BS: The Euston Manifesto

Subject: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 03:48 PM

I'm starting a new thread about something I read about in an article in the Observer - the Euston Manifesto.

This manifesto is put together by a bunch of lefties in the UK. It states a number of principles that some may strongly agree or disagree with, but also decries anti-democratic and reactionary regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. "We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces."

It also comments: We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples."

The manifesto also takes an opinion on Israel and the US that challenges some left wing people.

This comment on cultural relativism (the view that people within certain ethnic groups or social groups have different rights and responsibilities) is one of the big issues of the decade. It impacts particularly within religions, where religious or ethnic leaders like to maintain their own standards of morality, and promote those standards as a way of demonising others who dont follow those standards. Effectively they can deny their followers the legal and social rights that other members of society have.

I believe that western governments are coming to the view that all their citizens are equally entitled to protection under the law. This means that civil divorces will take precedent over religious divorces, and minorities will have to go outside their leadership, or change aspects of their their culture, to achieve social equality for their followers.

In other words, the greatest challenge for multicultural societies will be to uphold both western human rights standards and the dignity of minoritiy groups.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 03:51 PM

Well worth reading, and presents some hope to me that the more liberal viewpoint might actually deal with reality at some time in the near future.

But I suspect this will be like my "Liberal Hate thread", and the ideas it brings up will be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 03:58 PM

freda,

While I agree with most of the Manifesto, the following I predict will not be acceptable to most of those who regularly post here.


"The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess."



"possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention" is NOT a Mudcat-viable statement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 04:08 PM

People from the UK will read the names on the list of supporters of this manifesto and probably understand better where they're coming from.

The phrasing is strong and I don't agree with all of it, but I think its worth reading. I don't think its any vindication of Guantanamo that people arent being exterminated there - and the War on Terror has been big on eroding human rights and very poor on suppressing terrorism - it has accelerated it.

Here is an article about it from the BBC online:

Internationalist manifesto causes a stir

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 04:14 PM

While there may be one or two minor nits to pick, I generally agree with the statements in the Manifesto.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 04:20 PM

Those individuals who produced the Euston Manifesto are discredited in Britain.Nick Cohen and the others supported vociferously the invasion and occupation of Iraq which has led to the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians including many women and children and the plunging of Iraq into a state of barbarism.

The producers of the manifesto supported the war gang, the recycled Reaganites , the Texas Oil Lobby ,right wing extremists, the Zionists and the New Labour heirarchy in their drive to invade Iraq using the "Shock and Awe" terror tactics we have come to see on our television screens.

Essentially they provided a left wing or liberal fig leaf for the onslaught...they were the liberal bombers who cheered on the attack and loudly condemned the anti war left in the Stop The War Coalition for opposing the invasion.

Of course they have been utterly discredited in the anti war and socialist left .But they have gone on to loudly berate, for example, the Socialist Workers Party for views which it does non hold and for political positions it does not take.They claim for instance that the SWP and Respect an anti war coalition are soft on Jihadis when Galloway the Respect MP has been threatened and physically attacked by Jihadi groups in Britain on several occasions.

The authors of the Euston Manifesto have been left politically high and dry by the mayhem and brutality in Iraq...and the murderous consequences of the US led invasion.

There is an ongoing realignment of left wing and anti capitalist forces in Britain but as Prof Alex Callinicos has written recently those involved in the realignment will not be looking to a bunch of former leftists pro war apologists for advice or inspiration.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 04:45 PM

Ifor your comments about these people backing the war put things into perpective. I just saw Julie BURCHILL is one of the signees. It was drafted by Norman Geras, professor in politics at Manchester University who said, "We did not want a socialist document but one which would appeal to others who are liberal and democrats." That immediately creates a division with someone like Professor Alex Callinicos.

it's a manifesto that reacts to some established positions and moves away from entrenched factionalism. or does it just create another faction?

