Euston Manifesto

[Bozo Erectus]

The fact that they actually called it a 'manifesto' shows how far up their butts their heads are.

 

[Tulkas12]

LOL. Agree w/ previous poster, but beyond that. . . If I thought there would be any will power behind stoppping the intentional targeting of civilians, then maybe even I as a "so far right winger, I scare american republicans" would sign it. As I know there wouldn't be I immediately propose that the US targets all family members of terrorists that do such things. Eye for an Eye.

Idc about being better than the enemy, just winning in the long term.

 

[Corlindale]

If I thought there would be any will power behind stoppping the intentional targeting of civilians, then maybe even I as a "so far right winger, I scare american republicans" would sign it.

I immediately propose that the US targets all family members of terrorists that do such things.

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

 

[Che Guava]

Good that I dropped in, then.

Well, with a topic like this, there's a list of usual suspects that will come by to give thier 2 cents. And what would a political debate be without hearing from our anarchist in residence....

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.

I think that the ambiguousness around military interventions was more of a calculated move to get the most amount of the left on board. In both britain and the US, I think the left has been too divided on this issue to make any political statement at all. Meanwhile, the right has taken advantage by presenting a seemingly more coherent plan for the intervention in Iraq while the left is still deciding whether we should have invaded in the first place. I think that the far left that has tried rallying around the anti-war flag have ended up coming off as counter-culture idiots without a plan, while the centrist lefts are too timid to take a stance either way. IMHO, the Euston folk are just trying to find some common ground on the issue.

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.

The sense that I get from the document is that the US is beyond imperialism by now: its position at the top is secure, and its tentacles reach every corner of the earth. We simply need to acknowledge that the US is the empire of our time, and that as empires go, it coud be a lot worse . Military interventions are always a messy thing, but the world could be a more Hobbesian-type of place were it not for the spectre of US military might. As for anti-semitism and support for the occupation, I get the sense that the left is simply tired of defending warlords and thugs as 'freedom fighters'. THere are plenty of real ones out there, but lets not be afraid to call thugs thugs.

As far as I am concerned, this is as we say in Norway "old porridge" and not very interesting.

Its miles from groundbreaking, but if this even gets a few people talking reforming the sad state of 'left' politics (or better yet, tossing the whole left-right thing all together...!), I'll be satisfied.

 

[Che Guava]

The fact that they actually called it a 'manifesto' shows how far up their butts their heads are.

What would you have them call it? "A memo to the left"? "A short work of fiction for socialists"?

 

[Tulkas12]

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Yea its intentional. We are not able to defend ourselves w/o a general consensus on such a topic. There is no will power to support us, so we are left to fight biblicallly. It is the way of war. War should be so ugly no one wants a part of it anyways. We should distance ourselves as far as possible from the glory campaigns of Npoleon and others of his ilk.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What would you have them call it? "A memo to the left"? "A short work of fiction for socialists"?

Anything would have been better than manifesto. The Euston Declaration sounds ok. Calling it manifesto is as stupid as Rightists calling their own version "Our Kampf" These guys are dummies literally from the word go.

 

[Che Guava]

Anything would have been better than manifesto. The Euston Declaration sounds ok. Calling it manifesto is as stupid as Rightists calling their own version "Our Kampf" These guys are dummies literally from the word go.

Oh, there have been plenty of manifestos, we just happen to remember the negative ones more. I do agree that it could have had a little less pomp...

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, with a topic like this, there's a list of usual suspects that will come by to give thier 2 cents. And what would a political debate be without hearing from our anarchist in residence....

I believe I christened a certain group of restaurative young gentlemen on this board the usual suspects, and I don't want in any way to be affiliated with those...
But I agree that anarchists should be heard more often.

I think that the ambiguousness around military interventions was more of a calculated move to get the most amount of the left on board. In both britain and the US, I think the left has been too divided on this issue to make any political statement at all.

