The Manifesto sets forth the ideals of left wing democratic policy, looks very worthy and you are to be congratulated for writing some part of it. I am particularly happy to see #12 - Historical Truth.

My question is - how is it all going to be implemented? These very ideals are contradictory to all of todays non-democratic regimes and political entities. How should these challengers be overcome and which ideals (if any) need to be compromised in the interim so this Manifesto can eventually be realised?

Regards Angus

Apologies for spelling your name wrongly. And I will go away, if that is what you really want.

The point I am trying to make, probably very badly, is that the sentiments that you express here, specifically a horror at torture, are not reflected in the text of the Euston Manifesto. It cannot be just me that sees:

“…Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, …”

as a cry for exceptionalism. Which words, exactly do support? There is nothing grotesque about the comparison, the treatment of political prisoners in Gitmo and the Gulags is at least in the same frame.

You are presumeably trying to get allies in a cause. I subscribe to most of it. But I will not let the US off the hook on what is, in all fairness, something not much different from the Gulags, or concentration camps. Indeed rendition breaks the status quo.

BTW, I thought the Euston Manifesto was supposed to be open for criticism. That it was only a draft. Subject to improvement. Instead you tell me to ‘go away’. Nuff said.

douglas

“

“No reply again.”

I’ve already answered the question.

“Answer the question.”

I’ve already answered the question.

“why does the US have a right to exceptionalism when it comes to torture?”

I’ve already answered the question.

“Surely you and I agree that torture is wrong?”

I’ve already answered the question.

We make no exceptions.

One of the main themes of the manifesto is moral consistency, is to call for an end to “post modernist clap-trap”.

Torture is wrong.

How many times and in how many ways do we have to say it?

Now you are torturing me.

(And it’s “Damian” with an ‘a’.)

Please go away.

No reply again. Go on use that brain thing. Answer the question. why does the US have a right to exceptionalism when it comes to torture? Surely you and I agree that torture is wrong? Either you foolishly believe that the USA is completely innocent of such a charge, or you are an apologist for their exceptionalism, which is quite mind blowing, frankly. Sure, other regiemes ought to be called to account, but that does not let the USA off any sort of moral hook.

A rethink of that completely forgiving, post modernist clap-trap would be good. I’m not holding my breath.

Thanks for finally replying

OK, so you don’t think this is an attempt to ridicule Amnesty International then, do you?:

“This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.”

What precicely is grotesque about saying that the West is falling into the same trap as the communists? What exactly is grotesque about saying that the extra judicial actions of the US are an appalling undermining of what the West is supposed to stand for? Do you think rendition, and more to the point, actions based on tortured ‘confessions’ gained in this way have the slightest validity? If so, you are some sort of faux realist who has watched far too much 24.

The point about standards, which I made in my original post is that if democracies are about anything it is about upholding higher standards than the questionable ethics of boil in a bag dictatorships. When the USA, and to a lesser extent the UK, fall into the trap of listening to the voices in their heads that say that the only way to beat fire is with fire, then they become no better than their enemies. Which point about Gitmo or rendition do you have a blind spot on? Perhaps I could help. Torture is largely a one on one abomination. What your glorious little friends in the CIA have managed to do is market it as a product that democracies, or at least Eustonistas are happy to subscribe to, or perhaps export. Which is nonsense. Evil is evil Damien. And it doesn’t matter who perpetrates it. What does matter is that good people, and I certainly include you in that, should not apologise for it.

You make a strong point that the Euston Manifesto is against torture. And in a sense you are right. But it allows American exceptionalism, much as the USA would wish, and that, frankly is rubbish. Which syllable of Universal do you and your friends fail to understand?

Sorry, you and your friends really need to rethink this. It is mince.

“You couldn’t reply, could you?”