it has a link on its website to an Appeal To Support Iraqi Trade Unions, and in in this page there are links to objections & responses to the document. I am going to check them out.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 05:38 PM

The dividing line isn't between socialists and democrats ....the dividing line is between those who supported a murderous invasion of another country as part of an ongoing "long war" and those who opposed the invasion.
Those "leftwing "armchair bombers reserved all their venom and vitriol for the anti war movement which mobilised millions to oppose the slaughter.
It is difficult ..no impossible... to make common cause with those who supported the sending of cruise missiles, the use of tens of thousands of depleted uranium artillery shells and the dropping of high explosives on residential areas.
The claim that the anti war movement is anti American is totally false when there were notable Americans like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky [and the Dixie Chicks ] agitating against the war.
The anti war movement united on three basic issues in Britain
1 No to an invasion of Iraq
2Defence of moslems and other minorities in any racist backlash following the horror of the Twin Towers
3Defence of civil liberties such as the right to trial and haebus corpus.
This wasnt factionalism but a united front of all those opposed to war and blood for oil.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 05:58 PM

There have been no demonstrations that indicate that anyone "mobilized millions". There is no such thing as a depleted uranium artillery shell...tank and helo ammunition, yes. Gore Vidal and Noam Chamsky certainly have their fans, but neither is particularly "notable" outside of a small and well-defined group. The Dixie Chicks is a fair-to-middlin' country group with an intelligent political perspective, but "notable" is questionable. Nowhere in the Manifesto does it say that "the anti war movement is anti American". It clearly acknowledges that some of the originators once supported the Iraq War, but also clearly wants to move forward to fix the resulting problems.

Be factual when you rant, please.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 06:12 PM

That manifesto seems like one of the most sensible things to come out of the left in a very long time. I agree with almost all of it, because it simply correct. Any of you who know me know my politics are a long way away from that of its lead authors.

GUEST Ifor, you are achiving somthing quite impressive, making Mudcat regulars look like dyed in the wool Conservatives. I am impressed. Also, Muslim is generally prefered to moslem, and punctuation is not a conspiricy, but a way to make your writing easier to read.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 06:19 PM

GUEST Ifor, you are achiving somthing quite impressive, making Mudcat regulars look like dyed in the wool Conservatives. I am impressed. Also, Muslim is generally prefered to moslem, and punctuation is not a conspiricy, but a way to make your writing easier to read.

... might want to watch the spelling there dude before you correct someone else's. ;o)

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 06:26 PM

Comment to Artbrook
If you regard my posting as a rant you must lead a very sheltered life.Get out more!

The anti war movement has mobilised millions across the world and indeed in the UK .
On the 15th Feb 2003 on the eve of the invasion of Iraq some 2 million people maarched through London to protest at the impending invasion.I was one of that number.
There was a huge cross section of society there that day calling for peace and saying that if the war came it would not be in our name.This was the largest ever protest march in British history.

On the same day in dozens of other cities across the world including in the USA millions more marched to stop the war ...a truely inspiring and dramatic opposition to the war liars and death dealers in both Washington and London.
As regards Chomsky he is world renowned as a critic of both imperialism and corporate America....the cause of much of the decay in American democratic life.And Gore Vidal is equally eloquent in his targetting of Imperial America and the destruction it has caused to democratic values in the USA.

The Dixie Chicks of course were hounded by the right wing bully boys on the American media for their criticisms of George Bush. I think that makes them quite notable!!
One last point about the use of depleted uranium shells if one hit you in the face you wouldnt recognise it! Surprising how many who supported the war play down the terrible effects of these radioactive horrors.
The Stop The War Coalition is holding its annual conference in London on the 10th June.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 06:38 PM

BPL, I could say it was deliberate, to make the point, but that would be lying. I simply cannot spell, but I at least try....