So let me just ask you what you think about for instance people like Kanan Makiya, Paul Berman and John Lloyd. You think they are good representative for the left, however you define that term?

Meanwhile, the right has taken advantage by presenting a seemingly more coherent plan for the intervention in Iraq while the left is still deciding whether we should have invaded in the first place.

The problem is, I think, one of definition. Almost anybody I know or know about that reasonably could be termed as left, was against this intervention.

I think that the far left that has tried rallying around the anti-war flag have ended up coming off as counter-culture idiots without a plan, while the centrist lefts are too timid to take a stance either way. IMHO, the Euston folk are just trying to find some common ground on the issue.

I read those people, especially considering their previous merits, in another way I am afraid.

The sense that I get from the document is that the US is beyond imperialism by now: its position at the top is secure, and its tentacles reach every corner of the earth. We simply need to acknowledge that the US is the empire of our time, and that as empires go, it coud be a lot worse .

Aknowledging is not the same as accepting or even supporting. And it could always be worse, but that is no consolation for the victims. I don't think the US empire is that strong really.

Military interventions are always a messy thing, but the world could be a more Hobbesian-type of place were it not for the spectre of US military might.

Really? How? You mean, then the most powerful countries in the world would just act on their own will giving a damn about international law?

As for anti-semitism and support for the occupation, I get the sense that the left is simply tired of defending warlords and thugs as 'freedom fighters'. THere are plenty of real ones out there, but lets not be afraid to call thugs thugs.

I have rarely seen any leading representative for the left being afraid of calling a thug for a thug, and I see no reason why one can't legitimately support people's struggle against imperialist aggression and at the same time be critical to their societies or leaders.
The same could also be said about for instance the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which many of us opposed despite being disgusted by Mujaheddin.

Its miles from groundbreaking, but if this even gets a few people talking reforming the sad state of 'left' politics (or better yet, tossing the whole left-right thing all together...!), I'll be satisfied.

I will not.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

They cant speak for 'the Left' any more than anyone else can. Theres no such thing as a Left anymore. Plenty of people who identify themselves as Leftists, but no coherent organized Leftist movement in the world. The Left has argued itself out of existence. If every single point of view is of equal worth there can never be unity. It was wacked out extremist Leftists who gave the first election to Bush by voting for Nader instead of Gore. The Left is its greatest enemy.

 

[JerichoHill]

What Bozo said.

The left cannot be united because they're so many groups with disparate issues and interests. This is why the reps, aside from bungling everything, were able to keep winning, their center held.

As a message to the left saying "Dudes, Chill. You need a central binding theme. We can't have everyone speaking at the same time" I think its good. But will it work? No.

It's my opinion that the Dems will go the way of the Whigs, and a new party, decidedly more centerish, will emerge, and American politics will shift to the right. The hope that I have is that maybe, just maybe, enough wackjobs stay with the Repubs and the sane reps join this new party that both extremes get marginalized.

 

[Che Guava]

I believe I christened a certain group of restaurative young gentlemen on this board the usual suspects, and I don't want in any way to be affiliated with those...
But I agree that anarchists should be heard more often.

In that case I deem you one of the unusual suspects..

So let me just ask you what you think about for instance people like Kanan Makiya, Paul Berman and John Lloyd. You think they are good representative for the left, however you define that term?

The problem is, I think, one of definition. Almost anybody I know or know about that reasonably could be termed as left, was against this intervention.

I'm not too familiar with the names on that list I'm afraid. A quick wiki search tells me that they could all be considered 'leftists', but of course in different ways.

I think defining the left in general terms is probably the biggest challenge to those who consider themselves part of it. I think that before the war, (at least in NA) whether or not to go was probably the tell-tale sign of which side of the spectrum you were on. Now that the invasion has already come and gone, the left is left to figure out what to do now, and surprise, it doesn't have a cohesive answer. I think that within the left, there needs to be some clarification on issues, and some distancing from some other ideologies (mainly environmentalism and counter-culture) to be able to come up with some new ideas not constrained by associated movements.

