hi zonk... yes if you would like to read about the movement of 30 years of militant in to the socialist party,org,uk then i can get you a copy.... lovenpeace from saff
I'm very well aware of the history of Militant thanks. It's the lack of historical accuracy that makes me scoff so! I've been active since 1985 comrade.... It was also Militant I believe who called for the grassing up of poll-tax 'rioters' was it not? Still this is hardly the thread for this debate is it. You could always start your own entitled 'Militant Offers To Grass Up Poll Tax 'rioters'.
hi this is a thread that lead me to introduce all i know .. infact its great to hear your active and part of this incredible movement since i had activity in the swp which i can not believe now looking at their future beliefs... so im not opening up old tales just pointing to various activity which we talked about at the socialist conference last month in london and also the miners strike which is very important to all who believe in unions etc which is all part of the same thing terror against our human beings... thank you for reading lovenpeace from saff we had our meeting last night about student socialists it was very interesting the youth have to look to the future after college the change the debts,etc...
We're all on the same side I'm sure we can all agree that capitalism is worse than Militant, Norwich Anarchists, the SWP or even... the THE JUDEAN PEOPLES' FRONT!
I don't think that's really the point here. If someone states an innacuracy I'm glad it's challenged whether we are arguably on the same side or not Actually I don't think this should thread should be titled "sectarian debate" either... I'm guessing this thread has been split. Off for food
I wouldn't say it's factually inaccurate. Militant may not have been the only group involved with setting up these protests, but it was involved. You can interpret the thread title in a variety of ways, I called it sectarian debate because I was hoping to encourage a debate about sectarianism, not a lefie slanging match. How about sectarianism debate? There's a few things that I want to bring to it, but I'll post them tomorrow, I have to write an article for Red Pepper by this morning. Eeek!
hi there ok ok who split what thread... if you choose to read into my words {thank you anyone for answering in this thread about my words..} the fact that i disagree with respect and feel the militants started things going i do ... i believe the party members have stood stronge with their beliefs and changed as we humans do within our minds and hearts..... not bending to other forms of socialists curves within the capitalists ideals for living.. but thats my opinion zonk.... and i wish you wouldnt hide your opinons behind anger towards the system and others but use your beliefs in change to forward socialists ideas.. lovenpeace ffrom saff do never use the path of anger it causes this sort of thread obviously maybe this thread should be called why do people always assume people are against them because of their opinions... anyway had to reply lovenpeace from saff dont be paronoid about old activity unless you have cause too... we learn from our past as we change our future ......
I think Zonk's more from an anarchist line of thought. I wouldn't want to try to convert him to socialism. I might be a socialist by and large, but I can see a lot of merit in anarchist ideas, and I'd stand side by side with any lefty on any issue, no matter what their philosophical background. I don't think we can get anywhere as a movement, unless we stop thinking 'my party right or wrong'. We can't change the world by building the Party. That's just part of a much bigger picture. Sectarianism only stands to divide us from achieving our mutual goals in the fight against capitalism. Take the SWP for example. The Socialist Alliance was perhaps one of the best left unity initiatives going. However the SWP took the anti-war movement as a recruiting opportunity for their own ranks, and completely sidelined the SA. Building one's own party here, it's fairly obvious, is detrimental to the common goals of the whole movement. We end up expending all of our energy competing with one another, ignoring what's really important....
hi there very true socialists unity yet i dont fully believe in respect.. i wont be voting for them anyway.. maybe galloway had to inflict change with socilaists ideas just like blair has done to many labour ideas for votes.. but anyway it does show that socilaists beliefs for our world are having a say ,even if the process means certain reforms to gain interest and votes ie swp and the anti war demo.. and the irac war has given many people an idea at how destroying this government can be towards other cultures still... making it impossible to promote peace really..... anyway good words above i do agree unity within a system at any time can cause a major change..in sociaty and forward the understandings and ldeas of socialism . yes here we have been attending meetings and have anglia uni to visit again most interesting .change is still frightening to many who respect capitalism... anyway hopefully see you peace pheonix when you get into cambridge.. lovenpeacefrom saff be whole ...
I may not vote Respect either, I may vote Green, I'm not entirely sure yet. I'd feel happier about Respect if it was closer to the old SA model, and included the Socialist party. Unfortunately it is overly SWP dominated. I can see Galloway's many failings, but I still hope he wins, it would be a clear anti war protest vote. Who are you thinking of voting for?
