Recently, a group of (mainly) British socialists from 'old' and 'new' Labour, nonparty political left-wingers, liberals, academics and journalists got together and signed up to the Euston Manifesto

If you have the time, please read the whole link - I think it's well-written and was genuinely impressed.

I hope to start some new topics on specific subject areas over the next week or so, but in essence this is a reassertion of some core left-leaning and/or liberal principles coupled with rejections of some of the 'sloppier' ideas that have come to characterise the worst of modern leftist thought.

For example:



These three points solidfy a response to some of the most oft-repeated criticisms of the left (largely because they have more than a grain of truth about them) from these boards and elsewhere:
- that the left sympathises with tyranny and terrorism blaming pretty much anyone except tyrants and terrorists for their tyrrany and terror
- that, be it corollary or cause of the above, the many on the left prefer to demonise America than think about real causes. (How many times have we heard people talk about the "blame America first" tendency?)

So, for ALL comers, be they on the left or not:

Do you take hope or despair form the Euston Manifesto? Why?

What would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of the Manifesto?

What has taken the left so long to reappraise some of its positions in this way? (Particularly the British left, which has ostensibly had the upper hand in domestic politics for a decade or more.)

More vibrating culture I see...

Well its always grounds for hope when a position of common sense is staked out in the entrenched political landscape of Great Britain but the question that begs to be asked is just how much impact will this manifesto have in the general population? I suspect only people in the UK with any shred of honest clarity would be able to provide the answer to that question and so far, I have yet to identify many such people in the various media windows that look into the Britannic heart.

I personally do not take heart from this manifesto. Indeed it makes my heart sink to read it since in doing so I cannot but help notice how marginal the whole thing appears to be. I would rather have the mainstream left taking a hold of the principles laid out in this document than any small band of socialists who have suddenly noticed rats fleeing their sinking ship.

What good is a manifesto like this when men like Jack Straw publically use Islamic terminology when refering to The Prophet? ...when the largest city in Europe is more often than not refered to as 'Londonistan'.
In the light of the overwhelming pressure being brought to bear by the advocates and apologists of multiculture, not only on the United Kingdom, but right across Europe, I can't really see a political manifesto like this one carrying anything like the political weight needed to stem the tide of dhimmitude that currently governs the hearts and minds of Europe's political elite.

An example of what I mean is Cherie Blair's defence of the burqa.

And a more recent example can be found here in Denmark where a known Islamic fundamentalist called Asmaa Abdol Hamid has been employed by the state media company Danmarks Radio as a debate show host on the TV channel DR2, thus forcing Danish tax payers to finance her politico-religious agitprop.

A few days ago leading lights of the EU's political nobility, including Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso attended an Islamic conference in Vienna.
Link.
This isn't the first time the nobility of the EU ivory tower have met to debate and make deals with Islamic leaders either. Its happened on numerous occaisions and in various political guises, and not only in the interests of 'multiculture' either. There is a deep seated, vested interest in the political leadership of the EU to create a 'Mediterranean community' in the interests of which the EU has undertaken to take in millions of Muslim immigrants with the intention of bridging the gap between Europe and Arabia and creating this Mediterranean utopia.

What's most telling about the relationship between the EU and its Islamic neighbours, what characterizes this 'friendship', is the appalling lack of coverage it gets in the media. We get 24 hour global coverage of every single 'war crime' and act of aggression by the USA, not least from that bastion of European self loathing, the BBC, and just to hammer the message home, we also get a host of programmes about how fat and uncultured Americans are... George W Bush is a god send for the European left and no one has had more political mileage from that man's heavy handedness than the European left...

But, when it comes to relating to the people of Europe what goes in Bruxelles, what is happening in the European Union, the nepotism, ineptitude, betrayal and out right corruption that takes place to the tune of billions of Euro's, there is a resouding silence.

How brave and wonderful we are when we compare ourselves to our fat and stupid 'war like cousins' ...and what craven cowards we are when we cast aside our own interests and morality to bend our knee's to the demands of a backwards superstition and its ranting masses of religious fanatics.

Link.

Link.




It has no strength without a true grass roots following and in order to get this it will have to contend with the notion of 'multiculture' that appears to be so deeply embedded into the 'vibrant fabric' of Britain.