I read those people, especially considering their previous merits, in another way I am afraid.

Is there some punctation missing there? I'm confused...

Aknowledging is not the same as accepting or even supporting. And it could always be worse, but that is no consolation for the victims. I don't think the US empire is that strong really.

Really? How? You mean, then the most powerful countries in the world would just act on their own will giving a damn about international law?

What I think we need to do is acknowledge the strength of US empire and the good things that it does, then move on to a critique. I don't know how exactly the nations of the world would behave if there wasn't a US 'big stick' about, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about it.

I have rarely seen any leading representative for the left being afraid of calling a thug for a thug, and I see no reason why one can't legitimately support people's struggle against imperialist aggression and at the same time be critical to their societies or leaders.
The same could also be said about for instance the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which many of us opposed despite being disgusted by Mujaheddin.

Maybe there something of a difference between the NA and european left, but the left where I come from (at least the university left) toasts thugs and dictators all the time. I remember hearing inspiring stories about Laurent Kabila's movement, the heroism of Ocalan and the PKK, etc. I just feel like a hypocrit attacking US military campaigns while championing those putting thier own people through a blood bath in the name of 'freedom from imperialsm'...

I will not.

I disagree. But then, that's why I have these discussion

 

[ComradeDavo]

The fact that they actually called it a 'manifesto' shows how far up their butts their heads are.

Just to pick you up on this - 'manifesto' is the term that British political parties use for their policies they set out for an election, so your statement is a little misguided.

 

[Richard Cribb]

In that case I deem you one of the unusual suspects..

OK. I am certainly suspect enough.

I'm not too familiar with the names on that list I'm afraid. A quick wiki search tells me that they could all be considered 'leftists', but of course in different ways.

I wouldn't trust Wiki too much then, but it is of course all about definitions.
However, for including somebody like Berman, who were busily promoting Contras in Nicaragua during the 80s you must be quite generous in your definitions.

I think defining the left in general terms is probably the biggest challenge to those who consider themselves part of it. I think that before the war, (at least in NA) whether or not to go was probably the tell-tale sign of which side of the spectrum you were on. Now that the invasion has already come and gone, the left is left to figure out what to do now, and surprise, it doesn't have a cohesive answer. I think that within the left, there needs to be some clarification on issues, and some distancing from some other ideologies (mainly environmentalism and counter-culture) to be able to come up with some new ideas not constrained by associated movements.

I see the relevance in your point. However, what I think is imperative for the left to distance from in this context is exactly imperialism.

Is there some punctation missing there? I'm confused...

English is not my first language. What I just meant is that I think their agenda is different from yours.

What I think we need to do is acknowledge the strength of US empire and the good things that it does, then move on to a critique.

I think we must rather need to aknowledge its weakness and the bad things it brings, and then move on to what to do.
And we must be patient and prepared for backlashes. remember: Rome was not destroyed in one day.

I don't know how exactly the nations of the world would behave if there wasn't a US 'big stick' about, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about it.

There is not so much now to cheer about I think, especially if you come from one of the many countries that has felt the blows of this big stick.
USA's record speaks for itself, and it is not a nice story.

Maybe there something of a difference between the NA and european left, but the left where I come from (at least the university left) toasts thugs and dictators all the time. I remember hearing inspiring stories about Laurent Kabila's movement, the heroism of Ocalan and the PKK, etc. I just feel like a hypocrit attacking US military campaigns while championing those putting thier own people through a blood bath in the name of 'freedom from imperialsm'...

