Euston Manifesto

Would you sign the Euston manifesto?


  • Total voters
    28

Che Guava

The Juicy Revolutionary
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,955
Location
Hali-town,
If you haven't heard, the Euston manifesto is document put together by a group of London academics, journalists and activists on the direction that 'left politics' should be taken. The full manifesto and related information can be found at the official website, but if you're lazy, here is the reader's digest version:

A. Preamble

We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.

B. Statement of principles

1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. [...]

2) No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. [...]

3) Human rights for all.

We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. [...]

4) Equality.
We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. [...]

5) Development for freedom.

We stand for global economic development-as-freedom and against structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries. [...]

6) Opposing anti-Americanism.

We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. [...]

7) For a two-state solution.

We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution [...]

8) Against racism.
For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror. [...]

9) United against terror.

We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. [...]

10) A new internationalism.

We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law — in the interests of global democratization and global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within the "common life" of all peoples. [...]

11) A critical openness.

Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.

12) Historical truth.
In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for human progress, we emphasize the duty which genuine democrats must have to respect for the historical truth. Not only fascists, Holocaust-deniers and the like have tried to obscure the historical record. One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist movement, and some have still not learned that lesson. Political honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us.

13) Freedom of ideas
.
We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are committed. [...]

14) Open source.
As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. [...]

15) A precious heritage.
We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries — by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. For we embrace also the values of free enquiry, open dialogue and creative doubt, of care in judgement and a sense of the intractabilities of the world. We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth.

(please note that I did chop a significant amount out of the original document for the sake of brevity, including a lot of the reasoning behind principles. If you do have strong feelings either way about what is said I would strongly encourage you to read the entire manifesto ...)

So now the question: is this something new to rally around for the left, or is it the same old song and dance?
 
Che Guava said:
So now the question: is this something new to rally around for the left, or is it the same old song and dance?
There's something new to it, but like always it's extremely, exceptionally and almost desperately optimistic like these kind of manifestos tend to be.
 
C~G said:
There's something new to it, but like always it's extremely, exceptionally and almost desperately optimistic like these kind of manifestos tend to be.

THere's a reason to be optimistic about the liberal-left these days: we've got nowhere to go but up :crazyeye:
 
Its a renewed declaration of war against non Western cultures and traditions around the world, and is precisely what motivates people in other parts of the world to become terrorists, in order to protect their way of life. Its the 21st century of a Papal directive to spread the 'true faith' among the heathens around the world. Freedom, rights, democracy are the religion of the new Crusades. The more we change, the more we stay the same.
 
:confused: what exactly do you find so anti-non-western about it?
 
Che Guava said:
:confused: what exactly do you find so anti-non-western about it?

2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 15 could be construed that way, by people inclined to do so.
 
Che Guava said:
:confused: what exactly do you find so anti-non-western about it?
1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. [...]

2) No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. [...]

3) Human rights for all.
We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. [...]

4) Equality.
We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. [...]

Che, I think it might be a little OT, sorry, but its the first thing I thought when I read the OP. The first four in particular are what has created this 'Long War' we're in, against radical Islam. The problem is that we believe these are universal values, and insist on imposing them on everyone all over the world. Just as we did a thousand years ago, when we had a different religion. The first four are Islams kryptonite, and they know it, and theyre naturally resisting its imposition on them.
 
IglooDude said:
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 15 could be construed that way, by people inclined to do so.

Bozo Erectus said:
Che, I think it might be a little OT, sorry, but its the first thing I thought when I read the OP. The first four in particular are what has created this 'Long War' we're in, against radical Islam. The problem is that we believe these are universal values, and insist on imposing them on everyone all over the world. Just as we did a thousand years ago, when we had a different religion. The first four are Islams kryptonite, and they know it, and theyre naturally resisting its imposition on them.

I can see the point of view you are both trying to make, but I think that's part of the point they are trying to make: liberals and leftists have somehow found themselves in a political and ideological space that doesn't allow them to criticize certain leaders, nations, or ideologies just based on the fact they they are 'non-western', and we don't have a right to criticize. IMHO, this is a document for western democracies, not a blueprint for how the world shoud be.

And yes, I know, there are holes in my logic, but unfortunately I have to leave for awhile...!
 
I see this as the "new left" saying to hell with moral relativism: this is what we value, and where we stand a chance to make an impact (that is, at home) this is what we'll try. Unilaterally.

EDIT: crossposted with the champion of the mid-trodden.
 
I find this is very close to my own possition, but a bit too specific in some areas and a liitle bit not specific enough in others.


1) For democracy.

Not really specific enough to comment, but I do not fully agree with most "democratic" processes I have experienced.

6) Opposing anti-Americanism.

I do not disagree with this sentiment, but it is too specific for a Manifesto. I would have rathered something against critisising whole countries rather than specific regimes.

9) United against terror.
We are opposed to all forms of terrorism.

Saying this without defining terrorism does not quite sit right for me. I would have found it easier to agree with a statement about oposing all actions aimed at phisically harming civilians, but even that would probably be too general for me to agree to.
 
The Left is doomed as a coherent political force in the world. Its rapidly becoming consigned to reservations on college campuses and tatoo and piercing parlors.
 
I really fail to see how this is a leftist document, because most people from a Democratic will generally agree with it. I agree enough with this document to sign, but there are some places that I do disagree with it on.
 
From a German perspective, this manifesto seems pretty mainstream. (Which isn't a bad thing at all!)
 
pboily said:
I see this as the "new left" saying to hell with moral relativism: this is what we value, and where we stand a chance to make an impact (that is, at home) this is what we'll try. Unilaterally..

I was trying to get that phrase out but couldn't remember it! :crazyeye: 'Chanks, pboily!

