The Enemy II - 28 comments
OK, maybe I am overdramatising somewhat, but one of the purposes of the Euston Manifesto, as I see it, is that by presenting a document that - even if it is incomplete, and work in progress - only unreasonable people could oppose, it's becoming more and more obvious that there are people I cannot honestly call 'comrades', whatever their association with the Labour Party, and whatever section of the Left they might include themselves within.
Take this BBC report about the abuse endured by a US citizen living in London, and this particular comment:
Ms Cox shouldn't really be surprised in the current climate. More and more people are coming to realise the US administration is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world. Unfortunately, their citizens will increasingly take the backlash, even though many of them are against US foreign policy - just as many Muslims are against such atrocities as 9/11 and Bali.For all I know, this person could be a committed left-wing activist. They may once have been a Labour Party supporter or member, perhaps disillusioned by some aspect of Blairism, but looking forward to returning once (as they see it) the New Labour period ends. Well, there are broad churches and broad churches, but if this person's appalling views are anything to go by (and, indeed, plenty of similar ones on the same page), the Euston Manifesto - even though it is cross-party - becomes a much truer test of political affiliation, and tells me that the two of us cannot honestly reside within the same political movement. Inclusiveness can only go so far.
John Lockett, Burnley, UK
So what does this mean? Well, it means that if I have any influence within the Left/Labour, it will be used to utterly repudiate views like those given above, and to dash any ideas such individuals might have about returning to the Labour fold, or of having any influence if they are already inside. Extremist views deserve an extremist party, so the sooner the extremists realise that this door is bolted, the more confident we can be that tolerance, sanity, and zero-tolerance of terrorism will not be compromised in a misguided attempt to bring people 'back to the fold' who may simply be too far gone.
That certainly doesn't mean we don't talk to them or debate the issues, but I'm saying there are certain standards that we don't compromise on, certain views that are not compatible with liberal politics, and it's the vicious, the intolerant, the racist, and the hate-filled who have to learn to change.
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
28 comments so far...
I do wonder what is the best way to handle these negative commentators. Many, I believe, are perhaps disillusioned, proscriptive, die hard left wingers, who are determined, before they breathe their last, to dose the British people - and the world, if possible - with their particular, peculiar brand of medicine, whether we like it or not. This is what communism tried and failed to do. Even the less extreme socialist regimes, like France, are now suffering withdrawal symptoms from the opium of enforced equality.
However, rising to their brightly coloured bait is probably not such a good idea. Their words are primarily intended to do damage by eliciting a rash response. Let's not forget that there's a certain admirable quality about serene indifference. 'The greatest show of power is in restraint.' Keep on track, be big and brave, our hearts are with you. The old left will continue to make a Godawful noise as the life is gradually strangled out of them. Their bitter, bullying and didactic methods are precisely what the modern world could do without. These old timers and technophobes sense, quite rightly, and fear, quite wrongly, the democratic power and immediacy of the Internet.
Any truly political minds, who must surely support the betterment of humankind by any means, will not wish you ill. Take the best of what is said. Do your enemies a disservice by scanning their poison for useful ideas. They may speak some words of sense even despite their vitriol.
The principle objection to the manifesto seems to be that it it is a series of statements of fact rather than a true manifesto. What action is being poposed?
Here in the US the terms anti-american and anti-semite are routinely used by conservatives to attack liberals who are neither. Its the new McCarthyism, anyone who objects to the Iraq war must hate America and American troops, anyone who criticizes the Likud party or AIPAC is silenced using the anti-semitic canard.
Sure there are real anti-americans (Bin Laden and his followers) and real anti Semites. but the real problem is hate mongers, who they hate is irrelevant.
Finaly, what is it with the PDF? HTML is the Web, using PDF is pretty lame when you have a section on open standards.
The thing needs to be shorter, and easier to remember the principal points.
the real Euston Manifesto
Very original approach, that, and an excellent use of your time.
kept me amused
Very amusing, Void. I enjoyed that, thank you. I also really enjoyed Daniel Davies' Mornington Crescent manifesto. However...
These old lefties just don't get it, do they? They remind me of, oh I don't know, pick your favourite fundamentalist religious group. You WILL believe what we believe. It is the TRUTH. There is no room for DISCUSSION or DEBATE. If you are not WITH us, you are AGAINST us. There MUST be public ownership of the means of production, blah blah blah.
