Scrolling to the bottom, most of the authors seem to be Brits. So before signing I’d like to know a bit more about this organization, what its specific short-term goals are, and whether it has any relevance to American progressives.
This confuses me a bit… it feels like they are looking for people to fight with! And, as a person who tries to be a pacifist, I’m not really fond of the rest of the manifesto. To tell the truth, they are way too “right” for me.
(And I swore I wouldn’t get into any political discussions my first year or so here… sigh.)
We need some British posters to comment on this. I think we’re confused because we’re viewing this thru the prism of American politics.
They’re not conservative in the sense of an American conservative, although many American conservatives are championing parts of the manifesto, mainly because the authors are mostly pro-war, pro-Israel, and anti-Islam, which resonates with many conservatives here. My earlier hybrid description of them is still much more apt, in my opinion, than calling them actual conservatives.
What would you consider a leftist or progressive British magazine?
This may help place it in context:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200604170006
*It started with some like-minded progressives meeting in a London pub. Disenchanted with what they saw as the wrong-headed thinking of the anti-war movement, they began to talk of a new left movement. By Norman Geras and Nick Cohen
On a Saturday last May, right after the general election, 20 or so similarly minded people met in a pub in London. We had no specific agenda, merely a desire to talk about where things were politically. Those present were all of the left: some bloggers or running other websites, their readers, a few with labour movement connections, one or two students. Many of us were supporters of the military intervention in Iraq, and those who weren’t - who had indeed opposed it - none the less found themselves increasingly out of tune with the dominant anti-war discourse. They were at odds, too, with how it related to other prominent issues - terrorism and the fight against it, US foreign policy, the record of the Blair government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, more generally, attitudes to democratic values.
At that first meeting our discussion focused on our common sense of discord with much current left-liberal thinking. We talked of how the prevailing consensus had ample representation in the liberal press, on the BBC and Channel 4, whereas the viewpoint of our own segment of the left was significantly under- represented in the mainstream media. We had, however, found a place on the internet and in the blogosphere, which had helped to connect people who might otherwise have felt isolated and had given expression to the voices and debates of a left other than the one heard loudly everywhere: from TV screens and newspapers, in universities and other workplaces, in theatres, at dinner tables and at every kind of social gathering. Its ideas were so much perceived as conventional wisdom that many found it difficult to allow that there could be an alternative left-liberal view.*
Brief summary- in American political terms, socialist economics with republican ethics.
Well, that lasted a month then.
If they support Blair and the Iraq War, then I would equate them with our “leftist neocons,” the Social Democrats, USA, which also supports the war.
*In 1973, the Socialist Party of America (being historically anti-Communist but also anti-U.S.-imperialist) split over whether to support or oppose American involvement in the Vietnam War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America#Split
The pro-war “Schachtmanite” faction formed the SDUSA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats_USA; http://www.socialdemocrats.org/.
The anti-war faction formed Socialist Party USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_USA; http://www.sp-usa.org/);
and also the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, which eventually became the Democratic Socialists of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America; http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html)
(The DSA and SPUSA have no important ideological differences, just different approaches. The SPUSA is a political party, the DSA a non-partisan educational organization. Many belong to both.)
I belong to the SPUSA, myself. At least we’re not a bunch of fucking splitters!
For a rather detailed “socialist family tree,” see http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/leftwing.htm and scroll to the bottom of the page. It’s positively Baroque! 
And at that, it needs updating . . .
Can you name some names? I don’t like the term “neocon”, but when I think of people who are usually lumped into that category, I can’t think of any I’d call a leftist. Someone like Christopher Hitchens? But then, he’s a Brit.
Joseph Lieberman, perhaps? He’s still rather gung-ho on the Iraq war, and insists he’s a liberal, though I’m of the camp that lumps him as a DINO (Democrat in Name Only).
Yeah, I thought of him, but ruled him out. He’s not much of a leftist, is he? I don’t know that I’d lunp him in with Zell Miller, but he sure as hell ain’t no Dennis Kucinich either.
John, Hitchens is in the ballpark, but many of the folks behind that manifesto think that Hitchens actually went to far in some ways, in regards to security over freedom. They do reference him quite often, and agree with him on many things.
I was afraid of this.
I am not interested in hearing what people assume about other people’s motives, I’m not interested in hearing who hangs out with whom and therefore must really be a neocon. I am interested in hearing discussion of principles. Yes, some parts of it could be seen as approving of the Iraq war … but since several of the people who signed it opposed that war from the start and still do, it’s absurd to assume it must read that way.
