George Galloway - opinions?

[Trystan]

Well, what are our thoughts on him? Personally, I think he's a ****. He stuck with New Labour for years, sucks up to dictators and Islamists, and in his own words has "never been a communist".

Discuss?

[Pogue]

He's a socialist. A real one, a dedicated one. He speaks his mind and stands up for what is right.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

He can fuck off.

[Holden Caulfield]

he is up his own arse so far he has no idea of reality, and yes he has not chosen his political friends wisely, and yes he thinks he can start a new party just like that coz he is sooo awsome,

but he does speak alot of sense (in between the bollocks) and he is the only 'leftist' voice in mainstream news to give an opposing view on things,

i'ld rather we had him than not tbh,

i voted 'some good some bad'

[The Intransigent Faction]

I don't have much time but I would actually agree with HLVS.
The guy calls out the neocons with an amazing degree of articulation and I agree with him on many issues (multiculturalism, the middle east, the imperialist war in Iraq, postal worker strikes :) ).
He may deny being Communist, largely because of his religious views (not attacking Christian Communists here--those are just his words on his radio show), but he's quite the radical and admirable thinker all the same.

[Soldier of life]

Would rather have him on our side, some of his speeches speak a lot of sence and he is a good debater.i think he's up his own arse a bit but after his interview on sky newsand with jeremy paxman he does put up with an intolerable amount of shit and handled himself well throughout those incidents

[disobey]

He's a socialist. A real one, a dedicated one. He speaks his mind and stands up for what is right.

Whatever you've been sniffing I want some. I do partially agree, the man completely wipes the floor during some debates and his charisma knows no bounds.

But he's still a champagne socialist and as hard as I try, I cannot see how any self-respecting working class person can identify with him at all. Could it be how much he earns? How much is it again... £300,000?

[Jaccob]

His heart is in the right place but he doesn't really deserve all the credit he gets from the far left, that said, he's consistent, and he's not a liar, so he's pretty good compared to the rest of the Commons.

[Sam_b]

He's a great orator and good on anti-imperialism.
Aside from this he's a chauvenist, an opportunist and an all-round reprehensable figure.

[Chapter 24]

He seems like he holds leftist-leaning positions and is outspoken about them despite his affiliation with bourgeois parties. He supposedly advocates for socialism - whether he means actual socialism, social democracy, or something else, I don't know. But his stance on issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the U.S. occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everywhere else around the world for that matter, shows staunch anti-imperialism. As for the man himself and his politics within Parliament I really can't judge him because I haven't really studied up on him as well as others (videos of him on YouTube can only tell you so much).

[Pogue]

He stands with the people. He attends demonstrations regularly and fights for everyday people in parliament and beyond.

[BIG BROTHER]

He may not be communist, but he's a good left-wing debater. He's a good voice for the left even though he isn't as radical as we would like. We could use a guy like him in the usa

[Colonello Buendia]

I agree with some of his views but essentialy he's a populist who spews rhetoric out of his arse. he is not a revolutionary and he's a chauvinist tit who will do anything to gain publicity. he's not really good. however what I will say for him is that I'd hate to be in a debate against him.

[Saorsa]

He opposes abortion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/17/uk.immigration), saying that "I have all my life been against abortion and against euthanasia", and he backs up the Iranian regime in it's treatment of gays. (http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/uk-george-galloways-iranian-anti-gay-propaganda-mehdi-kazemis-boyfriend-defamed/) I take it HLiberalVS considers this to be "standing up for what is right"? :confused:

[Invader Zim]

I don't like him very much, however he called Christopher Hitchens a slug, which certainly scores major points in his favour.

[LiberaCHE]

5BjAGvuJHdw


:castro: :cubaflag:

[RedHal]

Give me Galloway and his defense of countries like Venezuela and Cuba then some ultra leftists who parrot the right wing, democracy democracy democracy..........

[RHIZOMES]

I like that thing he did on Sky News about Palestine. Other than that mostly negative though.