Let me try to put this into straightforward, easy to understand terms for you. New Labour â fire at will, if you must â has won three successive general elections. We now enjoy more prosperity and national confidence than at any time since the war. Old Labour, on the other hand, were kept out in the cold for two decades while they squabbled over whose method of slicing up the cake was the fairest.
The world in which we now live is here, now. We live in it. We must work with it. We can encourage, persuade, debate, argue our point. We cannot coerce, proscribe or bully. It is no longer acceptable to force-feed people Christianity, communism, or any other ideology.
It's interesting to see the level of fury the Euston Manifesto has aroused among the old left. Perhaps having their raison d'etre called into question is more than they can bear, what with the collapse of the communist experiment and its offshoots.
Of course redistribution of wealth is good and necessary, in my opinion. Of course the monarchy should be dismantled, in my opinion. Of course wealthy nations should treat the ongoing neediness of poorer nations as an emergency, in my opinion. Of course inherited privilege should be done away with, in my opinion. Of course murderous, despotic regimes should be removed, in my opinion. Etc etc etc.
What we are seeing is the necessary and long overdue re-shaping of a political ideology whose time has come - and gone. But whose progeny are alive and well.
Nowadays of course, we have given up cake. Cake was traditionally seen as a left-right issue, and it is time to grow up and leave that infantile 'political' vision of the world behind.
In the old days, the tories gave cake to the rich, and to private companies, which stands against labour values.
Today, we put those values into pratice by making sure it is us, not them, who are allowed to give the cake to the rich, and private companies. That's what real, mature progressive politics is about.
In short, we should make sure those in power wear red ties, not blue ones. and also that they must believe in lassiez faire policy, and pander to the so called 'right wing' press (We can even use Ross Kemp to talk those silly party members round!)
;o)
What a state our so called broad church is in...
Euston should have nothing to do with leaving leftism behind. It should be about rediscovering it for the sake of both democracy and socialism; taking it back from those who support despots over trade unionists.
It should also unite both the pro and anti war camps behind democracy and progress.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Animal Farm was always my favourite book, it works on so many levels!
On US/UK colonialism/military intimidation:
While I personally benefit from it financially, I still don't like it and why shouldn't I criticise it? How are we to help those living on less than $1 a day if we don't condemn the current system?
On Trade Unions:
The more undemocratic a society, the more that trade unions (truly representing their members) are needed, but they can also get in the way of good government that is trying to help the unskilled non-unionised workers.
The truth is, without world government, it is becoming increasingly difficult to part the rich from their money and even those on the dole in this country, benefit from the relocation of the most exploited un-unionised labour to South East Asia.
Europe is the answer, not the US, let's get our priorities right.
Um, who's saying you can't criticise it, Neil? Criticise away, my friend. I'm not sure about the Animal Farm reference though. Who are you trying to draw parallels with? Also, I don't see how we can, or why we should have to 'choose between' Europe and America. Both are our friends. Both have much to offer.
It's sad to see a sections of the left busily abusing each other over the other's lack of modernity, when both are completely missing the point by fighting 20th century battles, like two bald men fighting over a comb.
Our failure to engage with the impending oil-topping off point is a strategic error of stunning proportions; the potential this issue has to cause economic devastation and suffering is enormous, but we're too busy arguing from a tactical decision made in 2002 by Blair.
Against the context of the obscene levels of consumption of natural resources, most pointedly oil, and the reluctance of the US to consider renewables, if one is concerned about the ability of 10Bn people to live on planet earth (which I'd have thought we were) then the US administration, and the US polity - ordinary americans included - have to be told the truth about the consequences of their lifestyles and their policies. That's not anti-american - it's pro-sensible consumption.
Sorry. just wandered in here. Can you tell me - who are you? Do you just own the Labour Movement or just the Blair Party or the whole of the LEFT?
Just say it as I see it, mate.
If your point is that there is in fact some value in what Mr. Lockett says, and that other, more genuine, left-wing people can see it, well let me be clear:
I do not want to be on the same side as them
Anyone who thinks that ordinary people can legitimately be victimised for something their government has done, can go to hell for all I care.
