Respect After Galloway
- Thread starter tollbar
- Start date
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Fishergate our position on Bosnia and Kosovo was a class a position instead of a sectarian or a moralist position. Just as we did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Why, what are you suggesting? That we should have supported American imperialism, and humanitarian bombing? 
Fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3
"alleged stance on islamaphobia"? What are you suggesting? I wait with bated breath comrade.Fisher_Gate said:
Fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3
Galloway: Cartoons worse then 9/11.
An interview with puss in boots, in which, amongst other things he tells us that the cartoons were worse then 9/11 and 7/11
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net
An interview with puss in boots, in which, amongst other things he tells us that the cartoons were worse then 9/11 and 7/11
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net
JHE
.
Thanks for posting that.tollbar said:
What a silly arse GG is!
Ever the boastful optimist, he says, "In the near future, Respect will become one of the strongest political parties in Britain."
When asked whether he has converted to Islam, he prefers not to answer. "This issue is between me and God."
Did GG think that the interview would not be translated and published in Britain?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
ResistanceMP3 said:Fishergate our position on Bosnia and Kosovo was a class a position instead of a sectarian or a moralist position. Just as we did in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Why, what are you suggesting? That we should have supported American imperialism, and humanitarian bombing?
Fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3
Sure it was class position - in favour of the imperialist and ruling class, rather than the oppressed!
And it was certainly very different to your present position of supporting the Religious Hatred Bill for the sole reason, as far as I can make out, that most muslim opinion was in favour of it. A moralist and sectarian position if ever there was one.
As to your second point, while I would disagree with Nigel I and BarryB on some issues of socialist strategy, I would not accuse them of tailing islamaphobia - that is the point I was trying to make. All clear now?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
mattkidd12 said:I bet a lot of Respect members will regret not voting for my branch's conference motion, calling for elected representatives to only argue Respect politics in public, and make this clear it's his personal views and doesn't represent the whole coalition.
I hope you are right, but I worry about a certain organisation's ability to emulate the behaviour of ostriches (allegedly) ... see http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/80800.html
Unfortunately the wording of the resolution did have some flaws but the principle has been re-emphasised by recent events.
Fisher_Gate said:
Well the one thing just meant articulating on here stuff that was currently in my mind. Digging up the old Kosovo/serbia malarkey meant revsiting an issue that I haven't engaged with for yonks - which i was too busy to do.
Suffice to say that I would maintain that 'poor little Kosovo' was being used to justify imperialism. The ISG position fetishized national liberation without looking at how it was being used.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
By default you(SWP) supported Serbian Nationalism against a secular muslim gov. Including individuals & probably organisations who denied the Srebrinica massacre. When this government was undermined Mujarhadin forces were given more credibility: The groups that did commit war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Now your backing the same wankers in the 'resistance' (excluding the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance) who are massacring Trade Unionists, and now even more each other. And Islamicists in this country who wish to murder people for sartirical cartoons.ResistanceMP3 said:you kind of make our point for us against keyboard jockey. You highlight we do not take the side of a race or religious sect, we always take the side of the working class and the oppressed no matter what their race or religion. Thanks very much Barry.
Respect. ResistanceMP3
LONG LIVE THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION UNDER THE SWP/RESPECT!!!!!
Nigel said:By default you(SWP) supported Serbian Nationalism against a secular muslim gov. Including individuals & probably organisations who denied the Srebrinica massacre. When this government was undermined Mujarhadin forces were given more credibility: The groups that did commit war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Now your backing the same wankers in the 'resistance' (excluding the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance) who are massacring Trade Unionists, and now even more each other. And Islamicists in this country who wish to murder people for sartirical cartoons.
LONG LIVE THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION UNDER THE SWP/RESPECT!!!!!
I love the poor prose, the conflating of mujarhadin (?) with the forces in Iraq (it's all a world-wide evil muslim plot you know!), the wild accustions that the swp back those on that oh so small amd oh so famous demo..
A classic of the genre really..
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
mutley said:
In Bosnia national liberation was clearly progressive ... I know less about Kosovo, but sounds like a load of old stalinist baloney the SWP spouted ...
JHE
.
Nigel said:
Fisher_Gate said:
Izetbegovic was an outright fuckin' Islamist!
That, of course, is not to suggest that his enemies were nice people.
I reckon the Social Workers were right to support none of the antagonists in (ex)Yugoslavia's civil wars.
