British Labour Party; Call and Response
dmsch at attglobal.net
Tue Jan 7 20:29:23 MST 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alec Grange" <
> First, I need to just write that given I've been labelled: " smug,
> self-satisfied, middle-class type with hatred and fear of the working
> class. ", "bourgeois-apologist twit", indulging in
> this has no effect on me at all.
1. I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous labels. And add a new
> When Mr Spellman
> told me to shove off, I was only offended by his opting out of points.
2. Sophist and hypocrite. You opted out and departed, fearing expulsion.
I think there is
> more agreement between us than he realises.
Wanna bet? Let's ask him.
Posing as Marxist
is an interesting one, did indeed Karl Marx pose as
> a Marxist,
Pose- "2. set oneself up as or pretend to be." OED. You, sir, are a poser,
poseur if you prefer the French root.
Im not really good at being a Marxist, whatever the term means,
Really? Tell us something we don't know.
> Now, to the heart of the matter in question. The Labour Party in the UK
> is of course quite unique, there are no similar structures
Insipid, boring, self-serving, mush. I'm going to the bathroom let me know
when he stops.
> were exciting years, the years in which Thatcher described the Labour
> Party as being further left than the Italian Communist Party
Thatcher thought that of John Major too.
. Change, clearly not in the near future, but at least its
> better doing something inside than being on the outside looking in.
Better doing something? We require a content not a form. Doing what? If
change clearly isn't in the future, near or otherwise, what are you doing.
Inside? Inside of what. Tories can and do say exactly the same thing. If
it's inside the mechanisms for maintaining the discipline of capital, then
it's worse than being on the outside.
> Concerning Iraq. Having looked at several Iraqi opposition sites I was
> interested to read a statement by the Iraqi Communist Party, which
> whilst being opposed to western involvement strongly condemned Saddam
> Husayn and his clique and called for its overthrow. There, I think is
> the weakness of the anti-war groupings. The failure is to strongly
> condemn and support the overthrow of Saddam Husayn and his clique.
Notice how our sophist doesn't then align himself with the Iraqi Communist
Party which opposes the war, rather he aligns himself with the imperial
adventure. Perfect. All you need to know about the Labor Party, Margaret
Thatcher, and being more left than the Italian CP.
News Flash to all Sophist social quasi-democrats. The Iraqi Communist Party
opposes Hussein to better combat UK/US imperialism. Next time read the
> Therefore, I see no reason for me to change my mind. Saddam Husayn and
> his clique of gangsters must be overthrown. I cannot support the
> anti-war protests because of this omission, some leaders are in danger
> of being seen as Saddam's stooges.
Mr. Grange would like to than Lord Beaverbrook and the Fleet Street Flyers
for this interpretation.
> The weakness of those who call themselves Marxist is often to fail to
> condemn those guilty of crimes against humanity in recent years from:
> Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosovic, R.G. Mugabe and now Saddam Husayn.
Who's killed more Iraqi civilians, more Iraqi children in the past decade or
decades. Saddam Hussein or Bush/Major/Clinton/Blair/ Bush? Tell you what,
we'll all support Iraqi CP bringing Saddam Hussein to justice if you agree
to support us bringing UK/US imperialism to revolutionary justice. How's
> DMS: I have no intention of bowing down to Thatcher or kissing her skirt!
You just did. DMS
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism