The Euston Manifesto
Self-described "website of a new democratic progressive alliance." The site claims to represent mainly the "socialist Left" but also accepts membership from "egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment." The number of supporting bloggers is near 3000. In other words, it's a load of horseshit, which I became more and more aware of as I read through an increasingly questionable manifesto.
Of particular note is that the phrase "we on the Left" shows up a lot. Not only are they assuming they speak for everyone on "the Left" (an ambiguous term anyway), but they seem to be wearing their politics on their sleeves. And looking at the titles of many of the "supporting blogs," one becomes even more suspicious. What I believe we are looking at is a group of liberals who get kicks out of thinking that they're rebelling against society and changing the world(, man). I ran into a ton of these at the anti-war protest in New York, and it's a very dangerous phenomenon. Because they hold themselves up as "the Socialist left" and declare themselves to be the extreme of political thought. They do not once even acknowledge that there is a huge amount of spectrum to the left of them, rather, the reaching out goes to the right. Maybe anarchists aren't worth talking to?
But on to particulars. It starts out reasonably well, declaring support for human rights, equality, etc. The terms are somewhat ambiguous (Wow! They're "for democracy" and there is "no apology for tyranny!" How original!), but whatever. By part 5 of the Statement of principles, it begins to get worrisome. Here we run into the need for a campaign to "Make Poverty History" (caps theirs). This is never expanded upon or explained later on. They also talk about the need to reform the World Bank, WTO, and IMF so that they're less beholden to the interests of Western nations. They seem to miss the point that since they are run and funded by Western nations, they are controlled by them, and as long as the former continues, the latter will as well.
But yes, Part 6. This is where the fun begins. "Opposing anti-Americanism." Oh, and remember through all this that these people are self-proclaimed "Socialists" with a capital "S." After the obligatory "the US has some problems, yada yada," they go on to say that "The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name." Wow, nothing like nationalist socialists. Isn't that why World War I wasn't stopped in the first place? And after declaring earlier that NO APOLOGIES were to be made for tyranny, they go on to say that it's OK the US did it in the past because we're different now...or we hope so. Maybe.
Part 7 and 8 go together more than one would hope. Part 7 is a very short statement saying, basically, "Israelis and Palestinians be friends plz, k?" Part 8 then goes on to annihilate one side of the argument by comparing arguments against Israel's policies to anti-Semitism. Yes, it doesn't say that, but by putting them in the same sentence, it certainly implies such things. Even with the caveat about "legitimate grievances of the Palestian people."
By Part 10 it starts to get downright freaky. Seeming to disregard all lessons about "humanitarian interventions" in the past (i.e. lots and lots of "liberated" people get killed by the "liberators"), they declare that "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'." This is some extremely worrisome shit. I mean, on principle, stopping tyranny is good. But they're declaring that "the international community" (sounds a lot like Bush's "coalition of the willing") has a "responsibility to protect" once a "threshold of inhumanity has been crossed." This is a neo-conservative's wet dream, except here it's being espoused by "Socialists." Not to mention that this "threshold" is very much open to interpretation by those with other agendas it could serve.
In the "Elaborations" section, we see an extremely convoluted defense of the War in Iraq that would make most Republicans cringe. They actually accept the argument that the invasion of Iraq was a liberation, and that any arguments about the validity of the invasion are obstructionist. These words sound very similar to a recent speech by McCain. But they go on, making sure to throw in a defense of "Israel wasn't involved!" and ignoring in full the crimes of the occupiers, instead focusing on the already well-publicized crimes of the insurgents. They end the section by declaring that the left ignores the "real" atrocities, without citing examples. They then go on to criticize Amnesty International for hyperbolic rhetoric, though the points they make are valid regardless. What they fail to see is that when the most powerful country in the world violates human rights, even just a little, it has a far greater impact on humanity than if a crackpot dictator in some far corner runs death squads around killing dissidents. Both are horrid, but declaring the latter worse because you can't face up to the fact the United States is not infallible is not an option.
And through it all, I wondered: Where is the Socialism they so proudly talk about? Solidarity doesn't even get lip service from these folks.