The Social Workers' views have moved on since then. I doubt the (now) daft, rabid Islamophiles enjoy being reminded of their positions over Bosnia or Kosovo. Now they won't speak against any bloody jihad. It might upset their 'slamist partners and ideological masters.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
JHE said:
I meant the demand for national self-determination - socialists should never judge support for a liberation struggle on the character of the leadership.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Many foreign forces are coming into Iraq.mutley said:
I was told recentely by someone who had come back from there, that the choice for a new recruit to be blooded in was to execute a soldier, police officer or Trade Unionist/Communist. Most, not suprisingly chose the latter.
Where secular Muslim resistance has fermented, you have been extremely critical: Bosnia/Kosova, PKK Kurds,Turkey (Afghanistan possibly), for example, but very happy to support the zealots.
Two examples of where Leftists have supported Islamicists; Afghanistan, Iran, under the guise of a popular or united front have ended in liquidation and disaster.
There are many similarities between Islamic Fundamentalism & Right Wing Nationalism, if not Fascism, and undoubtedley likely links.
From a quote from White Airian Resistance; an American Hitlerite Neo-Nazi Group: ".... We may not want them to marry our daughters, but if we want an example of Victory Or Valhalla, you could have no better than 9/11."
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Izetbegovic was an outright fuckin' Islamist!-From JHE
To my knowledge, he never opposed secular democracy or tried to impose Sharia Law. He was forced by Islamicists later on to back down, but this is because the rest of the world deserted him; the major super-powers in the Un Security Council were competing for bigger cuts of the cake through the Vance-Owen Accord.
To my knowledge, he never opposed secular democracy or tried to impose Sharia Law. He was forced by Islamicists later on to back down, but this is because the rest of the world deserted him; the major super-powers in the Un Security Council were competing for bigger cuts of the cake through the Vance-Owen Accord.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
don't have any problem with you reminding us Socialist workers about Bosnia or Kosovo. We consistently take exactly same position now as we did then, we oppose imperialism. We also consistently oppose racism. And you would know your crass comments are completely bogus if you put a little effort into researching the topic.JHE said:
Afghanistan war the SWP support victory for "outright fuckin' Islamists" the Mujahideen against Russian imperialism. Vietnam war the SWP support victory for outright fuckin' state capitalists against American imperialism. And I have no doubt whatsoever if respect did not exist the SWP would support a victory for those opposing American imperialism in Iraq today. It is all there as a matter of public record in the web sites of the Socialist review and the International Socialist Journal.
I know I support such a victory having not been involved and barely read the socialist worker publications for about three years now. My support for victory to those opposing the American imperialism has nothing to do with respect.
Respect. ResistanceMP3
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Nigel said:
and you don't think there are any links between Christian fundamentalism and fascism? The KKK? come on wake up and smell the coffee. Of course there are similarities between Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, and fascism, but Islamic fundamentalism is not fascism the same way Stalinism is not fascism.same question to you as to the fellow above,can you not see the consistency between our support of a victory of those forces in Afghanistan who murdered "communists" against Russian imperialism, and our support for victory those forces in Iraq who may want to murder communist against American imperialism?
fraternal greetings comrade, ResistantMP3
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Nigel said:
I think this is right - I seem to recall that the Muslim forces in Bosnia were definitely the strongest pushers for a secular state. Izetbegovic's party was the largest but there were other muslim forces that took a left-wing secularist line as the only way of creating an independent Bosnia. The West and CIS former-Soviet Union stabbed them in the back though (footnote: with the SWP, RCP, Tony Benn and Socialist Action attacking them from the sidelines). Little surprise that they felt driven towards fundamentalism.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
you still haven't addressed the point of the continuity of SWP opposition to imperialism Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. (Especially Afghanistan and Iraq proved that it was nothing to do with the Respect coalition)Fisher_Gate said:
fraternal greetings comrade. ResistanceMP3
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
mut didBarryB said:
so, Afghanistan Mujahideen the SWP supports the defeat of Russian imperialism. Perfectly consistent and shows a continuity between now in Iraq where we support similar forces defeat of American imperialism. Yes?mutley said:
If somebody, anybody, wants to explaine why if respect did not exist would the S. W. P. would not have the same position now in Iraq as it had in Afghanistan I would appreciate it.
respect. ResistanceMP3
edited to add, this may be worth listening to Yugoslavia: the road to hell 1992 BLACKIE, Duncan http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp/imperialism.htm
he also did an excellent article by the same name in the ISJ.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
I see no continuity. The SWP's position on former Yugoslavia in opposing self-determination for Bosnia and Kosovo was at odds with their positions on Vietnam and Iraq and a terrible betrayal of a revolutionary socialist position of support for national self-determination. It was a programmatic blip - like supporting the troops going in to Northern Ireland in 1969, or being neutral on the Korean War. Some would extend these inconsistencies as a generic critique of the SWP and there is some debate about their significance, but I would see them as a blot on the landscape of an otherwise generally revolutionary orientation.