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 07:00 PM

Were there 2 million people in the London streets on 2-15-03? Sorry...I thought it was much smaller. So did the BBC. There have been no marches in the US with more than a few 100,000 participants by actual count. I never said that Vidal and Chomsky weren't well known in limited circles...I might even accept "world renowned", but "notable" implies that the mainstream has ever heard of them, which is doubtful, at least in the US. I also never said that there were no DU shells...there are no DU artillery shells. One misstatement, like one spelling or punctuation error, makes the entire comment suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 07:22 PM

Art, I was in the London March too - it was seriously understated! Apart from the number of actual marchers who, as Ifor reported came from all walks of life, we were met by shop owners who offered us free drinks and food and received verbal support from many of the uniformed police who were stewarding the march.
Even conservative estimates from ariel photographs placed it at a million and a half; certainly many of the people I met also claimed they were there as "representatives" of others who were unable to make it for domestic reasons etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 07:22 PM

Reply to Artbrooks
The figures for the London march of Feb 2003 vary between one and two million...after the first million has marched past the precise number gets a little difficult.However, one million or two, both can be regarded as an incredible mass mobilisation of people against the war.
But let's not forget the huge mobilisations in America on the same day and since the invasion.Some hundreds of thousands tried to march in New York on the 15th Feb 2003 but were penned in and intimidated by the police.Only last month some 300 000 marched in New York to protest at the continuing occupation of Iraq.Bush's approval ratings are at an all time low.
The US military has used Depleted Uranium in vast quantities in Iraq.
They used them in the original Gulf War, in the subsequent prolonged bombing of Iraq that went on through much of the 1990s and in the invasion of Iraq three years ago.Are you denying that?
DU shells and bullets have been used from the air and from tanks in their tens of thousands.You could have alerted Mudcat readers to their lethal consequences which one informed commentator has said threatens the very DNA of as yet unborn Iraqi children. The one suspect thing about Artbrook's sad posting is his reluctance to accept the barbarism that has been inflicted on the poor people of Iraq who have been savagely treated because beneath their desert sands are some of the largest oilfields in the world.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 07:43 PM

We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq,

OK so far...

and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people

Bollocks.

There may be some sense in parts of what is written in the manifesto but that part of just one statement tells me all I need to know about where this lot are coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 08:19 PM

Ifor, I am not disagreeing with anything you have said, except that it is simply not factual that there have been DU shells fired from artillery in Iraq. As I said, they have been fired from tanks and from helos. There are no DU artillery munitions. Artillery is cannon and howitzers. BTW, the short and long range consequences of DU exposure, other than fragments lodged in the body, are still a subject of study and there have been no final conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 09:06 PM

I just backed off to check the terminology in question here. Yes, Artbrooks is correct in that the military refers only to heavy crew-operated guns as "artillery". However, some tank rounds are larger caliber than some "artillery" rounds.

Giat Industries provide Tank, Artillery and Medium Calibre Ammunition. These include armour piercing rounds, high explosive rounds and multi purpose rounds. ... 120mm, 105mm and 90mm Tank Ammunition, 155mm and 105mm Artillery Ammunition and Medium Calibre Ammunition ... ...www.armytechnology.com/contractors/ammunition/giat

So is there really any point to making the distinction?

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jun 06 - 10:00 PM

Frogprince, the importance of the distinction, at least to me as a former artilleryman, is that artillery is an area weapon and pieces of the projectile are all over the battlefield and can be encountered by anyone...including civilians. Tank rounds and aerial gunfire are aimed at a specific target.

The point that I was attempting, and clearly failing, to make was the importance of accuracy when making controversial statements, because people latch on to seemingly minor issues (such as this one) in order to steer the discussion away from the central point. This is, of course, the importance of the Euston Manifesto as a compromise position paper for the left, center-left and center to agree upon for future political action.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:51 AM

To Artbrooks
" Controversial statements"...come off it
Depleted uranium has been used by the US military in vast quantities in Iraq . Many of these shells have been fired in built up residential areas with devastating effect on the civilian population
...you mention "specific targets"...much of the American fire has indiscriminate ...killing civilians in large numbers.
Take the attempted bombing of Saddam early in the invasion.The US military flattened a residential block claiming that Saddam was in a restaurant ...he wasn't but around 40 Iraqi residents were slaughtered in the attack.
To get back however,to the Euston Manifesto...former leftwingers like Geras , the main writer of the manifesto , supported the invasion of Iraq.They have ended up propping up the most right wing thuggish US government for many many decades.
A realigned left in the UK will have nothing to learn from the Manifesto.Its authors have been used up and spat out by the warmongers...remember them the ones who delivered   Shock and Awe,depleted uranium, cruise missiles , Abu Ghraib , rendition flights, Fallujah, Haditha, white phospherous bombs, Guantanamo and the Patriot Act.Iraqi hospitals are overflowing with the bitter consequences of Bush and Blair's policy on Iraq.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 04:09 AM

The Euston Manifesto is a clear attempt to smear anyone who opposes American and British actions internationally as nationalist, sectionalist, anti- democratic, and even racist. It's all weasel words.

If they are really for human rights, they can't support the self- appointed international death squads.

They skate over the problem that there can't be a two- state solution in Israel while one state is occupying the other. their idea of human rights would not appear to include the right not to be removed from your home by an occupying army.

In short, it's just the latest attempt by authoritarian New Labour types to claim the political centre. Which "centre" has moved rapidly to the right over the last 20 years.

The Political Compass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 06:16 AM

Ifor, since you are clearly not reading what I am writing, I'll bow out of this bit of the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 06:49 AM

Freda,

As I said...


Too bad, this is a thread worth having, and a topic worth discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 09:07 AM

Responding to comments on the euston manifesto, ifor has said that "it is difficult ..no impossible... to make common cause with those who supported the sending of cruise missiles, the use of tens of thousands of depleted uranium artillery shells and the dropping of high explosives on residential areas."

the Euston site comments that yes, some convenors of the Euston Manifesto supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq - but it also comments that a number of the original signatories opposed that war.

My position was that I opposed the war, and marched against it, with over a million people in Sydney (my friend stopped counting out over 1,100, 000 people), and yes, it was represented as under half that in the press. I was against the war even tho, as someone who had worked with Iraqi asylum seekers, I was very aware that the Baathist regime was insanely brutal and repressive. It was clear to me that the regime of Saddam Hussein was propped up by the US govt, and that the new leader would be no different from Hussein.

I have previously put links on mudcat to information that Saddam's replacement was also a butcher: New Iraqi Head of Govt Murders Prisoners and to the US government's assistance to Saddam's regime with the purchase of chemical weapons. US passing to the Iraqi government blueprints for their first chemical weapon

In the BBC article I linked to, Norman Geras (writer of the manifesto) "This is not an endorsement of New Labour or the third way."

I agree with Guardian columnist Martin Kettle who said regarding the manifesto: "America is not the problem; on that the manifesto is right. But the Bush administration unquestionably is. .The pro-war school, both among the authors and in the British government, never properly acknowledges the historic rupture represented by Bush. But it would not have been like this if Al Gore had won in 2000."

I don't accept that they are "a bunch of former leftists pro war apologists" - though I accept that some of them are. Ifor by making generalisations about the supporters of the mainfesto, you are effectively saying that no part of it has any value.

It is clear that the supporters of the manifesto come from left and right. Norman Geras' said that he has tried to write a document outside the definistions of left and right. And this is something worth doing - each major party in the US, the UK and Australia has people across the spectrum of belief. By trying to define people back into boxes and entrenched positions of ideological opposition, the left stays divided and out of government.

The people who write these manifestos and come up with many socially constructive policies are often never in government. It is often others working within more pragmatic environments who can use ideas and achieve results with them.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 10:07 AM

Of course there is plenty in the Euston Manifesto that no social democrat or radical would object to.