[redarmyfaction38]

5BjAGvuJHdw




:castro: :cubaflag:




whilst i'm not a fan of galloway, regardless of his personal ambitions and love of the shiney things in life, that link demonstrates his understanding of how the world works, it also demonstrates that "news" channels that a lot of the "liberals" would have us believe give an "unbiased" view are actually tools of the establishment.
this might be a racist comment, but i cannot, for the life of me, understand, why, anybody, of asian or afro caribean descent, can sit in a chair peddling the same bullshit as the people that killed their ancestors.
that is a total denial of that individuals culture and national history.
where the firk do they get these uncle toms from?

[disobey]

I don't like him very much, however he called Christopher Hitchens a slug, which certainly scores major points in his favour.

He called Hitchens a slug? I think I like him a bit more now.

[LiberaCHE]

I like that thing he did on Sky News about Palestine.


249JaIaubVw

[Post-Something]

I think he's really about as good as it gets in British politics, and his stuff on Palestine is really good.

[The Intransigent Faction]

He opposes abortion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/17/uk.immigration), saying that "I have all my life been against abortion and against euthanasia", and he backs up the Iranian regime in it's treatment of gays. (http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/uk-george-galloways-iranian-anti-gay-propaganda-mehdi-kazemis-boyfriend-defamed/) I take it HLiberalVS considers this to be "standing up for what is right"? :confused:

Okay you might be onto something with the abortion issue, but I've heard enough of his comments on his radio show..and he said in an interview here in Canada that "There are people my age and older who are 'uncomfortable' with gay men walking down the road hand in hand. Get over it. It's got nothing to do with you what gay men do."
Abortion, perhaps..but he comes across as very much for LGBT rights, and has condemned Iran on other issues as well (their womens' rights record, for example).

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, what are our thoughts on him? Personally, I think he's a ****. He stuck with New Labour for years, sucks up to dictators and Islamists, and in his own words has "never been a communist".

Discuss?

Er..actually, no. He's led campaigns against various dictators in the middle east including Saddam Hussein. He did so while they were installed and backed by the U.S.
He may have "never been a Communist" (yes I've heard him speak those words) but he holds many leftist ideas/values. His support for a postal workers' strike in Britain is a great example.
Yeah, he stuck with them for years, but he's not with them now.
If by "sucks up to Islamists" you mean he dares to criticize Zionist establishments and the apartheid state of "Israel" (Occupied Palestine) which are backed by Western imperialists, then yes. He's merely recognizing the reasons for legitimate resistance to American imperialist occupations in the world. No serious leftist could buy the neocon line that "they hate our freedoms" for this long, and I say that as an Atheist. Yes, a few fundamentalists may in fact hate our freedoms, but many, many more simply unfortunately find a common cause with these radicals in resisting occupations and see nowhere else to turn. I have met many Muslims, and honestly, it's easy to see that desperate times call for desperate alliances. Widespread extremism comes through oppression. That is not unique to any culture.

[redarmyfaction38]

Er..actually, no. He's led campaigns against various dictators in the middle east including Saddam Hussein. He did so while they were installed and backed by the U.S.
He may have "never been a Communist" (yes I've heard him speak those words) but he holds many leftist ideas/values. His support for a postal workers' strike in Britain is a great example.
Yeah, he stuck with them for years, but he's not with them now.
If by "sucks up to Islamists" you mean he dares to criticize Zionist establishments and the apartheid state of "Israel" (Occupied Palestine) which are backed by Western imperialists, then yes. He's merely recognizing the reasons for legitimate resistance to American imperialist occupations in the world. No serious leftist could buy the neocon line that "they hate our freedoms" for this long, and I say that as an Atheist. Yes, a few fundamentalists may in fact hate our freedoms, but many, many more simply unfortunately find a common cause with these radicals in resisting occupations and see nowhere else to turn. I have met many Muslims, and honestly, it's easy to see that desperate times call for desperate alliances. Widespread extremism comes through oppression. That is not unique to any culture.
i'm a bit disturbed by the "desperate times call for desperate alliances" bit.
as socialists/communists/anarchists, none of us can afford to compromise our working class interests by making alliances with those that murder working class people.
that would be a total contradiction of our stance, our goals and aspirations.
whilst we can explain the reasons for religious extremeism and how it is based in the poverty of thought and life experience brought about by imperialism and the worldwide capitalist dictatorship that denies each and every nation and its people it's culture and history, we can no more side with religious extremeists than we can the "nationalists" and fascists.
the imperialists, the multinational corporations, the religious extremeists, the nazis and fascists are all on the same side of the coin.
we are the flip side, the revolutionaries, the voice in the wilderness, the respecters of human kind, the believers in people, not simplistic ideas that encourage division and hatred.
i could probably have put that better, but you get the jist.