Likewise, anyone who can - sober, and after taking a deep breath - equate 9/11 and US foreign policy is, I think, a psychiatric case. Their minds have been twisted.
hmmm this is a strange little debate you have got going. Just out of curiosity do you feekl that it is possible to be a labour party member and believe the following.
1. trade Union membership is a good thing and its actions in defence of members, such as the recent strike by UNISON should be supported.
2. Our current education system is being increasingly turned to the advantage of those who are best at playing the system to the disadvantage of children whose parents lack influence. And that private businesses and religious organisations are not the best people to run schools.
3. That the actions of President Bush in international relations are unilateral, impulsive and potentially very dangerous.
4. That the failure of the labour party to take notice of their traditional working class support is leading to increased support for the BNP.
5. That the social provision of medicine, education and basic social infrastructure such as roads is likely to be more democratic and fairer than leaving it to competition between profit based organisations.
6. That we should be trying to build a democratic society in which all people feel they have some chance to succeed.
....or should I leave the labour party as holding these beliefs is clearly incompatible with membership?
1. Agree in principle; probably Disagree
2. "Parents lack influence"?? - if your argument is for the status quo, then I disagree; I'd rather not generalise - would tend to agree, but if you insist that LEAs are the only organisations permitted to run schools, then again I'd rather not generalise.
3. Which actions? If you mean that spreading democracy is impulsive and potentially very dangerous, then I'm all for it and would disagree with you.
4. I agree.
5. I agree, but if, by dogmatically sticking to a particular funding model, and ignoring the gap between expectations and willingness to pay, you jeapordise the entire system, I'd be looking at reforms that keep the system working for all.
6. Of course I agree.
interesting..we aren't that different, though reading the posts i was starting to wonder.
1. I don't really understand your reponse - sorry
2. Not an argument for status quo but for omprehensive education with democratic accountability, some LEAs are better than others where i live they tend to be pretty good but I know other areas are not so well off. Religions and businesses are not appropriate organisations to run education. They have other motivations than the simple education of the child.
3.Do you seriously believe that all this global american military action is sbout spreading democracy? You have to admit that in the past America has supported dictators and undermined democratic governments and this makes me sceptical of their motives in such an oil rich country - and no that is not ant-american, just realism.
5. fair enough but if those reforms produce two levels of provision - which is arguably taking place in education now then maybe they are not reforms but steps to the past.
6. Yeah bland that wasn't it - seems important though because we have to be aware of what the party is for. Not just to gain power but to change and improve things when in power.
I'm normal Labour and I'm not furious about the Euston Manifesto. I think it's just a silly rant about the middle east and a sad attempt to continue a fight with the peace movement. As a Labour person there is absolutely nothing in it for me or Labour voters, I don't think the war was a good idea, and I am most certainally not in the 'left' in order to reach out to 'democratic' conservatives.
Some of the Third Way fervour with the Euston Bloggers seems a few years out of date if you know what I mean. We've been there done that, and actually, it is losing us votes now.
And where will this band of Euston bloggers get off their train? Probably somewhere between one-nation patriarchy and Tel Aviv. Nowhere.
I'm normal Labour and I'm not furious about the Euston Manifesto. I think it's just a silly rant about the middle east and a sad attempt to continue a fight with the peace movement.
Very little of it's about the Middle East, but if we can learn something about democracy by using it as an example, that wouldn't be bad, would it? The peace movement - or vocal parts of it - asked to be attacked when they aligned themselves with theocrats and fascists: I hope won't get tired of pointing out the contradiction.
This isn't a new party, it's just a statement of what are intended to be basic principles. I don't mind if people from other parties agree - they should! Looking through the signers we have loads of left-wing people of all shades, there are trade unionists, Communists, US Republicans, and even a few self-described 'neocons'. All are agreed that a certain, small, but vocal section of the left (together with some conservative right-wingers) have made a distinctly unholy alliance, and that they should be condemned for tolerating terrorism and cheapening our democracy and freedoms.
It's too important to worry about votes in the short-term.
I'm very good at stating the obvious, so I'll stick to what I'm good at. Do the Tories argue like us lot? Isn't it a shame that we do argue so much? Are we egotists or idealists? Or both? To me, debate is healthy and necessary, but vicious and hurtful sniping is neither.