I didn’t reply because your question was asked in the following context:

that in the manifesto we “attempt to ridicule Amnesty”—we do no such thing

that the comparison between Gitmo and the Gulag is valid “on an individual basis”, whatever that means—it is not

that we treat torture by agents of the United States differently from torture perpetrated by agents of any other country—we do not (though you yourself admit that you hold democracies to higher standards)

“Where do you stand Pooter Geek? Are you for or against torture?”

If you can’t see from reading it that the manifesto implicitly and explicitly opposes torture then my re-stating my own opposition is pointless. It’s certainly already redundant.

You couldn’t reply, could you? You have made mincemeat of most of your critics of the Euston Manifesto, but when it comes down to a simple question, are you for or against torture, you wimp out, don’t you?

The point is that there is no reason or excuse for torture. Try to make a mockery of that.

Oh, the USA is innocent of rendition and Gitmo! Even you don’t think that, do you?

Try replying with the wit and widom that you seemed to have when the anti-Eustonistas were easy targets.

Or at least try replying. That would be good.

Where do you stand Pooter Geek? Are you for or against torture?

Bullshit.

I read the Euston Manifesto. It is confused, rambling, ambiguous and poorly written. An unkind critic might read it and conclude that this is because when you remove the attacks on the “left”, all that’s left of the decent left’s views are banal generalities. A kinder critic would conclude that it should probably have been redrafted a few times before being published.

“it is the politics of hope.”

Apple Pie and Motherhood. Or as we like to call it down my manor - the politics of cliche.

“We are attempting to give a counterview to the nilihistic crap that passes as leftist politics these days.”

I’m sorry. What is nihilistic about the anti-capitalists, the more militant unions, the resurgent left in S. America? For that matter none of the opposition to the war in Iraq was nihilistic. You don’t oppose wars because you think life is meaningless. Maybe you’re mistaking pragmatism for nihilism.

One of the funny things about antisemitism is that people who oppose it know what it is.

If you want to know what the Euston Manifesto is about, then read it. It is that simple. It was not written to hide something, but to illuminate something.

Cian,

I don’t give a G2 supplement if you consider it a failure or not. I’m done with pessimism, life’s too short. It’s done far better than I ever imagined it would, and it is the politics of hope. We are attempting to give a counterview to the nilihistic crap that passes as leftist politics these days.

If the only people who signed the manifesto had been the people who wrote it, then I would have signed it and been proud to have done so.

Well obviously you think they’re reasonable, as you helped create the thing. And people who disagree with some of the things on the list, probably don’t think they are reasonable. And while some of the supporters may have been anti-war, the document itself is firmly supportive of a particular kind of war. So either they’ve changed their minds, or they’re inconsistent.

CRITIC: “Your reasonable things are just a front for all the unreasonable things that you really believe. You are all pro-war.”

Hmm, for reasonable read vague and poorly defined things. I mean for example. Who wouldn’t be against anti-semitism - but whose definition of anti-semitism are we using here? I’ve seen plenty of things attacked for being anti-semitic, which I don’t think are (some of them by supporters and drafters of this manifesto). So without having a better definition as to what you mean by anti-semitism, how can I sign this? And if you’re not going to define anti-semitism reasonably clearly, then that clause is meaningless (“we are all against anti-semitism, even though we can’t agree on what that might be”. Well yeah).

My guess is that anti-semitism here includes criticisms of israel that decents like norman disagree with - i.e. it is a front for some of the “unreasonable” (in my eyes) things you guys believe in. Certainly the manifesto as it stands doesn’t contradict that interpretation.

The clause on anti-Americanism is incoherent. What anti-Americanism? Hating people because they’re American? You think that’s common in this country? Really? More common than hating the French, or Germans? Is it worse than hating Germans, or French people? If not, why single it out? And what is acceptible criticism? What’s wrong with singling out US foreign policy, given its the most powerful country in the world? What’s wrong with singling out American faults (of which there are many, lack of democracy being one of them), given that we hear a lot from the US about how great it is? What does this paragraph commit me to, if I sign it?