[The Intransigent Faction]

i'm a bit disturbed by the "desperate times call for desperate alliances" bit.
as socialists/communists/anarchists, none of us can afford to compromise our working class interests by making alliances with those that murder working class people.
that would be a total contradiction of our stance, our goals and aspirations.
whilst we can explain the reasons for religious extremeism and how it is based in the poverty of thought and life experience brought about by imperialism and the worldwide capitalist dictatorship that denies each and every nation and its people it's culture and history, we can no more side with religious extremeists than we can the "nationalists" and fascists.
the imperialists, the multinational corporations, the religious extremeists, the nazis and fascists are all on the same side of the coin.
we are the flip side, the revolutionaries, the voice in the wilderness, the respecters of human kind, the believers in people, not simplistic ideas that encourage division and hatred.
i could probably have put that better, but you get the jist.

Oh, of course. I gave that some thought and wondered if I should have made that clear.
I guess I got lazy.
But no, I certainly wasn't advocating the compromise of interests in any sense.
That was meant more in the context of the average misled elements of society that get duped into extremism. I was trying to comment on how that line of reasoning leads to such unfortunate scenarios and perhaps tendencies in parts of the world's current Muslim population.
Just wanted to clear that up. I completely agree.

[Comrade Raz]

Good on anti-imperilaism? What uncritically backing the Iranian regime and its attacks not only homosexuals in Iran (as has been mentioned), but also against the communist student and workers' movements in Iran, who have consistently opposed both their own theocratic regime and any attempts for an imperialist invasion from the US. Galloway seems reluctant to even acknowledge the existence of these relativly active movements, let alone triupmh their cause in the name of international proletarian solidarity.

Also his attempt to build a party i.e. Respect proved a complete failure evident in its recent disintegration. Such half way house projects are not what is neccesary, instead we should focus on building a Marxist party not just recycled old Labourism. Galloways wing of the party at the split was to the right of the SWP who comprised the other major faction, and was comprised largely of muslim businessmen, not proletarians. in a ridiculous drive to recruit anyone who would put their name down Respect even had an elected councillor who eventually abandoned the party to join the Tories.

Galloway is nothing more than a political opportunist and an old Labourite, not even close to a communist in my opinion, certainly not a principled one.

[redarmyfaction38]

Good on anti-imperilaism? What uncritically backing the Iranian regime and its attacks not only homosexuals in Iran (as has been mentioned), but also against the communist student and workers' movements in Iran, who have consistently opposed both their own theocratic regime and any attempts for an imperialist invasion from the US. Galloway seems reluctant to even acknowledge the existence of these relativly active movements, let alone triupmh their cause in the name of international proletarian solidarity.

Also his attempt to build a party i.e. Respect proved a complete failure evident in its recent disintegration. Such half way house projects are not what is neccesary, instead we should focus on building a Marxist party not just recycled old Labourism. Galloways wing of the party at the split was to the right of the SWP who comprised the other major faction, and was comprised largely of muslim businessmen, not proletarians. in a ridiculous drive to recruit anyone who would put their name down Respect even had an elected councillor who eventually abandoned the party to join the Tories.

Galloway is nothing more than a political opportunist and an old Labourite, not even close to a communist in my opinion, certainly not a principled one.
now, feel free to correct me, but george galloways "respect" performed better in recent local elections than the swps "new respect".
personally i think gorgeous george and the swp are well off target with their non socialist "alternative".
but then, apparently, i'm a "sectarian".... thought we were taliking politics here.
a clear worker based party is what is needed, compromise with racial or religious minorities that do not accept worker based politics and policies can, in the long term, only lead to defeat, imho.
another thought, if we are all socialists/communists/anarchists, wht do we accept an agenda that says "minorities" should have preference over the interests of the masses?
and, yes, i am having a little play with conceptions and pre conceptions here.