Are we forgetting how fooking depressed we all were during the twenty years those selfish sickos experimented with our country, while we were forced to watch? Have we forgotten how much things have changed over the last decade? Let's not forget what defines us from the other lot. The true blue brigade have one thing that they believe will always be a winning card for them: they actively promote, and appeal to, self interest - regardless of David Cameron's pretensions and platitudes. Conservatism is about conserving. Keeping. Mine. Me. Socialism is about society. We. Us.
I think proscriptive lists which make demands - 'if you don't believe this, this and this, then you're not Labour' - are unhelpful. Let's be grown up and intelligent. Let's spend the larger part of our time talking about the large amount of stuff we agree on, and a smaller amount of time talking about the small amount of stuff we disagree on.
Somebody - whose referral URL was this website - left a poisonous comment on my blog. I'm afraid I think their anonymity showed both cowardice and guilt. Oops, I just said we shouldn't disagree didn't I? Sorry!
The middle east is patently the wrong place to learn about democracy. It is full of religious robots whose sectarianism rules what would be their policitcal comradeships over and above their religion.
I actually don't even know Anyone in the peace movement who is a trot. And I'm sure having been involved in organizing the Scottish Colaition for Justice not War's demos I know enough. Most of the organizers were actucaly Labour and old school CND. That cry is pretty much as false as it is dishonest from people who always supported the war.
Most people in out own party and the country think the was war a very bad idea, and I'm afraid it is a tiny fringe who think that it is still worth it.
And votes are important. The Euston Manifesto comes an unpopular natually conservative stance. (In as far as you can pin it down, which is a problem in its own right)
How is it 'conservative'?
I'm saying most of the people on it wouldn't vote Labour if you paid them.
If they are Labour supporters they're from the far right of the party, so I'm not with their pro-war stance. I reckon that's fair enough. And actually even though I work for one of our MPs I'm not all that jumped up about our form of parliamentary democracy being so great either. People have a very poor stake in our society and it is an economic one (if they have one at all). For me the Labour Party has always been the best way to achieve full economic democracy (something I'm sure won't end up happening in the new Iraq). It is a slap on the writs to some naughty trots. Nowhere near being radical enough to change a thing other than foreign policy, and you're right it wasn't just mostly about the middle east. Some of it is about terrorism too.
I'm not saying that's unimportant in its own time, but it is cearly a bee in the bonnet cul de sac. Its a bit like watching the tories internal debates on crime!
James, but there are Labour *supporters* (I didn't say *voters* now) among them, while others are ineligible to vote in this country. I can't see anything right wing ...
Only time for a quick point, but what you can't necessarily see from the signers page is the sheer range of political opinion. Few if any established politicians, but several respected Labour bloggers (and more to come, I hope, when I post a reminder), and an awful lot of people who would vote Labour, plus ex-Labour people, and many who have been on the anti-war/left. There are some fine statements:
My signing is in part a response to discussions I have had with leftist friends, particularly in Europe. I agree with most of their criticisms of the wisdom of the Iraq war, but feel troubled by their obsessive emotion and lack of nuance on the subject. This contrasts their obvious lack of emotion in response to 9/11, when all they wanted to talk about was US foreign policy history. I cannot accept being asked to understand such hate while seeing my own support for a military response, despite my obvious feelings on 9/11 as a New York resident, being met with unreserved outrage. Of course this critique is not aimed at the majority of critics of the Iraq war, who did show solidarity with us after 9/11, but it is a recognition of the immorality so much self-righteous leftist opinion. It is also to express a hope that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein will eventually bring a better future to the Iraqi people, and a belief that despite my sadness over recent history, that it still might.
The feeling was that to make the Manifesto too specific, particularly economically, would break up the coalition. Democracy on paper is clearly not sufficient for a leftie, which is why Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. look so unsatisfactory. That doesn't mean that there's no plan for them to have freedom of expression, tolerance, low unemployment, and public services - and their absence doesn't, in my mind, imply that the West failed, or has a hidden neoliberal agenda.
Let's agree on the value of democracy, and try to promote it to its fullest extent in the Middle East and here at home, rather than sell it short and give succour to those who regard it as flawed and decadent.
Finally, about "right-wing" - even the Cameronites are asking what role there is for the Right! Neoliberal we know, socialist, and managerialist we can also see, but an actual right-wing policy? Don't take my word for it, but I suspect you'd be left looking at the BNP and the religious extremists.