Its weakness therefore is its own unpopularity in that the vast majority of Brits will like as not regard this manifesto as being 'racist' and thus reject it... or more likely, it defies the popular anti American bias that runs so deep and strong in the UK so it (the manifesto) will largely go unnoticed amongst the jokes, jibes and insults that are heaped on the USA daily in the British media.


A fundamentally flawed world vision that arose from the horrors of the two world wars and sought to erase the stigma of the Holocaust and which craves forgiveness from the 'ethnic' world has allowed unscrupulous politicians, the bulk of whom are from the socialist left, to align themselves with equally unscrupulous and wickedly deceitful Islamic leaders to take the advantage and initiative in the creation of a federal, multicultural, European superstate which is tied to the agenda of the Mediterranean Community.

Or in other words, stupidity.

...and really, isn't this just an attempt at usurping the wind from the conservative's sails? An attempt draped in socialist and politically correct terminology perhaps, but such an attempt none the less?


edited to fix a link.

Julian:

1) Hope is the word. As to why, well, I used to be on the left, and the reason for my now being on the right is expressed rather clearly by all of those remarks about how the left failed to criticize its own, made common cause with, well, some rather questionable persons and regimes, failed to understand that much of the "anti-Zionist" rhetoric is merely "anti-Semitism" in disguise, etc. And the hope springs from the fact that finally some on the left have simply come right out and said much of what currently on the right me has been thinking for quite a while now. Persons such as Chris Hitchens and myself, well, we came to the conclusion that more than a few on the "left" had betrayed everything that we thought that the left was supposed to stand for and had otherwise made common cause with evil. You can read about Chris' thoughts here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=11241
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/hitchens
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2157754,00.html

But that sums up it, "reactionary" and "nihilistic." And Chris and I, and those who signed the Manifesto, want no part of that.

As you can see, much of Chris' criticism of the left is echoed in the Manifesto, and so Chris reported that he might even sign the document [though by his own report, it will be the "most conservative" document he has ever signed].

2) The strengths are, in addition to the three examples that you posted:

"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. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples."

Maybe Vermillion can chime in on this one, since he took issue with a prior comment of mine re my insistence on universal observation of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I suppose that Vermillion was not objecting so much to the Declaration itself, but the chosen means to enforce or to bring to fruition the same. Of course, as noted in the Manifesto, we don't violate "sovereignty" when we militarily attack a regime that murders, rapes, and tortures its own. So maybe Vermillion might wish to chime in on that part of the Manifesto instead, which brings me to my next "strength", with my emphasis in italics:

"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. If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect"."

I could use this to support our war in Iraq [as I'm sure was done by some of those who, as reported, were for this Manifesto and in support of our war in Iraq] and for intervention in some other places as well.

And then there's this other gem:

"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."

Yeah, it's about time that some openly voiced the proposition that Stalinism, Maoism, or more correctly Marxism, is a philosophy wholly at odds with the notion that humans are beings with certain unalienable rights [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness]. And glad to see that some want some others on the left to be criticized in clear and forthright terms. The time has simply come to end the pretense that there was something peculiar to Stalin, Mao, etc., that explained the horror of those regimes, rather than simply acknowledging that Marx himself never defined what he meant by "socialism" and that he otherwise was not in favor of a plural political system [and so we had the "one party" states of all those who followed his lead, with all the disastrous consequences that such entailed]. Which brings me to part two of this same strand:

"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."

Going back to that other now closed thread re Chomsky, maybe Chomsky and his supporters might start reporting the historical truth. The historical truth is that communism was and is a disaster for nearly all of Asia, with more than 100 million dead as result, and I'm not talking about "war dead," but dead from execution [ridiculous trials of "landlords" and "rightists" and anyone else who opposed the regime and its ideology], starvation, and simply inhumane treatment and conditions in "gulags", "reeducation camps", and the like.

Lastly re strengths, I particularly "enjoyed" that part of the "Elaborations" concerning Iraq, since our Manifesto signing friends have said just about everything that I have ever wished to say about our effort in Iraq. Glad to see that at least some of the left share my views. Hopefully, the number of such persons will increase.

