At 1:31 PM, January 10, 2006, edjog said...
Tell you what nosemonkey, let's assume we're both adults and leave Hitler out of it for a change, eh?
[Which relates to a previous comment, obviously, but that's why you might want to read them "Off The Main Page" or at the original thread. It makes no odds to me, there's no ads OTMP (precisely so i can rip off other people's stuff without bugging them copywrite wise) and anyway the derisory micropence i get for the ads here is never likely to be actually paid me because Google AdSense only pays out once you've earned $100. It's also a condition of the contract that i don't solicit you to click on the ads, so i'm not doing, right? Because that would be wrong! Of course one lives in fucking hope.]
I'm not saying that Galloway isn't a dick and as far as i can tell from what he actually says, rather than overinflated media reportage taking some of his illconsidered statements out of context, he's got some ideas which i disagree with. His much vaunted 'stance' on Stalin would be one of them, however i must confess to having been too lazy to find out what his full position actually is.
The fact remains however that he is vociferously anti-war and has got off his arse to provide himself with a platform to be heard on the matter. Whether his prime motivation for this is actually, as i suspect, self-aggrandisement matters not at all: anyone who challenges widely trumpeted ideas will inevitably come in for ad hominem criticism. It is both the nature of our personality driven culture and the first fallback of those who cannot debate the issues. (i don't mean you BTW [nosemonkey], i'm on about what passes for 'journalism' in this age of bullshit) [or as i will henceforth be calling it: the misinformation age]
To the extent to which i have a "Galloway logic" [also relates to previous comment] it is simply that he is doing the do. He is an MP and able to get on Celebrity Big Bollox: you're not and neither am i. In fact if i was to try what he's about, assuming i had the wherewithall to succeed, the headlines would read,
"Stop The War Coalition: bunch of junkies and criminals!"So more power to his elbow, it's not like he's going to be forming the next government or anything. To take 'your Galloway logic' to it's absurd conclusion (and thus, hopefully, illumine the fallaciousness of this style of debate) we should wait for the second coming of Christ to champion the cause, because only 'He' could be immune to the criticism of our detractors.
No, he is a dick, but he's our dick.
Now, i must confess that, since writing the above, i still haven't bothered to find out exactly what George's views about Stalin actually are, but i do remember some hair-pulling and shrieking going on about it on Harry's Place when i first entered the blogosphere last year. As i remember, the gist of it was that George had apparently said that the day The Soviet Union fell was the worst of his life.
So hey, leaving aside the sheer fucking idiocy of taking someone's idiom literally, how can anyone conclude that he is a Stalinist, when the USSR had undergone massive changes from Gorbachev onwards? I wasn't best pleased myself, not because i wanted oppression of the ordinary Soviet Citizen to continue but because the Sino-Soviet accord was a credible counter-balance to the forces of rampant capitalism in the west and it seemed such a shame that just when 'left-wing' politics was emerging from the bad old days (and let's have it right: cruelly oppressing one's populace in the name of political leadership is far from confined to communist governments), despite the difficulties they've faced as a result of the combined weight of economic and scientific restrictions and western propaganda sapping the will of all concerned and promoting corruption, the only new political model which has ever held out even a hope of an alternative to top down oppression was overcome, literally, by the forces of reaction.
Was it working? No. Quite apart from the effects of western propaganda, the Soviet Citizens were pissed off: there were shortages, people had to queue for basic foodstuffs which sometimes ran out. But just bear this in mind: before the revolution it was not uncommon for people to starve and/or freeze to death there; that wasn't going on under Gorbachev (go on, find a few links to isolated incidents where the system failed completely and that did happen, while you're at it: you'll no doubt be able to find similar about disadvantaged people here in the west also; so fuck off before you even start). Who knows where communism might have led however, if they weren't labouring under punitive trade and scientific restrictions? Who knows where the reform process of Perestroika and Glasnost Gorbachev instigated might have led despite that? We'll never know.
Ah, but the people would never have been happy to accept their leaders living it up in luxury whilst their own lives only improved in incremental minutiae. Absolutely. It makes my fucking blood boil to see that happening here too! But somehow the vast majority of people seem able to accept it, even if they don't like it, and at least communism as a starting philosophy might have allowed that situation to change, whereas we are stuck with the blatant hypocrisy of
"In God We Trust"printed on a Dollar bill, and no possibility of anything except civil disobedience on a scale never seen outside India at the end of the British Raj, or States in open Revolution, shaking the power of government/corporate oligarchy. Don't be fooled by the oft-touted idea that we live in a Democracy (from Greek (demokratia), (demos) the people + (kratein) to rule + the suffix (ia), literally "the people rule") [greek letters deleted due to the failings of Blogger in reproducing them]: in the vast majority of cases, and certainly always when regarding anyone with a chance to form a government, the only people we can vote for as our representatives belong to a select group who are acceptible to those with the money and/or power to support a political campaign. The word for that is Oligarchy (from the Greek words for "few" oligo and "rule" arkhos). "Ah but" all you like, you'll not get away with trying to redefine the english language to suit political spin on this blog, pal.
So yeah, i was well pissed off when The Soviet Union fell and, given the events we've had to endure since, me an' George (best mates we are mind! Ha!) were proved right to be. Does anyone think that the US would have got away with Iraq when the USSR had it's clout?
So then, what's actually the problem with him? I suspect it's because he's a flash cunt, coming over as pretty egocentric: he offends the sensibilities of often self-effacing liberals. He gets up my arse with it, frankly, and on balance i think he rocks. What can we do about it? Well, i'm not sure, i don't know him personally, but it seems likely to me that a lot of it is a defence mechanism he's built up over the years in the face of relentless ad hominem criticism. It's no good repeating said and expecting him to suddenly go all "turn the other cheek": when people start into me, for my personal mistakes when i'm trying to expound a viewpoint, the only cheek they see of mine is my skinny backside while i fart in their face. If he did anything less, people would start having a go at him for 'not having what it takes' or 'lacking the courage of his convictions'.
What about these allegations of financial irregularities then? Who knows? He's involved to some degree in international business which, as far as i can tell, is a wide open vista of the dodgiest practices known to man, where it's open season on anyone who cannot or will not defend their own position by engaging in them. Has he used companies headed up by his wife on paper to move money around thus keeping his own name out of it? Well, he wouldn't be the first one, would he? Do i give a shit? No. What i'm looking at is what he's done with whatever wealth he has aquired, which is maintain and increase his public profile and thus make himself heard on the scandalous, immoral and illogical position we find our society in over oil. Given that he has dedicated his life to these issues, i find it a much more likely proposition that any moody transactions on his part are the result of mistakes rather than outright rapaciousness anyway and so what if he's a bit woo, a bit weah, who do we believe is a bigger thieving cunt? "Gorgeous" or Rupert Murdoch?
Fucking leave him alone, he might calm down a bit and stop being such a dick.
[Right, you're definately gonna have to wait for the one i promised in "Promises, promises..." i'm off to the chippy!]