The enemies thing is a very bad idea. I think that once you start categorizing people by what they don't say you have a very worrying political scene. People have politcal priorites, terrorism and pro-war niches are not one of mine.
Franky I think religion should be abolished, then you would have none of this shite. 'Go figure!'
Dear Everybody
I think we should have a national competition to see who is the most genuinely left-wing person in the country. Since I don't support Gordon Brown's attempts to become PM, and since I actually like Tony Blair, and am glad to see the back of Saddam Hussein, that clearly rules me out. However, I'm happy to adjudicate, being a sort of liberally-leftie type.
Perhaps we should start with the following elimination rounds, which become progressively more difficult. In the unlikely event that more than one contestant makes it through all of the rounds, there will be a tie break.
Round 1
Contestants must declare a belief in the fundamental principle of fairness for all, regardless of life circumstances, and generally just feel a bit self righteous about things. (I'm still in.)
Round 2
Contestants should be able to demonstrate a belief in, and an understanding of, the necessity for the redistribution of wealth, blah blah blah. (I'm still in.)
Round 3
Contestants must really, really dislike Tories. (I'm still in.)
Round 4
Contestants should be able to prove that they have been on marches in which minor skirmishes with the police occurred, and maybe have been a trade union rep for a few weeks. (I'm still in.)
Round 5
Contestants must have read the Communist Manifesto - all of it - at least once, and preferably be able to quote bits from it. (I'm out.)
Round 6
Contestants must dislike Peter Mandelson intensely, but aggressively assert his right to be gay.
Round 7
Contestants must boast about the fact that they refuse to vote for Labour, always wishing to provoke argument when they do so.
Round 8
Contestants must be against all forms of privatisation of any type, ever, and must favour the nationalisation of everything, immediately.
Round 9
Contestants must look down their nose in disgust at people who they perceive to be middle class.
Round 10
Contestants must take a Macchiavellian approach to achieving true socialism, i.e. one that does not rule out dishonesty or violence.
Tie Breaker
Contestants should demonstrate the strength of their beliefs in the above principles by foregoing, for one year, all but the most vital part of their income, for subsistence only, the remainder being given to the poor.
This post is all well and good, but how would you predict the muslim world would respond to globalisation and a strong non-islamic presence in their sphere of influence? after all, in the west we have experienced a plurality of cultures for centuries, but east of the jordan this phenomenon is still in it's infancy.
More to the point, there is the democracy or death dichotomy.
Obviously it would be wrong to totally obliterate the people of any country for the purpose of a democratic government. so how many deaths are acceptable, in the name of democracy? in my view, if the total misery and death spread by 'liberation' outnumber those that result from tyranny and it's natural evolution to eventual democracy, any military action is grossly immoral.
notwithstanding, it is the general consent of the people rather than a specific democratic system that give a nation sovereignty.
The US and UK have no mandate from the people of Iraq. They did not ask for us, and do not want us. they want islamism, and that is what they vote for. our business there can only go as far as to the point where people can assert their own democratic will in a stable framework. that is why I do not agree with pulling out the troops. but as I have explained, I think it impossible to make a left wing (or indeed rational) case for the invasion itself. this was not helped by the way the reasons for the invasion kept 'conveniently' changing, and the way in which the law was broken (the reason that the reasons had to change).
I was steadfastly against the war, and will campaign against any similar conflict.
I still support euston, because now that Iraq is a democracy, I can argue politically with what the majority of Iraqis think: Islamism is not desirable.
The SWP etc calling for their victory is shamelessly opportunistic, and plain wrong.
Anti-war, anti-baathist, anti-islamist, pro-democracy, pro-socialist.
Anyone who thinks that ordinary people can legitimately be victimised for something their government has done, can go to hell for all I care.
I take it then that you would condemn the Israeli withholding of tax revenues and the US/EU suspension of aid to the Palestinians, who are being punished for voting for Hamas?
Well there is a point there: withholding tax revenues that were legitimately earned is a very different issue to withholding aid that was given out of benevolence, and on the basis that there was an active peace process.
There are, of course, measures you can take against governments that don't impact on the population.
You are, of course, talking about a government made up of 'militants' that had just *refused* to condemn a terrorist outrage against civilians. Great example.
Post a Comment
<< Home