[Comrade Raz]

now, feel free to correct me, but george galloways "respect" performed better in recent local elections than the swps "new respect".
personally i think gorgeous george and the swp are well off target with their non socialist "alternative".


You're probably right that Galloways respect beat the SWP's lot, i cant say i was really interested, i agree that both their approachs are well off target, and i expect that to continue to be shown in their failure to progress electorally. hopefully that may force some political progress.


a clear worker based party is what is needed, compromise with racial or religious minorities that do not accept worker based politics and policies can, in the long term, only lead to defeat, imho.


I dnt think the simple creation of a new workers party is what is needed personally, do we really need another reformist, old-Labour type party? i would say that along with a clear workers base, the party must also clearly be Marxist. It is for this reason that i am not on board with the Socialist Party et al's Campaign for a New Workers Party.

[redarmyfaction38]

You're probably right that Galloways respect beat the SWP's lot, i cant say i was really interested, i agree that both their approachs are well off target, and i expect that to continue to be shown in their failure to progress electorally. hopefully that may force some political progress.



I dnt think the simple creation of a new workers party is what is needed personally, do we really need another reformist, old-Labour type party? i would say that along with a clear workers base, the party must also clearly be Marxist. It is for this reason that i am not on board with the Socialist Party et al's Campaign for a New Workers Party.
that's fair comment, but, the old reformist labour party was born out of the "marxist" social democratic federation, the trade union repesentation commitee et al.
it was a "workers party" because it reflected all the "tendancies" within the politicalised working class.
the socialist party et al are calling for a new workers party with a clear "worker based" SOCIALIST agenda.
this, in my opinion, is a clear break with the old reformist policies of old labour and the neo liberal lies of new labour.
it is a revolutionary agenda that is proposed, there will be a "minimum program" etc.
however, any "progamme" put forward has to take into account the consciousness of the class it is part of.
imo, the working class, has, on a realisation front, moved forward in leaps and bounds, the number of workers that think voting changes anything has dropped beyond my wildest dreams.
unfortunately, the political understanding necessary to turn a worker into a revolutionary is not available, all the revolutionary parties are small and have an inherent ability to hoot each other in the foot.
a new workers party is not only necessary for the workers but for the rev.left.
some sort of federation based on common cause and workers interest HAS to be created, otherwise the nwo, the brave new world or whatever you wanna call it will be the only reality on offer.

[Comrade Raz]

Originally Posted by redarmyfaction38
the socialist party et al are calling for a new workers party with a clear "worker based" SOCIALIST agenda.this, in my opinion, is a clear break with the old reformist policies of old labour

I belive the launch of CNWP made quiet clear that this was not the case. what it called the fight for a socialist programme, was little more than a list of economistic immediate demands rather than an all encompassing 'socialist agenda'.


Originally Posted by redarmyfaction38
it is a revolutionary agenda that is proposed

My view is that the agenda is most cettainly not revolutionary, adopting such an agenda was dismissed outright at the campaigns launch. The SP phrased their position as ‘Either reach out to the masses or adopt revolutionary politics’, claiming that revolutionary politics should be delayed until a later stage. Our position should b to fight for what we beilieve in, and as revolutionary Marxists that should be revolutionary Marxism, something it is clear the CNWP is not proposing seeing as it rejected the CPGB motion that:

“Our campaign for a new mass workers’ party must be shaped by the type of politics such a formation needs if it is to be a genuine workers’ party. Thus, we will campaign for a workers’ party based on the theory and practice of revolutionary Marxism.”

The opinion of the SP appeared to be that such an approach may scare workers away, but if revolution is what is neccesary we cannot hide that in a mere drive for a mass base. The concept that the party should be a revolutionary party with a full revoplutionary programme was out-right dismissed at the launch. At best what it appears to aim for is a unity of revolutionaries and reformists, within which the revolutionaries represent a minority that can fight to win the majority to its politics. Which in reality would represnet the dominance of the moderate SP, and the party representing a reformist agenda.