Reply To Freda
But the main authors of the Manifesto have spent the past few years championing the war and berating those who were opposed to it...especially the Socialist Workers Party which played an important role in forming the broad Stop The War Coalition. The war drew a line in the sand and Geras and most of his fellow signatories lined up with the wargang on the wrong side of thatline.

The manifesto also promotes a two state solution for the people of Palestine which effectively means the formalising of a sectarian bantustan for the Palestinians on one side and fortress Israel with one of the most powerful armies in the world expanding into the West Bank, building its apartheid wall and further oppressing   palestinians on the other.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 12:48 PM

Hi Ifor

Re your comment: The manifesto also promotes a two state solution for the people of Palestine which effectively means the formalising of a sectarian bantustan for the Palestinians on one side and fortress Israel with one of the most powerful armies in the world expanding into the West Bank, building its apartheid wall and further oppressing   palestinians on the other."

The relevant part of the Manifesto here is:

"We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse."

One of the problems with this manifesto is seeking to establish moral superiority (ie in that comment "more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse.") And that is one of the problems that prevent conciliation between warring peoples. There is no moral superiority between nations committing atrocities on both sides.

The view that the Palestinian people were unjustly displaced by the Jewish invasion of Palestine in 1917 has been stated in the 1966 Palestinian Covenant.

It is worth noting that in modern times Jews have always exceeded Arabs in Jerusalem. Census data shows that in 1844 there were 7,000 Jews to 5,000 Moslems; in 1910, 47,000 Jews to 9,800 Moslems; in 1931, 51,222 Jews to 19,894 Moslems; in 1948, 100,000 Jews to 40,000 Moslems, and in 1967 200,000 Jews to 54,902 Moslems.

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leaders have frankly disavowed distinct Palestine identity. On March 3, 1977, for example, the head of the PLO Military Operations Department, Zuhair Muhsin, told the Netherlands paper Trouw that there are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese:

"We are one people. Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. For it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians against Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestine identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and
for Arab unity."… International Law and the Arab Israel Conflict

The problem can't be resolved if both parties historical claims to territory aren't recognised, and if both parties'culpability for atrocities aren't recognised.

freda

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:05 PM

[The following article is extracted from the May 2006 issue of The Other Israel.] Two-State Solution - Discredited, without workable alternative, by Beate Zilversmidt

The two-state solution was never intended as utopian fulfillment of an idealistic dream. It was conceived as a compromise, taking into account the irreconcilable dreams of the two sides, and forging a reconciliation, nevertheless. It wasn't an easy thing — one side, arising as a phoenix from the Holocaust ashes, unwilling to give up what had caused it so much euphoria to get hold of; the other side insisting on its rights which it had not been able to defend militarily. The lack of belief that this conflict could be solved was what caused distrust and animosity to turn into hatred. To break down the hatred and to find a somehow fair middle way, a formulation that would satisfy at least the basic needs of both sides, was what the two-state solution was about.

Such a solution, to have a chance at all, had to take into account the difference in power, while at the same time leaving intact the dignity of the weaker side. Following the Six Day War when the IDF occupied the part of Mandatory Palestine which had remained Arabic in 1948, the idea came up in more than one mind: the new situation opened a way to compromise. The Palestinians would give up the claim to what they lost in 1948, against the Israelis giving up what they "conquered" in 1967.
Then, in 1974, PLO leader Yasser Arafat was invited to speak at the United Nations General Assembly, and he spoke of "the rifle in the one hand and the olive branch in the other." In the same period the PLO adopted the policy "to set up a Palestinian state on any part of Palestine that had been liberated."