I understand why conservatives/neocons would reject it; those reasons are fairly obvious. I’m not at all sure I’d sign it. The question I’m interested in hearing is what if any problems progressives have with the text as written. Please, no ad hominens or poisoned wells.
You said the debate was whether we’d sign it or not. If you wanted a simple yes/no answer, IMHO would have been where you would have posted. You wanted to know why we wouldn’t, if we wouldn’t. The motives of the framers is a pretty good reason for me not to sign it, since it’s hard to tell what some of the points actually are.
It’s so vague as to be meaningless in many places. Therefore, one tries to determine what the actual meaning is by further research into those behind it. Not unlike trying to determine the meaning behind some of our constitutional amendments.
Yes, and that was a mistake. What I should have said was “do you agree with the principles articulated?”
Comments from a technical writer who happens to be an economic and social liberal, but not, strictly speaking, a socialist, and based on having quickly read the Manifesto without knowing much of anything about the authors.
As some sort of long-term statement of purpose, this document strikes me as far too site- and time-specific to be of much use. IMO, a manifesto should be couched in broad enough terms that one does not have to refer to actions concerning specific events or places such as the Iraq conflict or Israel, to nevertheless define a useful policy toward these events or places. Also, written as it is with a decidly British viewpoint, I believe it is unlikley that persons from other countries or societies would find it all that relevant.
Anyway, going down through the list of points:
-
more or less OK
-
rewrite along the lines of “against tyranny”
-
more or less OK – provide direct link to Universal Declaration of Human Rights
-
rewrite along the lines of “Equality of gender, race and economic opportunity”
-
delete
-
delete
-
delete
-
merge with 4)
-
more or less OK
-
Nothing about how international intervention might practically be supported or financed, and does not define the threshold for action very well
-
Rewrite along the lines of “Open Dialogue With Dissenters”
-
more or less OK
-
more or less OK
-
more or less OK
-
OK as basic summary of principles.
Frankly, this is not a document I’d take to the streets to support, but I probably wouldn’t do that for any such manifesto. Just my two pence, or less.
That Manifesto seems really bland. I don’t think you’ll find many people in the developed world who disagree with most of the ideas presented in it.
Social Democrat with Fist & Rose leanings here, though I’m too lazy to actually register.
1) For democracy
…no argument here.
2) No apology for tyranny…We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
This one’s a red herring. Who might these left-liberal apologists for tyranny be? The people I hear talking shit about the Iraq war are generally the ones I hear talking shit about Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Pakistan.
3) Human rights for all…We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.
Such as? Another red herring.
4) Equality.
OK.
5) Development for freedom.
OK, with a caveat - I’d like to see more emphasis on the responsibility of the state to provide for the social welfare.
6) Opposing anti-Americanism…That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.
Another red herring. I know of nobody on the left who does not draw that distinction.
7) For a two-state solution.
OK.
8) Against racism…and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of “anti-Zionism”.
More herring than the British navy.
9) United against terror.
Well, duh.
10) A new internationalism.
I don’t have a problem with this in principle, but I’d like to see how the authors charicterize the Iraq war in this context.
11) A critical openness…the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the “anti-war” movement with illiberal theocrats.
“Alliances”? That’s just insulting.
*12) Historical truth.
13) Freedom of ideas.
14) Open source.
15) A precious heritage.
*
Okay.
In short: After skimming the main points, the first thing I did was do a ctrl-F and look for “Hitchens.” If David Horowitz still smoked a lot of pot, he could probably belt out something like this.
Ronald Radosh, author of Commies: A Journey through the Old Left, the New Left, and the Leftover Left – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893554058/sr=8-2/qid=1145227022/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-5713446-8590543?_encoding=UTF8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Radosh
Manny Muravchik, SDUSA member, and author of Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893554783/sr=8-2/qid=1145226645/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-5713446-8590543?_encoding=UTF8. Short essay by him, “Socialism in my life and my life in socialism,” here: http://www.socialdemocrats.org/manny.html
The late Penn Kemble – described by The Washington Times as a “Social Democrat Neocon” – http://www.socialdemocrats.org/PennWashTimes.html; http://www.socialdemocrats.org/Notesonline10-05.html.
Several others you can find if you perused the SDUSA website – http://www.socialdemocrats.org/. More importantly, you can divine their views and policies and see for yourself what distinguishes (or not) the Social Democrats from plain ol’ conservatives.