On 'the Euston Manifesto'

On 'the Euston Manifesto'

So two guys I like, Nick Cohen and Norm Geras, have drafted a manifesto for getting the Left back on track.

Now, I think any honest person on the Left will readily acknowledge that the Left is in pretty bad shape, and that new ideas are needed to get it back on track. So I read the Euston manifesto, as they are calling it, with hope.

Unfortunately, one of the first things I read was:

"We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not."

No, no, no. Socialists can, and should, work with liberals and other democrats on some issues, on the issues we can agree on (i.e. defending secularism). But that doesn't mean differences don't exist between us. The obvious difference, or at least it should be obvious, is that socialists are anti-capitalist and liberals are capitalist by definition. I'm not even using "capitalist" as a boogeyman word here, just a statement of fact. They believe in a free market. We, supposedly, do not.

Just because most of the people out there calling themselves socialists are retards doesn't mean we should chuck the entire project of trying to replace capitalism with socialism. But a permanent alliance, in effect a merger, of socialists and liberals amounts to just that.

That said, most of the manifesto is much better, and contains a lot of stuff so basic it should go without saying, although that is, unfortunately, no longer the case. But the manifesto consistently shows the scars of the past few years of anti-war/pro-war conflict on the Left. For example, when Cohen and Geras write "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" I can't help but wonder why they're so mild. I'm 100% opposed to anti-Americanism, but I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Past, and in many ways, present, American foreign policy didn't just consist of "opposing" progressive movements and "supporting" regressive ones, but of economic and military support for mass-murdering regimes all over the world, the blatant subversion of democracy in other countries, support for genocidal policies in Guatemala and East Timor, the use of nuclear weapons on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. Again, just because most people on the Left have taken an idiotic attitude towards the U.S.A doesn't mean leftists have to excuse the absolutely vile record of post-war American foreign policy.

A final point is the idea of "uniting against terror." This is a liberal illusion. "Terrorism" is a broad term encompassing a variety of tactics which have been used for a variety of different causes in history. It may be nice to imagine purely non-violent means of changing society, and that may indeed be what Cohen and Geras want, but if so I look forward to their denunciations of the ANC struggle against apartheid, the Irish (not just PIRA) struggle against British imperialism, the October Revolution, the founding of the State of Israel, the Zimbabwean chimurenga and many other historic movements of emancipation and liberation.

All in all, the Euston manifesto asks the right questions, and starts the right debate, but reaches many of the wrong conclusions.

Stand back and let us show you how it's done

Mary am Namazie has just about nailed it. As the situation in Iraq grows increasingly desperate, it becomes clearer and clearer that the best way to prevent the situation from spiraling completely out of control, into an open civil war that will involve tens of thousands of deaths (if not more) is working-class action. It is possible that the American and Iraqi forces could militarily defeat the Islamist insurgency and the moderately better Shiite thugs. It's possible.

But it seems much more possible that a popular resistance against those forces could rob them of most of their power, isolate them, and crush them. The cautious, bourgeois-democratic solution has been, at best, a mixed blessing, at worst, a failure. As glad as freedom-loving people and most Iraqis are to see Saddam deposed, the most generous thing one can say about the Americans is that we’re all opening flourish, no follow up. I feel certain than many American soldiers went to Iraq with the best intentions and that many have risked their lives to improve and save those of people they do not know. That's commendable, but their actual ability to have any real impact on this situation at this point seems increasingly limited.

All paths lead back to the workers. If they can get together, they can save Iraq. If not, the best outcome is a low-grade, contained civil conflict that would probably end in Iraq divided three ways between a Kurdish democratic state with some serious problems, a Sunni Arab hellhole and another Ayatollacracy in the Shiite south. The Americans could have prevented that, they didn't, and now it's up to the workers to stop it if anybody can.

Serious socialists outside Iraq need to quit debating the rights and wrongs of the invasion, and start doing their best to support the Iraqi workers. They need money, they need moral support, and they need us to put political pressure on our governments to give them assistance if possible. Personally, I'm not even really sure where to start, but it seems like the only solution.

The liberation of the working-class will be achieved by the working-class themselves. Or, in other words, "Stand back and let us show you how it's done."

Żydokomuna

Żydokomuna (Polish pronunciation: [ʐɨdɔkɔˈmuna], Yid-Commie) is a pejorative antisemitic stereotype which came into use between World Wars I and II, blaming Jews for the rise of communism in Poland, where communism was identified as part of a wider Jewish-led conspiracy to seize power.

The idea of Żydokomuna continued to endure to a certain extent in postwar Poland, because Polish anti-communists saw the Soviet-backed communist rise to power as the fruition of prewar anti-Polish agitation; and with it came the implication of Jewish responsibility. The appointment of Jews to positions responsible for oppressing the populace further fueled this perception.

Żydokomuna survives in the post-Soviet era primarily in rhetoric on the political fringe. However, the contentions of some Polish historians regarding Jewish disloyalty to Poland following the Soviet takeover raises the specter of Żydokomuna in the minds of other scholars.

Little Grebe

The Little Grebe is a small water bird with a pointed bill. The adult is unmistakable in summer, predominantly dark above with its rich, rufous colour neck, cheeks and flanks, and bright yellow gape. The rufous is replaced by a dirty brownish grey in non-breeding and juvenile birds.

Juvenile birds have a yellow bill with a small black tip, and black and white streaks on the cheeks and sides of the neck as seen below. This yellow bill darkens as the juveniles age, eventually turning black once in adulthood
In winter, its size, buff plumage, with a darker back and cap, and “powder puff” rear end enable easy identification of this species. The Little Grebe's breeding call, given singly or in duet, is a trilled repeated weet-weet-weet or wee-wee-wee which sounds like a horse whinnying.