Now on to weakness, beginning and ending with:

"The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people — children in particular — die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way."

A great statement, but for one omission. Vermillion will likely cringe when I say this, but we who truly care about those in dire need, need to stop merely saying that we do, and we also need to stop merely giving out of our excess, i.e., we give so long as such does not really impact on doing those things that we'd like to do. We might instead try to practice what some students of the theology of liberation would call the theology of relinquishment, i.e., we need to relinquish some of our higher standard of living such that the same can then be used to help pull up those floundering in the mire of an absolute poverty. Let me put it this way, while I don't begrudge Bill Gates, and thank him for giving millions, the reality remains that he's still talking about his house of the future, with even more gadgets and more convenience for those who can afford such a house, but as the rich get richer, the poor still remain in their absolute poverty. So maybe we don't think of that house of the future until more of us have a "mere" house to begin with. Please see: http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives...604/041604l.php

"During those heady years of the 1970s, with Vatican II still a fresh memory and new theological voices emerging, many here in the North were beginning to ask: “What is the equivalent of liberation theology for us in the First World?” Sr. Marie Augusta had a clear, tough answer: “Ours must be a theology of relinquishment.” One of her books from that period carries the unwieldy but challenging title: A Socio-Theology of Letting Go: First World Church Facing Third World Peoples (1977). A decade later, The Just Demands of the Poor: Essays in Socio-Theology (1987) pointed in the same direction.
***
Feminist theologian Mary E. Hunt, cofounder and codirector with Diann Neu of WATER, the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual in Silver Spring, Md., remembers this message of Neal’s most clearly. “Marie Augusta’s legacy,” Hunt said, “was her insistence that those of us who live with privilege are obliged in justice to ‘let go’ so that the abundance of Earth may be shared.”"

Now, they don't have to call it a "theology," since a "sociology" would do just as well, so long as the "letting go" remains the "letting go."

The only other weakness that I see in the Manifesto is related to the above:

"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. The benefits of large-scale development through the expansion of global trade ought to be distributed as widely as possible in order to serve the social and economic interests of workers, farmers and consumers in all countries. Globalization must mean global social integration and a commitment to social justice. We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank) to achieve these goals, and we support fair trade, more aid, debt cancellation and the campaign to Make Poverty History. Development can bring growth in life-expectancy and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening the working day. It can bring freedom to youth, possibilities of exploration to those of middle years, and security to old age. It enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make strangers into friends. Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth."

The weakness here, to me at least, is that I don't know exactly what they mean by "radical reform", since they didn't specify any particulars. And going back to our sociology/theology of relinquishment, it isn't just the so-called "elite" who are going to have to accomplish the "letting go," but those of us in the "middle" as well. Frankly, it is this and the above which are the only items that would prevent "rightist" me from myself signing the Manifesto without the specification of some of the desired particulars.

3) I don't know, as you'd have to ask someone still on the left. I have otherwise asked some on the left who were and are "guilty" of some of the described conduct [apologists for some nasty regimes, to take just one example], but I have yet to receive a response that I could truly understand, or should I say, I understood the response, but I didn't see how the response could possibly mesh with purportedly "leftist" ideals.


Edited to add:

One reason why some on the "left" won't be all that fond of the Manifesto:

http://americandaily.com/article/13879

Oh, and no surprise that our "friends" at "Counterpunch" aren't all that fond of the Manifesto.

Do you take hope or despair form the Euston Manifesto? Why?

What would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of the Manifesto?

What has taken the left so long to reappraise some of its positions in this way?

I was a little confused at first, not reading in it's entirety. So this is a charge against British leftists, that they attack America and not terrorists/tyranny?

Because that surely is not the case of American lefties although they are accused of it by the righties. It's hard to criticize a president when it's easy for his party to turn around and say they are not patriotic. That's how Hitler worked as well, BTW.

I'm not terribly familiar with who in Britian is criticizing America, but it seems like the general public. And isn't the most fervent British Bush supporter a liberal, i.e. Tony Blair?