A unity of the rev left would, in my opinion, not scare workers away, but represent more than just a sum of its parts, by overcoming the terrible sectarianism which heavily weakens the rev left. Such a party could attract those disgusted with Labour, and looking for a genuine alternative.

[redarmyfaction38]

I belive the launch of CNWP made quiet clear that this was not the case. what it called the fight for a socialist programme, was little more than a list of economistic immediate demands rather than an all encompassing 'socialist agenda'.



My view is that the agenda is most cettainly not revolutionary, adopting such an agenda was dismissed outright at the campaigns launch. The SP phrased their position as ‘Either reach out to the masses or adopt revolutionary politics’, claiming that revolutionary politics should be delayed until a later stage. Our position should b to fight for what we beilieve in, and as revolutionary Marxists that should be revolutionary Marxism, something it is clear the CNWP is not proposing seeing as it rejected the CPGB motion that:

“Our campaign for a new mass workers’ party must be shaped by the type of politics such a formation needs if it is to be a genuine workers’ party. Thus, we will campaign for a workers’ party based on the theory and practice of revolutionary Marxism.”

The opinion of the SP appeared to be that such an approach may scare workers away, but if revolution is what is neccesary we cannot hide that in a mere drive for a mass base. The concept that the party should be a revolutionary party with a full revoplutionary programme was out-right dismissed at the launch. At best what it appears to aim for is a unity of revolutionaries and reformists, within which the revolutionaries represent a minority that can fight to win the majority to its politics. Which in reality would represnet the dominance of the moderate SP, and the party representing a reformist agenda.

A unity of the rev left would, in my opinion, not scare workers away, but represent more than just a sum of its parts, by overcoming the terrible sectarianism which heavily weakens the rev left. Such a party could attract those disgusted with Labour, and looking for a genuine alternative.
mmm... forgive me, i have a long memory... and maybe, i've been around a lot longer than you have.
i agree with a lot of what you say, i agree with a lot of what "workers power" say and the spgb, unfortunately, we live in the real world.
i know for a fact, as an activist in my union and my community, that our socialist ambition has to be presented in economic terms, what material benefits are there to our class for adopting our programme.
that does NOT in any way shape or form make our programme "moderate".
the very fact that it presents an alternative, based on economics serving the mass rather than the individual, makes it revolutionary and socialist.
at all times, we, the revolutionary workers, have to accept, that we are NOT the driving force behind social progress, we have an influence, we have ideas that can drive our class forward, BUT, it is economic circumstance and the political influence we have built in the "lean" years that determines our future revolutionary socialist success or failure.
i really want to ***** at you about the role of cpgb in undermining the struggle against thatcher, ordering perty members to undermine liverpools militant council in order to preserve the parties interest rather than support the workers interest, but, i've a feeling you weren't there and really don't want to undermine your socialist desires.
i cannot, in all honesty, countenance, any criticism from the cpgb, the cpgb, from the first time i met it and it's comrades, fully supported stalins soviet union, no criticism allowed, it undermined any action by independant workers, regardless of political affiliation that weren't cpgb.
that includes the swp, who now act in the same maner as the cpgb.
but fuck. that's life.
you've got to look on the bright side of life.........monty python.
the judae liberation front et al.

[Comrade Raz]

What you say about the history of the CPGB is undeniably the case, but that does not mean they still hold such positions today, in fact of the parties on the British Left today i find myself most frequently agreeing with their position although i am not a member. there was also a clear break between the 'Stalinist' CPGB you tlk off and the one that exists today, and speaking to anyone in or around the group this is clear. to refuse to accept any critism from a group simply because of its history, disregarding its current political trend, is surely not fair?
But you are right i had nothing to do with the group and was probably not even alive during many of the events u are talking about. my experience of the group is in the last 5 years or so, in which time i have heard on countless occasions attacks levied at the CPGB for a past its current membership clearly renounces.


at all times, we, the revolutionary workers, have to accept, that we are NOT the driving force behind social progress, we have an influence, we have ideas that can drive our class forward, BUT, it is economic circumstance and the political influence we have built in the "lean" years that determines our future revolutionary socialist success or failure.

This i agree with, my point was that i dont believe halfway house projects like Respect, CNWP etc. do create a strong political influence by leading revolutionaries down the path of reformism and cross-class alliances with anyone who will sign the dotted line. (im talking of Respect here, bt i believe a party founded on the platform of the CNWP will suffer a similar fate) Surely building a party of commited revolutionaries will fare us in better stead?


I know for a fact, as an activist in my union and my community, that our socialist ambition has to be presented in economic terms, what material benefits are there to our class for adopting our programme.
that does NOT in any way shape or form make our programme "moderate".
the very fact that it presents an alternative, based on economics serving the mass rather than the individual, makes it revolutionary and socialist.


I was arguing that phrasing it simply in terms of economic goals is economistic. Whilst economic goals are central they are not are exclusive aims, and shouldn't be articulated as such.
Also as nowhere in the CNWP agenda does it call for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, i dont see how it is revolutionary. I agree on an economic level the CNWP's demands are 'socialist', but reformist not revolutionary.

[Devrim]

i really want to ***** at you about the role of cpgb in undermining the struggle against thatcher, ordering perty members to undermine liverpools militant council in order to preserve the parties interest rather than support the workers interest, but, i've a feeling you weren't there and really don't want to undermine your socialist desires.

I think that Liverpool City Council played it's own part in attacking workers' interests, 30,000 redundancy notices maybe.


i cannot, in all honesty, countenance, any criticism from the cpgb, the cpgb, from the first time i met it and it's comrades, fully supported stalins soviet union, no criticism allowed, it undermined any action by independant workers, regardless of political affiliation that weren't cpgb.

The CPGB of today is a different party. It is the offshoot of a Turkish left group. It used to be called the Leninist before they took the name CPGB.

Devrim

[redarmyfaction38]

What you say about the history of the CPGB is undeniably the case, but that does not mean they still hold such positions today, in fact of the parties on the British Left today i find myself most frequently agreeing with their position although i am not a member. there was also a clear break between the 'Stalinist' CPGB you tlk off and the one that exists today, and speaking to anyone in or around the group this is clear. to refuse to accept any critism from a group simply because of its history, disregarding its current political trend, is surely not fair?
But you are right i had nothing to do with the group and was probably not even alive during many of the events u are talking about. my experience of the group is in the last 5 years or so, in which time i have heard on countless occasions attacks levied at the CPGB for a past its current membership clearly renounces.



This i agree with, my point was that i dont believe halfway house projects like Respect, CNWP etc. do create a strong political influence by leading revolutionaries down the path of reformism and cross-class alliances with anyone who will sign the dotted line. (im talking of Respect here, bt i believe a party founded on the platform of the CNWP will suffer a similar fate) Surely building a party of commited revolutionaries will fare us in better stead?



I was arguing that phrasing it simply in terms of economic goals is economistic. Whilst economic goals are central they are not are exclusive aims, and shouldn't be articulated as such.
Also as nowhere in the CNWP agenda does it call for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, i dont see how it is revolutionary. I agree on an economic level the CNWP's demands are 'socialist', but reformist not revolutionary.
look, there has to be bridge between the "average" workers understanding of "politics" and the drawing of revolutionary conclusions.
economic demands are the most obvious way of doing this, hence , the transitional programmes.
if you point out the economic lies, present an alternative economic method that benefits the "average" worker then the political consciousness will flow.

[redarmyfaction38]

I think that Liverpool City Council played it's own part in attacking workers' interests, 30,000 redundancy notices maybe.



The CPGB of today is a different party. It is the offshoot of a Turkish left group. It used to be called the Leninist before they took the name CPGB.