Samson said:
1) For democracy.

Not really specific enough to comment, but I do not fully agree with most "democratic" processes I have experienced.

I would be interested to hear a bit more on that point. As much as we squabble over the details of process, I think that democracy is becoming a pretty universal goal for modern societies...
6) Opposing anti-Americanism.

I do not disagree with this sentiment, but it is too specific for a Manifesto. I would have rathered something against critisising whole countries rather than specific regimes.

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that's what the authors wer getting at. I think America of today is in a class of its own: a super-power with uncontested power, loved and hated around the world and at home. The only problem is that those that criticize America will often allign themselves with anything that isn't american, no matter how ludicris it is. The left needs to realize that although america is doing some things wrong, it is still doing plenty right to be able to maintain the standard of living, creativity and power that has made it so successful as a nation. Ergo, agreeing with Washington doesn't mean giving up your values.

9) United against terror.
We are opposed to all forms of terrorism.

Saying this without defining terrorism does not quite sit right for me. I would have found it easier to agree with a statement about oposing all actions aimed at phisically harming civilians, but even that would probably be too general for me to agree to.

Could you agree that any military action specifically aimed at civilians and/or non-combatants is terrorism...?
bozo erectus said:
The Left is doomed as a coherent political force in the world. Its rapidly becoming consigned to reservations on college campuses and tatoo and piercing parlors.

So we're just in time for the come-back then! :D
 
Che Guava said:
I would be interested to hear a bit more on that point. As much as we squabble over the details of process, I think that democracy is becoming a pretty universal goal for modern societies...
I am not decided on the best way to run the world in the short or long term. I am leaning towards the long term goal of international anarco-socalism, but I am really not sure.

What I am sure about;

The first part the post system that gives parties with minority support massive majorities and power is a bad thing.
A system that does not give any real choice in the running of the country does not really count as democracy.
A system that has entrenched parties sopported by minority interests that has no effective opposition is not democracy.

Che Guava said:
I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that's what the authors wer getting at. I think America of today is in a class of its own: a super-power with uncontested power, loved and hated around the world and at home. The only problem is that those that criticize America will often allign themselves with anything that isn't american, no matter how ludicris it is. The left needs to realize that although america is doing some things wrong, it is still doing plenty right to be able to maintain the standard of living, creativity and power that has made it so successful as a nation. Ergo, agreeing with Washington doesn't mean giving up your values.
I think I agree with you. I guess the prevalence of that view within the "leftist" movement (whatever that means) justifies the inclusion of this clause.
Che Guava said:
Could you agree that any military action specifically aimed at civilians and/or non-combatants is terrorism...?
No. Targetting a supply dump is not terrorism, whoever it is staffed by. Targetting production of millatry equipment is not terrorism.

I would define terrorism as milarty action that has as one of its aims the instilling of terror in some population. The clasic example of this as a motive is the large scale bombing of cities during the second world war. I am not completly convinced this could never be justified.

If I was to say that if Samson did what he is credited with I would not condem him does that help you with my view on this issue?
 
Che Guava said:
So now the question: is this something new to rally around for the left, or is it the same old song and dance?
Neither. I recognize quite a few of those who signed this manifesto, they are cheerleaders for the US invasion of Iraq who like to pose as radicals.
I don't think they will have much influence and I am not sorry for that.
 
Samson said:
No. Targetting a supply dump is not terrorism, whoever it is staffed by. Targetting production of millatry equipment is not terrorism.

I would define terrorism as milarty action that has as one of its aims the instilling of terror in some population. The clasic example of this as a motive is the large scale bombing of cities during the second world war. I am not completly convinced this could never be justified.

If I was to say that if Samson did what he is credited with I would not condem him does that help you with my view on this issue?

I think I see your point: terrorism is tough to define, and can take many forms through the lens of history...

luceafarul said:
Neither. I recognize quite a few of those who signed this manifesto, they are cheerleaders for the US invasion of Iraq who like to pose as radicals.
I don't think they will have much influence and I am not sorry for that.

I was waiting for you ;) . What do yout hink is wrong with a document like this then?
 
I agree with pretty much everything there.

Now if they'd address the ridiculous economic positions of many Liberals....
 
Che Guava said:
I was waiting for you ;) .
Good that I dropped in, then.:D
What do yout hink is wrong with a document like this then?
A few things, first and foremost the support of imperialistic inteventions.
First as already mentioned, among the people behind it is the so-called Cruise Missile Left who support Dubya's imperial adventures.For instance the first name I read was "Stormin'" Norm Geras, I also recognize quite a few other usual suspects, my only surprise is that I can't find the name of Cristopher Hitchens.
Also, there are people who pretend to oppose this war, but still seem to be mostly occupied with critisizing the antiwar movement.
There is a lot of empty generalisations in this manifesto; the need for "egalitarian politics", "good governance" and "global economic development." However, a main obstacle - US imperialism - is not challenged. But we are told anti-Zionism leads to anti-Semitism... And that the antiwar movement must renounce Iraqi resistance as well as US occupation. It also seems to be portraying opponents of this occupation as de facto allies of Islamic fundamentalists.
Perhaps the fact that William Kristol has endorsed it, is not totally irrelevant?
As far as I am concerned, this is as we say in Norway "old porridge" and not very interesting.
EDIT: And just as a verification, just read the post above this one...
 
If you look at the signatures, you see British Labour MP's have signed. I'm never keen on supporting something signed by Labour MP's, due to the current course of the Labout government. Just looking at the signatures, you see this MP has signed.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisela_Stuart which really puts me off of it, what with her being the only Labour MP to openly call for the re-election of Bush and all..
 
Top Bottom