EUSTONIANS: Wouldn’t it be nice if some other people read our list of reasonable things and made some suggestions for ways we could improve it?

Well I doubt you’d like my personal manifesto, given that my political views and values are significantly different to yours. So this is rather disingenuous. However redrafting it so that the language is less amateurish would be a start (e.g. “We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.” I thought Norm was supposed to be a professional writer). And removing sections like:
“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.” Well yes it can. And it can have the opposite effect. This is vapid - the kind of thing you’d expect from a second rate A-level candidate. For one thing it treats development as it happens in a depoliticised vaccuum.
Or
Development “enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make strangers into friends.” Which is just embarrassing. I’m surprised you didn’t talk about tweety birds, or the world being newly flat.

Alternatively, you could start by removing the ambiguities. If you think its wrong to attack Israel, then say so rather than weasiling behind anti-racism. If you think America’s government shouldn’t be singled out then say so, justify it, rather than weasiling behind accusations of “anti-americanism”. If, as you seem to suggest, you support any intervention in states who have crossed “a certain threshold of humanity”, then say so. If you don’t mean this, then redraft it so its possible to work out what you do believe.

Alternatively you could write a manifesto that was a bit more cohesive, and less about fighting the battles of the “decent left”.

CRITIC: Ha! Your dastardly plan to recruit a global army of blindly loyal beserker warriors and “liberate” the little brown people of Rumbabwe and Fiskistan has failed! Failed! Ha ha ha ha ha! FAILED!

Actually my question was what this was supposed to achieve. It claims to be a political document, so I assumed it must have some political purpose, otherwise what’s the point of it. So 2000 people signed it? And what does that achieve exactly? currently it looks like tokenistic politics.

If you want a point of comparison, look at the simple and strong design of, let’s say, Norman Geras’s blog.

I happen to agree with most of what the EM says, and have been arguing and acting for much the same cause for years. Pity it chose to go under such a weak banner.

EUSTONIANS: “Here is a list of some reasonable things. Some of us were pro-war; some of us were anti-war.”

CRITIC: [thinking: Damn! I can’t criticise any of these reasonable things without revealing how unreasonable I am.]

CRITIC: “Your reasonable things are just a front for all the unreasonable things that you really believe. You are all pro-war.”

EUSTONIANS: Wouldn’t it be nice if some other people read our list of reasonable things and made some suggestions for ways we could improve it?

CRITIC: Ha! Your dastardly plan to recruit a global army of blindly loyal beserker warriors and “liberate” the little brown people of Rumbabwe and Fiskistan has failed! Failed! Ha ha ha ha ha! FAILED!

PSYCHIATRIC NURSE: It’s alright. We’re here to help. [gently trying to remove CRITIC’s forearms from keyboard they are wrapped around] If you’d like to accompany us to the ambulance outside everything will feel so much better soon.

“The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of ‘rendition’, must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.”

I for one, stand on the basic principle that torture is wrong, no matter who commits it. I also believe that democracies that allow their guardians to ‘look into the pit’ to paraphrase Nietche, take on aspects of their opponents. To reach a bit, I suspect there are as many people living in democracies who desire a career in the torture industry, or alternatively murdering innocent Brazilians, as there are in any other societies. It is frankly not right to attempt to ridicule Amnesty International for what is a given in most of Europe. The pictures of Gitmo said it all, they are treating people inhumanely. The scale may be different, but the comparison with Gulags is valid on an individual basis.

Am I alone in thinking that this was a form of PR? ‘Look how tough we are, and we don’t even know if they did anything?” Then they use smart lawyers to justify an untenable position.

Frankly, you and Harry and Shuggy have got it all wrong over this one. In absolutist terms there is nothing to chose between a democracy infringing human rights and a dictatorship doing the same. Or maybe there is. I expect more from the democracy than I do from the dictatorship.

The double standards you refer to are those who have ignored this paragraph in the manifesto, or seen it as positive, when it is in fact an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. And went ahead and signed the manifesto anyway.

“Because the EM is kitsch, its signatories dilletantes, ingrates, and idiots. ”

Yes, occasionally all of those, guilty. Not however on signing EM. But “ingrate”? Ungrateful? For what? For your considerable and subtle argument? No, don’t bother to answer.

There is very little commitment involved in signing a manifesto. It means they agree with you (or think they do, which isn’t necessarily the same thing), but it doesn’t mean they’re going to do anything about it. They might, but then again they might not. Its certainly not enough to build a political movement on. Hence “shallow” responses - its not just the quantity, quality counts too.

And you seem to be confusing the response to the manifesto (which I wasn’t taking terribly seriously), with the manifesto itself. Many of those who support the manifesto talk as if the manifesto has made a big splash in the world. It hasn’t. And I suspect its appeal is probably fairly limited outside the rather incestuous blogosphere.

“and really don’t believe in any universal principles”

Or alternatively I don’t agree with you about what those universal principals might be. I mean sure the euston manifesto mentions human rights, equality and racism. But there are very few on the left who would disagree with them in principal (the disagreements tend to occur when these universal values conflict with each other, as tends to happen, and one has to try and choose the least bad option). But very little of the rest of the document can be considered a universal. More of the document seems to be focused either on criticising the left, or on stating what the signers do not believe in.

This sums up the moral void that is the very core of your comment, Cian, if you don’t mind me saying. If you really don’t care, aren’t prepared to take the Manifesto seriously, and really don’t believe in any universal principles, then I guess this must all seem like a frothy media campaign you can casually dismiss.

2000 signees is not a bad number, but its not enormous (my guess is that the SWP probably has 4000+ active members - activity being rather more than signing a manifesto on the internet. Which given how the SWp treats its membership…). However, what does that commit signers to? There’s no organisation, no membership fees, no meetings, no commitment. So its quite a shallow response.

Anyway, 2000 people who have agreed with your document. However what does that actually mean? As far as I can work out (and the manifesto doesn’t help, as its not particularly well written), agreement largely means the following:
1) Supporting the US
2) Supporting Israel
3) A view of Islam which sees it as a regressive political/social force.
4) Support for armed intervention in certain (poorly specified) situations
5) The obligatory bit of rhetoric about reclaiming the left (everyone on the left thinks they represent the true left, so you could have left that bit out. Its a given)

How does this translate into practical action? What does practical action even mean in these circumstances? How could you build any kind of movement based upon this? What does signing the document commit you to? Its meaningless. Play politics, or what passes for politics on blogs (and pubs) I guess. Griping.

As for its impact in the world. Its made some impact, granted, in the British political blogosphere (including a tedious debate on the New Statesman one). But that’s a pretty small pond - with I suspect a negligable affect on the outside world. There’s been a little bit more debate in the MSM - but largely through people who are involved (Nick Cohen), or can be expected to be sympathetic (John Lloyd, for example).

Outside that, I haven’t come across one person who has actually heard of the thing. Do you expect that to change? If not, what is the point of the thing? To stir up debate in the labour party?

Cian

Jaysus… how dense are some people?

In other news…

What, so there were WMDs in Iraq? They’ve kept that quiet.

No doubt, it is this success that so peeves some of its more maniacally fixated—though never usually very penetrating—’critics’; that, of course, and simple avidity.

The at times almost palpable desperation of the ubiquitous Benjamin to play down the success of the document has only been matched, as far as I know, by that of a supercilious Young Churchill look-alike on The Guardian blog, who so admired his semi-descriptive cliché, “motherhood and apple pie”, that he appeared to repeat it everywhere he went over the next few days, including, I think, over at Crooked Tomb and that creepy Aaronovitch-stalking site, although they may all be fronts for the same group of humourless centre-right fanatics, who seem determined to believe that Mr Blair lied over the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary.