on political analysis of his work, and a character assesment. Put it simply, I would rather buy David Cameron a pint than that Galloway fool.

Profound Marxist analysis this; is that the sort of stuff they teach you in that dwindling &#39;party&#39; of yours?

If so, I can see why it&#39;s going down the tubes. :o

[fashbash]

Rosa I do believe you aren&#39;t actually a leftist at all...


He, like many others in Respect, are not substitutionists -- they believe in helping the working class do things for themselves.

Are you familiar with the &#39;Laissez Faire&#39; philosophy of the late nineteenth centuary? &#39;Help us&#39; say the people, &#39;Help yourselves&#39; says Galloway.

Socialism can only progress through mass mobilisation of the working class, and somebody or a group of somebodies needs to organise that. Galloway is doing nothing to mobilise the proletariat (Marxist enough for ya&#39;?), and is instead breeding false class conciousness (ooh, more marxist terminology you are perhaps not familiar with) by suggesting that the dividing factor between members of any society is race not class.


Fine, put your brillaint ideas to Peter &#39;I lost 7000 members&#39; Taafe, and see what he thinks.

Who is this bloke you keep mentioning? I don&#39;t think I recognise the name... You can stop now, you&#39;re killing what was already a fairly mediocre joke.


Yes, they certainly are as well-known as Galloway; and they too told the US Senate off in no uncertain terms (I think -- perhaps you can help me out here?).

Are you deliberately missing the issue here? These are people who do not at the moment have access to the US Senate, because they do not currently have the renoun of Galloway. Were they to have the platform that Top Cat does, I am confident that they have the intelligence, charisma and political knowledge to further the public perception of the left, rather than as Gorgeous George (see, I can make purile name jokes too&#33;) turns the vast majority of people who have no real interest in politics off.


Yes, I can remeber this sort of triumphalism back in the mid-1980&#39;s, in Liverpool, just before Thatcher knocked Militant for six.

Is this the same triumphalist local council that erected hundreds of new council houses in defiance of Thatcher&#39;s plans to sell off existing council properties? The same group that provided thousands of jobs for the people at a time when the government was laying of workers in their MILLIONS? The same group that campaigned tirelessly against the privatisation of public services? Well dear me, what a lot of deluded fools. Perhaps they shouldn&#39;t have bothered eh? Perhaps they should have foreseen that Thatcher&#39;s political war machine would eventually flatten them and then not bothered to improve the lot of the average working man/woman.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FB:


Rosa I do believe you aren&#39;t actually a leftist at all...

Believe what you like.


Are you familiar with the &#39;Laissez Faire&#39; philosophy of the late nineteenth centuary? &#39;Help us&#39; say the people, &#39;Help yourselves&#39; says Galloway.

Marx:


The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the working class.

Substitutionists:


No we&#39;ll do it for them.

Laissez-faire has nothing to do with the self-activity of the class; basic Marxism.


and somebody or a group of somebodies needs to organise that.

Says who? God?

Workers are better at organising themselves than us Trots are.

Look at how you lot organised the loss of 7000+ members, and Liverpool council.


You can stop now, you&#39;re killing what was already a fairly mediocre joke.

Oh, there&#39;s a lot more mileage left in it still, sonny. :P

In fact, you can bone up on &#39;God&#39;s&#39; gift to failure here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Taaffe


Are you deliberately missing the issue here? These are people who do not at the moment have access to the US Senate, because they do not currently have the renoun of Galloway. Were they to have the platform that Top Cat does, I am confident that they have the intelligence, charisma and political knowledge to further the public perception of the left, rather than as Gorgeous George (see, I can make purile name jokes too&#33;) turns the vast majority of people who have no real interest in politics off.

Translated, this means: Galloway is a better figure-head than these no-marks.

I am glad we agree.


Is this the same triumphalist local council that erected hundreds of new council houses in defiance of Thatcher&#39;s plans to sell off existing council properties? The same group that provided thousands of jobs for the people at a time when the government was laying of workers in their MILLIONS? The same group that campaigned tirelessly against the privatisation of public services? Well dear me, what a lot of deluded fools. Perhaps they shouldn&#39;t have bothered eh? Perhaps they should have foreseen that Thatcher&#39;s political war machine would eventually flatten them and then not bothered to improve the lot of the average working man/woman.

All to no avail in the end.

Miltant: refuted by history.

Socialist Party: yet to wake up to that fact.

[Herman]

Are you familiar with the &#39;Laissez Faire&#39; philosophy of the late nineteenth centuary? &#39;Help us&#39; say the people, &#39;Help yourselves&#39; says Galloway.

Hahahaha...

Please show me where he says anything like that.

[fashbash]

Just because this thread is all but finished, don&#39;t think you&#39;ve won, Rosa &#39;I lick George Galloways feet cos&#39; he&#39;s just ace and not a muppet at all&#39; Lichenstein&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FB:


Just because this thread is all but finished, don&#39;t think you&#39;ve won, Rosa &#39;I lick George Galloways feet cos&#39; he&#39;s just ace and not a muppet at all&#39; Lichenstein&#33;
Ah, I see you are now trying to copy my "mediocre" joke".

This suggests 1) you did not think it was "mediocre", and 2) you can&#39;t think of one of your own.

The thread has, I agree, run out of steam, since those content only to blow hot air, and make baseless assertions, have been put in their place.