Maybe there is a difference even if for instance Noam Chomsky, who might be considered the leading leftist intellectual in North America, hardly can be accused of doing this.
I can easily admit that radicals has been romanticizing certain political movements and people to an unacceptable degree. But also maybe you are not separating snots and moustaches here. Remember that many a movement and many a person that for instance fought to get rid of Fascist occupation was not necessarily nice people. Often a political conflict is not between good and evil, but degrees of evil.
And to comment on one of your examples, I think that Öcalan was not such a big bandit compared to the atrocities of the Turkish regime. This does not mean that I am defending his actions.Only that one has to see the big picture, and that it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I disagree. But then, that's why I have these discussion

We have to continue this later, I have to leave now. But I think that I will eventually have to open a thread about what could reasonably be defined as left, otherwise I suppose I risk to get some very strange bedfellows.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Just to pick you up on this - 'manifesto' is the term that British political parties use for their policies they set out for an election, so your statement is a little misguided.

Doesnt matter. Theres a spectre haunting Leftists: The Communist Manifesto.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I like this manefesto, it betters the leftist political stance. It almost seems like some green party policies have got in.

 

[Neomega]

I've seen it before, it promotes leftist interventionalism. Which I find as appalling as right wing interventionalism.

 

[ThePhysicist]

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.

I don't see how promoting Freedom, rights, and democracy* is similar to the crusades. I don't care if, say, forcing women into an inferior position is part of a culture, it's wrong. And I don't care if racism is part of a culture, it's wrong. I don't care if a great many nations have tyrranical regimes, they are still wrong.

And above all, I don't care if a group of people want to kill me just because I support these values. Just because something is powerful or potentially destructive, does not mean it is good or acceptable.

Do you dissagree with that? You believe we should respect their ideologies and cultures, regardless of how many people are killed or hurt because of them?

I'm no neocon, but I don't think it's fair to claim that we aren't aloud to support values internationaly. It just has to be done in a way that isn't hypocritical (For instance, invading countries and pushing the values upon them). And the values are not at all like a religion. Whereas religion stems from "faith," the supernatural, or possibly just superstition, these values come straight from logic and reason- they are all core tenets of enlightenment thinking.

*The only thing I do dissagree with is the statement about democracy. Self Determinism, not necessarily democracy, should be the goal. Otherwise it could be interpreted as B.E. did.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I don't see how promoting Freedom, rights, and democracy* is similar to the crusades. I don't care if, say, forcing women into an inferior position is part of a culture, it's wrong. And I don't care if racism is part of a culture, it's wrong. I don't care if a great many nations have tyrranical regimes, they are still wrong.

Isnt it funny how every time the West has a new idea, that its always the best idea in the whole world. That this idea has to be accepted by the entire world, for its own good, and that those who resist are wrong, or evil, and they must be destroyed, and furthermore, we dont care. Christianity, Free Trade, nuclear non proliferation, universal human rights, etc. Amazing, we just keep hitting em right out of the ballpark

And above all, I don't care if a group of people want to kill me just because I support these values. Just because something is powerful or potentially destructive, does not mean it is good or acceptable.

Well, its good that you dont care, because the attitude you have is shared by most Westerners, and conflicts with the rest of the world will continue as a result.

Do you dissagree with that? You believe we should respect their ideologies and cultures, regardless of how many people are killed or hurt because of them?

How many people do we execute every year? How many babies do we abort every year? Do you believe that people from other cultural traditions should respect our own ways, regardless of how many people we kill or hurt? Or should they invade us, overthrow our government, and force us to adopt their ways? I bet youd care then.

I'm no neocon, but I don't think it's fair to claim that we aren't aloud to support values internationaly. It just has to be done in a way that isn't hypocritical (For instance, invading countries and pushing the values upon them). And the values are not at all like a religion. Whereas religion stems from "faith," the supernatural, or possibly just superstition, these values come straight from logic and reason- they are all core tenets of enlightenment thinking.

To me a religion is any belief system which is never questioned, and anyone who rejects it is considered to be evil, wrong.

Dont get me wrong, I happen to like all those Western values, but then, Im a Westerner.

 

[Che Guava]

Bozo: so do you advocate an isolationist policy when it comes to foerign policy for western countries? Should we be even going on humanitarian missions?