[NB I don't regard Afghanistan as quite the same as the other examples as I never believed the Soviet Union invaded for 'imperialistic' reasons (though I opposed the invasion nonetheless, for the same reason that Trotsky opposed the invasion of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union in 1940). The SWP position of opposition to the invasion was right but for the wrong reasons.]
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Fishergate, I never expected you to agree with the SWP.
so you do accept, even though you believe our beliefs were in error, that in both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war the SWP sincere position was supporting victory to the forces who were opposing the imperialism of American and Russia imperialism. So the SWP position on Iraq has nothing to do with respect.Fisher_Gate said:
>>>>>
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
>>>>>
I never did believe in the position that the Soviet Union was imperialist (NB USSR was not equal to Russia by the way). Cliff's position that it was led him into the wrong position on Korea, though he corrected the mistake on Vietnam, it was still inconsistent.
Hmmmm if Western powers invade other countries and turn them into 'mini me' states its imperialist agression, if the 'USSR' [a misnomer if ever there was one - no real unions, no real soviets and definately not socialist] invade other countries and set up 'mini me' states in their own image... its obvious innit? they become workers states....even though the working class played no part (and had little choice) in their creation. S'funny, I always though the self emancipation of the working class was the act of the working class - not Russian tanks 
(They had a workers bomb an all y'know)
(They had a workers bomb an all y'know)
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
which was Cliffs argument as well.nwnm said:Hmmmm if Western powers invade other countries and turn them into 'mini me' states its imperialist agression, if the 'USSR' [a misnomer if ever there was one - no real unions, no real soviets and definately not socialist] invade other countries and set up 'mini me' states in their own image... its obvious innit? they become workers states....even though the working class played no part (and had little choice) in their creation. S'funny, I always though the self emancipation of the working class was the act of the working class - not Russian tanks
(They had a workers bomb an all y'know)
Sorry Fishergate, you are wrong.
fraternal greetings, resistancemp3
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Afghanistan!!!!
As far as I remember the SWP supported a Moaist Mujahardin faction which were out manauvered by other factions and probably liquidated in Afghanistan, and most of their members and supporters were hung in Iran.
They used to sell papers in Tottenham Court Road, trying to dodge another rival group who had it in for them. They were quite nice people, wonder what they are doing now???
I don't think the initial Russian intervention was imperialist, they were invited in by the interim government at the time, I don't think that economic policies were expropriative or exploitative. There hand was forced by the CIA who funded Islamic groups for their own interest. The USSR was heavy handed, especially after executing the Ruling family.
As far as Economic imperialist aims were concerned I would consider that a very dubious argument. For strategic, historical or military interest, possibly. Then there is the argument that it was culturally imperialist; But Wahabeeism and Islamic fundamentalism are modern concepts. Did'nt Kitchener once say that you could'nt buy an Afghan, but you could hire one. These ideological creeds could possibly be alien to Afghanistans' cultural history.
Apparentely Afghanistan was well known for its' vineyards & progressive administration.
I'm no expert though.
As far as I remember the SWP supported a Moaist Mujahardin faction which were out manauvered by other factions and probably liquidated in Afghanistan, and most of their members and supporters were hung in Iran.
They used to sell papers in Tottenham Court Road, trying to dodge another rival group who had it in for them. They were quite nice people, wonder what they are doing now???
I don't think the initial Russian intervention was imperialist, they were invited in by the interim government at the time, I don't think that economic policies were expropriative or exploitative. There hand was forced by the CIA who funded Islamic groups for their own interest. The USSR was heavy handed, especially after executing the Ruling family.
As far as Economic imperialist aims were concerned I would consider that a very dubious argument. For strategic, historical or military interest, possibly. Then there is the argument that it was culturally imperialist; But Wahabeeism and Islamic fundamentalism are modern concepts. Did'nt Kitchener once say that you could'nt buy an Afghan, but you could hire one. These ideological creeds could possibly be alien to Afghanistans' cultural history.
Apparentely Afghanistan was well known for its' vineyards & progressive administration.
I'm no expert though.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
ResistanceMP3 said:
It's not imperialism though. It's a bit like saying it's imperialism if the government send troops in to break a strike - it's a bad thing, but it isn't imperialism in the way Lenin used the term.
As has already been pointed out, Afghanistan already had a pro-Soviet government who invited the troops in. They went in to prop up a client regime, not to export and exploit capital.
And what about Korea - if you're consistent don't you think the same thing applied there? But the Cliff group refused to take sides.
Similar threads
