Was reading this last week about this:http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1
In essence an attempt by Leftists of the Iraq war favourable/pro Blair persuasion to rebrand their ideas--- (ie a manifesto that appears to have been constructed by Nick Cohen and John Lloyd- who are involved on some level). Lots of of obvious points, but basically attempting to focus on some ill-defined and absollutist concept of "freedom" and "democracy" which is to be the prime factor in decision making for some rejuvenated leftist movement of the future... in otherwords an attempt to re-align what remains of the left towards the hegemonic western discoruses of the day.
I cannot figure out this particular strand of commentator/journalist at all... Oh sure, I can see why they are angry at what they perceive to be the anti-war movement's "enemy-of-my-ememy"ism, but are they not a little guilty of this themselves now? with a manifesto which appears to align themselves pretty squarely with neocon ideas about limits to the sanctity of statehood under international law (ie- as they state in their manifesto "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"."
A lot of what appears here seems misguided not because of its inherent falseness, but rather that in context it's deeply ill advised...
In essence an attempt by Leftists of the Iraq war favourable/pro Blair persuasion to rebrand their ideas--- (ie a manifesto that appears to have been constructed by Nick Cohen and John Lloyd- who are involved on some level). Lots of of obvious points, but basically attempting to focus on some ill-defined and absollutist concept of "freedom" and "democracy" which is to be the prime factor in decision making for some rejuvenated leftist movement of the future... in otherwords an attempt to re-align what remains of the left towards the hegemonic western discoruses of the day.
I cannot figure out this particular strand of commentator/journalist at all... Oh sure, I can see why they are angry at what they perceive to be the anti-war movement's "enemy-of-my-ememy"ism, but are they not a little guilty of this themselves now? with a manifesto which appears to align themselves pretty squarely with neocon ideas about limits to the sanctity of statehood under international law (ie- as they state in their manifesto "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"."
A lot of what appears here seems misguided not because of its inherent falseness, but rather that in context it's deeply ill advised...