At that time there were already contacts with some "righteous Israelis" — initially only with anti-Zionists. These first anti-Zionists were the bridge for a meeting with more mainstream Israelis. That was when the ICIPP was founded — the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, as whose newsletter The Other Israel started. Uri Avnery, then Knesset Member, may already not have been a very convinced Zionist at the time; it was some years after his book "Israel without Zionists" had come out. But both, retired Six Day War General Matti Peled, and Dr Yakov Arnon, who had long served the Labour Party as Director General of the Finance Ministry, definitely went to meet with the PLO as Zionists. It was the intention that they, as Zionists, would pave the way for the PLO to consider negotiations with the Zionist government of Israel. The Prime Minister at that time was Rabin and he was personally briefed about the ICIPP's meetings with the PLO — a fact that was from the start known to the PLO leadership.

These were also the years that the settlement movement ("Gush Emunim") built itself up into creating facts on the occupied Palestinian ground, and on the other hand Palestinians added the hijacking of planes to their repertoire of military struggle... Still, in the midst of all this took place the first indirect Rabin-Arafat contact. We all know how many decades, wars and many more obstacles it took before these two leaders came to the point of actually shaking hands. But meanwhile, both are dead and we look back to those hopeful years in the early 1990s as towards a shattered illusion. The Oslo process, which in 1993 had aroused such expectations on both sides, deteriorated because of the overcautiousness of Rabin. His great merit was that he built relations of trust with the Palestinians — but whenever it came to implementation of what was agreed upon he dragged his feet; the expression "there are no holy dates" was his. We will never know, though, how it would have ended had he not been assassinated.

In 2000, as a result of the failed negotiations of Ehud Barak, the search for peace and dialogue was severely discredited, at least on the Israeli side. One cannot be sure that it was premeditated, but Barak's haste after Camp David to declare that the talks "have failed" — instead of "are not yet fully concluded" — was a sure way of bringing about the renewed war, a war which started with stones against rifles, but which escalated into an extremely cruel confrontation. This was the atmosphere enabling Sharon's comeback. Blocked during two decades from being Defence Minister because of Sabra and Shatila, he now got hold of the prime ministership. For years, he had a free hand for cruel oppression: besieging of Palestinian towns and villages, with starvation an openly discussed way of breaking their will; the erosion of scruples also manifested at checkpoints, in nightly raids and daily killings.

Only incidentally did these facts succeed in shocking the world: the pictures of blindfolded naked men with numbers on their arm; the Palestinian who was made to play the violin at a checkpoint. (It apparently shocks especially when it reminds of the Jewish holocaust stories....) However, all this did not yet really discredit among Palestinians, who had been for it, the idea of a two-state solution.
Their support for the '67 border compromise came, however, under severe pressure with the building of the Security Barrier / Separation Fence or whatever one calls it: 8-meter high Walls around, sometimes through, cities and hundreds of kilometers of double electronic fences with a patrol route in between and surrounded by much, much barbed wire. It was however the route which angered most, cutting away a thick slice with a special preference for the West Bank's aquifers.

Even, if such a barrier would have been built on the Israeli side of the Green Line ('67-border), one could have wondered whether this huge investment in walls and fences is really the best way to prepare for the post-occupation period, which could be expected to bring peace and a start of good neighborly relations. And as an immediate remedy against suicide bombers, not even the highest Wall helps as long as it is not complete — a fact that Israelis found out the hard way. The assaults on people roaming around in city streets became a near daily threat, with Jerusalem's center paralyzed, and tourism brought to a total halt. The idea of the Wall originated from the Labour Party, a partner in Sharon's governments. They may or may not have understood that in the cynical Sharon era a Wall could only become another excuse for another huge land grab. After we got to see on TV how the army broke its way from Palestinian house to the next house through the walls, and how one tonne bombs were thrown on a residential block in Gaza, there started also some counter-movement.

In 2003 there was the Geneva Initiative and, not less important, growing dissent among the army ranks — first the wave of draft refusers, but then also infecting fighting units from which more and more reservists refused to serve in the occupied territories, culminating in the collective refusal of 27 pilots. Sharon said it more than once: this was what made him understand that he had to come up with something — the something being the Gaza Disengagement.