I guess I'm just confused. Canadians hate us, Europeans hate us, the world hates us....until they have a massive earthquake or tsunami then it's "where is mommy?".

moif, thanks for the insight and links. To be honest I'm pretty ignorant about European politics. That is truly sad how the gov'ts bend over for these muslims. In the US it is more understandable because we are a nation of many cultures. Recently we just allowed a mosque near me to be allowed to call for prayer, it was a tough battle but they got it.

But in established singular cultures like Germany, etc., I don't see why they should feel embarassed to tell them "like it or leave it". And this is one of the few issues that I diverge with the American Progressives. I hate the constant calls of "racist" and "xenophobe", talk about weak arguments. If I like my country the way it is, it's not fear or hate, it's just a desire to remain the SAME. Is there a problem with that? Look at the countries these people ARE COMING FROM and tell me we can't feel the same way?

Try building a church in Saudi Arabia...much less have a bible. Love it or leave it, beyotch.

Do you take hope or despair form the Euston Manifesto? Why?

I see that there is hope for the Left. The current overwhelming message espoused by many liberals, and most European liberals is simply unreasonable. The Manifesto addresses Iraq directly: now that we are there, our goal should be the stability and welfare of the people and the state.

The unqualified criticism of totalitarianism and terrorism is a needed viewpoint. Too many leftist make apologetic defenses of why America (or the UK, or Spain, or Israel) was attacked. From any reasonable perspective, purposely targeting and killing civilians is evil.

What would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of the Manifesto?

The strengths are as I identified above: anti-repressive regimes, anti-terrorism, anti-anti-Semitism, pro- winning the Iraq war for the good of the Iraqi population, and keeping perspective when examining and comparing the behaviors of the US (Abu Ghraib/Gitmo, civil liberty issues etc.) with that of truly repressive regimes (pre-war Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc).

It retains some of the weaknesses of broad liberal thought (labor as a universal right, for instance). Overall, this is an immense step forward for the left.

What has taken the left so long to reappraise some of its positions in this way?

I think too many identify being liberal with being anti-conservative and (more recently) anti-US and anti-Bush in particular. Doesn't anyone see the idiocy of never believing that another person might be right or assigning evil intents on the actions of a government or being unable to find common ground with someone with whom one disagrees?

I had a full answer to this, but the board quit working.

Short version, strictly from the point of view of an American liberal:

This gives me hope. It allows me to dispell the myth that liberalism means support for authoritarian evils.

The only weakness I see is a slight tendency to use jargon. Other than that, I see no major problems.

I don't know why certain elements of the left failed to cry out against the crimes of dictatorial regimes which waved a red flag. Perhaps it was a kneejerk reaction to fascism; maybe it was utopian daydreaming. Those of us who have always been anti-communist liberals must speak out against those who would excuse repression.

What a wonderful, articulate document.

Do you take hope or despair form the Euston Manifesto? Why?
Hope, unquestionably. This is the first document I've read in quite some time that succintly describes why I am a liberal, progressive Democrat. Though I do find it ironic that it required our friends in the U.K. to articulate it. I guess if British music can revolutionize America, why not let this revolutionize the American Democratic Party?

What would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of the Manifesto?
Some have already mentioned its strengths. I won't repeat them here. The major advantage this platform presents is that Democrats finally have something to stand for after 30 long years of wandering around in search of an idea. Clinton arguably offered a respite from this for 8 years with his idea of reciprocal responsibility, but it got lost in the larger noise of the political landscape. Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel need to study this document and either have the DNC sign it or craft an American version.

I think, as Amlord has already pointed out, that some of the manifesto unquestionably has liberal principles embedded in it and is thus subject to challenge/discussion. But I would argue that is part of its beauty. In articulating finally what the party can stand for, a meaningful debate can take place in lieu of politicians on both sides of the aisle whetting their thumbs to see which way the wind is blowing. Tom DeLay got part of it right. There is value in partisanship. Provided that it is manifest in a real dialogue about real ideas. There's nothing wrong with debate, as this site clearly attests. Quite the opposite. It is a pillar of a healthy society.

What has taken the left so long to reappraise some of its positions in this way?
Infighting is probably the easiest reason. Once the three pillars of racial integration, anti-Communism, and expanding the welfare state evaporated as viable platforms, Democrats could never agree on what to replace or augment it with.