Devrim
regarding the redundancy notices, first and foremost, that was a decision made by the local party, if they had been asked the central commitee would have advised against it.
secondly, the issue of redundancy notices, presented the militant labour council with enough funding from central govt. to keep those "redundant" workers in a job until the end of the financial year. each and every one of those workers was assured they would be re employed the day after they were made "redundant".
i will agree, it was never the best thought out plan of action.
BUT, it would have worked if that militant working class council hadn't been betrayed by gpgb members, self seeking union officials and right wing labour party officials, who knew full wel what the "militant" were doing and why.
because we bloody well told them.
they chose self interest and political ambition over defeating thatcher and had the cheek to condemn us.
that's the truth.
they will deny it, but i ask, how did i an activist living 100 miles away from liverpool know what was going on, when local, trade union, gpgb, swp activists didn't?
not really likely is it?

[Devrim]

The Militant was completely integrated into the state. This is without doubt. They were running a section of it.

Like Marx, I believe that the working class can't take over the bourgeois state, and use it for its own benefit.

Even less so can you build socialism in one municipality.

I don't think that the whole thing had anything to do with socialism, more to do with how to manage capitalism.

Building a couple of new parks does not make socialism.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

talking about trots - holy shit the french trots got more than 1 million votes last election. where the hell do they get so many voters with a name like that (revolutionary communist party)?

[Trystan]

(revolutionary communist party)?

Who? :confused:

[Philosophical Materialist]

Galloway is a practitioner of the scientific principles of Champagne-Gallowayism, in which Galloway lives an extravagant lifestyle while paying lip-service to progressive politics.

On the plus side he is a terrific orator and it's great when he puts bourgeois media types and neocons in their places.

However I am deeply unmoved by his gender chauvinism and his contradictory attitude to gay rights.

[Magdalen]

I'll admit that his radio programme does provide an excellent platform for anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist views in Britain, particularly during this time of low political awareness, and that Galloway is a skilled orator.

However, Galloway possesses a massively bloated ego, and as Philosophical Materialist pointed out, his blatant sexism and bizarre attitude to gay rights leaves a lot to be desired.

As an extra point, when Galloway served on Dundee's town council during the late 1970s and early 1980s, he formed part of a Labour administration which, even by bourgeois standards, was one of the most corrupt in Scottish history. Of course, by the time corruption charges were brought against leading members of the admininistration, Galloway had moved on to the more fertile grounds of Westminster.

[redarmyfaction38]

The Militant was completely integrated into the state. This is without doubt. They were running a section of it.

Like Marx, I believe that the working class can't take over the bourgeois state, and use it for its own benefit.

Even less so can you build socialism in one municipality.

I don't think that the whole thing had anything to do with socialism, more to do with how to manage capitalism.

Building a couple of new parks does not make socialism.

Devrim

you're right and you're wrong at the same time.
the history of "militants" struggle against the thatcher govt. actually reads much differently..... the liverpool "militant" council" for a start was an allegiance of different "left" individuals and the "militant tendancy".
the "miltant" played the "leading role" because of numerical superiority in support.
it did more than build parks, it built schools, council houses and regenerated working class areas for the working class rather than try to gentrify those working class areas like to days "regeneration" schemes.
originally, liverpools "militant" council did not stand alone, it was one of several municipal councils including lambeth, supported by red ken and sheffield supported by by david blunkett.
both of the non "miltant" councils sold out onthe orders of the labour party establishment.
despite this, the militant labour council in liverpool managedto deliver the majority of its electoral promises backed by the active participation of liverpools working class despite the ippossition of union officials, the labour party and the thatcher govt.
given the political consciousness of the time, given the massive defeats of the organised working class their trade unions and the destruction of british manufacturing industry, the achievements of the liverpol "militant" council and liverpools working class are a wonder to behold.
the politicisation of workers, not just in liverpool, but across the country they acheived and the legacy of that politicisation has carried down the generations.
the betrayal of liverpools "militant" council, the betrayal of the working class by "new labour", the absolute hatred of those trade union leaders that betrayed the "militant" council, "the miners strike" the "print workers strike" and moving into recent industrial history "the local govt. strike" to defend our pensions, in order to suport the "new labour" neo liberal agenda, is apparent to all, apart from the rev.left it would seem.
the need for a new workers party is aparent to even the least politicised member of the working class, the majority of workers do not vote.
yet, nowhere, apart from where "socialist party" or gbsp or workers party members stand does any so caled rev.left party ofer an alternative based in workers aspirations.