P.S. I might get sued since these busy, busy people haven't found time to put a CC-license on this yet.
Of particular note is that the phrase "we on the Left" shows up a lot. Not only are they assuming they speak for everyone on "the Left" (an ambiguous term anyway), but they seem to be wearing their politics on their sleeves. And looking at the titles of many of the "supporting blogs," one becomes even more suspicious. What I believe we are looking at is a group of liberals who get kicks out of thinking that they're rebelling against society and changing the world(, man). I ran into a ton of these at the anti-war protest in New York, and it's a very dangerous phenomenon. Because they hold themselves up as "the Socialist left" and declare themselves to be the extreme of political thought. They do not once even acknowledge that there is a huge amount of spectrum to the left of them, rather, the reaching out goes to the right. Maybe anarchists aren't worth talking to?
But on to particulars. It starts out reasonably well, declaring support for human rights, equality, etc. The terms are somewhat ambiguous (Wow! They're "for democracy" and there is "no apology for tyranny!" How original!), but whatever. By part 5 of the Statement of principles, it begins to get worrisome. Here we run into the need for a campaign to "Make Poverty History" (caps theirs). This is never expanded upon or explained later on. They also talk about the need to reform the World Bank, WTO, and IMF so that they're less beholden to the interests of Western nations. They seem to miss the point that since they are run and funded by Western nations, they are controlled by them, and as long as the former continues, the latter will as well.
But yes, Part 6. This is where the fun begins. "Opposing anti-Americanism." Oh, and remember through all this that these people are self-proclaimed "Socialists" with a capital "S." After the obligatory "the US has some problems, yada yada," they go on to say that "The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name." Wow, nothing like nationalist socialists. Isn't that why World War I wasn't stopped in the first place? And after declaring earlier that NO APOLOGIES were to be made for tyranny, they go on to say that it's OK the US did it in the past because we're different now...or we hope so. Maybe.
Part 7 and 8 go together more than one would hope. Part 7 is a very short statement saying, basically, "Israelis and Palestinians be friends plz, k?" Part 8 then goes on to annihilate one side of the argument by comparing arguments against Israel's policies to anti-Semitism. Yes, it doesn't say that, but by putting them in the same sentence, it certainly implies such things. Even with the caveat about "legitimate grievances of the Palestian people."
By Part 10 it starts to get downright freaky. Seeming to disregard all lessons about "humanitarian interventions" in the past (i.e. lots and lots of "liberated" people get killed by the "liberators"), they declare that "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'." This is some extremely worrisome shit. I mean, on principle, stopping tyranny is good. But they're declaring that "the international community" (sounds a lot like Bush's "coalition of the willing") has a "responsibility to protect" once a "threshold of inhumanity has been crossed." This is a neo-conservative's wet dream, except here it's being espoused by "Socialists." Not to mention that this "threshold" is very much open to interpretation by those with other agendas it could serve.
In the "Elaborations" section, we see an extremely convoluted defense of the War in Iraq that would make most Republicans cringe. They actually accept the argument that the invasion of Iraq was a liberation, and that any arguments about the validity of the invasion are obstructionist. These words sound very similar to a recent speech by McCain. But they go on, making sure to throw in a defense of "Israel wasn't involved!" and ignoring in full the crimes of the occupiers, instead focusing on the already well-publicized crimes of the insurgents. They end the section by declaring that the left ignores the "real" atrocities, without citing examples. They then go on to criticize Amnesty International for hyperbolic rhetoric, though the points they make are valid regardless. What they fail to see is that when the most powerful country in the world violates human rights, even just a little, it has a far greater impact on humanity than if a crackpot dictator in some far corner runs death squads around killing dissidents. Both are horrid, but declaring the latter worse because you can't face up to the fact the United States is not infallible is not an option.
And through it all, I wondered: Where is the Socialism they so proudly talk about? Solidarity doesn't even get lip service from these folks.
P.S. I might get sued since these busy, busy people haven't found time to put a CC-license on this yet.
posted by Jimmy at 2:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home