[Devrim]

originally, liverpools "militant" council did not stand alone, it was one of several municipal councils including lambeth, supported by red ken and sheffield supported by by david blunkett.

Actually, I remember it well. It was when I was working in the UK. I was a postman in Lambeth at the height of it, and in the early days I was working in construction just outside Liverpool.


it did more than build parks, it built schools, council houses and regenerated working class areas for the working class rather than try to gentrify those working class areas like to days "regeneration" schemes.

It ran the local state. That is what local councils did.


despite this, the militant labour council in liverpool managedto deliver the majority of its electoral promises backed by the active participation of liverpools working class despite the ippossition of union officials, the labour party and the thatcher govt.

In my opinion, the working clas, even in Liverpool, weren't that interested. In Lambeth the council certainly never had mass active working class support. It was always just a few leftists.


achievements of the liverpol "militant" council and liverpools working class are a wonder to behold.
the politicisation of workers, not just in liverpool, but across the country they acheived and the legacy of that politicisation has carried down the generations.

This is just nonsense. What 'achievements'?


the need for a new workers party is aparent to even the least politicised member of the working class, the majority of workers do not vote.

Nor will it turn out to vote for a new workers party, which will be the same old rubbish in a different package.


yet, nowhere, apart from where "socialist party" or gbsp or workers party members stand does any so caled rev.left party ofer an alternative based in workers aspirations.

The leftists offer nothing at all to the working class. You can't create a party for the class. The class has to create a party for itself.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

The leftists offer nothing at all to the working class. You can't create a party for the class. The class has to create a party for itself.

Devrim

So whatever happened to this?

"In order for the socialist and the worker movements to become reconciled and to become fused into a single movement, socialism had to break out of the utopian way of thinking. This was the world-historical deed of Marx and Engels. In the Communist Manifesto of 1847 they laid the scientific foundations of a new modern socialism, or, as we say today, of Social Democracy. By so doing, they gave socialism solidity and turned what had hitherto been a beautiful dream of well-meaning enthusiasts into an earnest object of struggle and [also] showed this to be the necessary consequence of economic development. To the fighting proletariat they gave a clear awareness of its historical task and they placed it on a condition to speed to its great goal as quickly and with as few sacrifices as possible. The socialists no longer have the task of freely inventing a new society but rather uncovering its elements in existing society. No more do they have to bring salvation from its misery to the proletariat from above, but rather they have to support its class struggle through increasing its insight and promoting its economic and political organizations, and in so doing bring about as quickly and as painlessly as possible the day when the proletariat will be able to save itself. The task of Social Democracy [as a party] is to make the class struggle of the proletariat aware of its aim and capable of choosing the best means to attain this aim." (Karl Kautsky, Das Erfurter Programm)

:glare:

In a way, though, you have a point: the revolution-epoch "mass party" (as opposed to even the minisculist party model you left-communists propose) can only be "created" by the working class itself:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html

"The ideal organisation is the unification of all proletarian parties, the political societies, the trade unions, the co-operatives, as equal members, not of a Labour Party without a programme, as is at the present the case in England, but of a class-conscious, all-embracing Social-Democracy." (Karl Kautsky, Sects or Class Parties)

[Devrim]

Jacob, I really don't see what the connection to the point is here, but then again I think that with all of your posts.

Devrim

[Chapaev]

George Galloway is a progressive who is genuinely concerned about world peace and the interests of working people. He is an invaluable ally in the struggle against imperialism and the yoke of monopoly capital.

[leftist manson]

George Galloway is a progressive who is genuinely concerned about world peace and the interests of working people. He is an invaluable ally in the struggle against imperialism and the yoke of monopoly capital.
I'll go with this. As for the snivelling opportunistic option and the people who voted for it, are you out of your mind? Yes as a principled communist i wouldn't do something like that myself.But what has it got to do with opportunism. Siding with the lowest earning ethnic group of people at times of increasing state 'islamophobia' reeks not of opportunism but of marxist courage and human dignity. Had he been opportunistic he would have done what many american communists did , side with the 'tories' etc.

[leftist manson]

Bumped for further discourse