And now we are in the situation that extreme hostility to the Palestinians is mixed with partial giving up of land occupied in 1967, including even the dramatic, probably purposefully mediagenic evacuation of settlers and dismantling of the smaller settlements. And, while never willing to talk to even the most moderate Palestinian leaders, Sharon did take up the concept of "Palestinian state", but what he had in mind was not more than a few scattered enclaves.

Since the two-state solution was insincerely taken up by the government, more and more of its former supporters start feeling disgusted with the concept. This becomes clear in discussions among Israeli peace activists but also in exchanges with international friends of the cause. More and more people turn to the dream of One State, taking South Africa and the overcoming of Apartheid as their model.

It brings to mind the words of a personal friend, the late South African anti-Apartheid activist Esther Levitan. It was during the years that Apartheid seemed very immovable and Mandela still lingered in prison. She said: in South Africa the problem can be solved; the Whites are only a few percent of the population and the Blacks will win, but in Israel I don't see such an easy solution.

At that time it seemed odd that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was considered by her the less solvable. But after so many years, her words start making sense. In South Africa the military inequality was counterbalanced by other factors. But, compared with the Whites of South Africa, the Jewish Israelis have a much stronger position: not only do they have relatively greater numerical strength; they also aren't (any more) dependent on cheap Palestinian labour; furthermore they have a very strong weapon against international criticism — the accusation of anti-Semitism.

The fact is that when it imposed a total boycott, including the freezing of assets, on the already extremely impoverished Palestinian people that it occupies, Israel was rewarded by the support of the Western leaders. The most heavy economic sanctions for no more reason than that the Palestinians had voted in too big numbers for one of the accepted contenders in the democratic and internationally-monitored elections. At the same time grassroots efforts to start no more than a cultural boycott against Israel as long as it continues the occupation were foiled at their very inception.

This is the situation, and this is why one still can only hope for an end to the occupation to which the Jewish Israelis can be brought without having to give up the Jewish majority state. As much pressure as can be produced will be needed to enable the Palestinians to indeed get all the territories occupied in 1967 to call their state, and that any deviation from the '67-border will be agreed upon in direct talks between the sides and compensated by mutually acceptable land swaps. The Palestinians living right now in dire circumstances, in besieged Gaza and under heavy-handed Israeli military rule in the West Bank, should not have to wait for their liberation until the Israeli Jews have been transformed into angels.

The "two-state" concept may have become pale and stained, but without it we stand barehanded. Let's do this first. Later the two states can decide, as equals, to become one.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO COPYRIGHT
Our articles may be reprinted, provided they include the address:
The Other Israel, POB 2542, Holon 58125, Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 01:58 PM

Freda
You have made two interesting postings which I would like to comment on!

The Israeli state was established on Palestinian land. The Palestinian people after 1948 were driven into exile [almost a million of them ].This disaster was known as the "Naqba". These people and their descendents now live in exile scattered around the world.Many in the refugee camps like Jenin on the West Bank originally came from towns and cities in what is now Israel.They have no right of return and under a two state solution will never have that right.
The Palestinians lost their homes,apartments,towns ,cities,farms,orchards,water rights,fields and land.They have been bombed,slaughtered in refugee camps like Sabra and shatilla and penned in checkpoints .They have been subjected to collective punishment.They have been tortured and imprisoned without trial .Even those Israeli Palestinians with citizenship [the Israeli call them Iraeli arabs ] have very limited rights. Has this oppression wiped out their identity.

No!The actual struggle for survival despite all its setbacks has strengthened their identity as Palestinians.
The Stop The War Coalition in the UK recognised that the fight for Palestinian rights is at the heart of the crisis in the Middle East and the slogan FREE PALESTINE has been a prominent one on many anti war marches.
Many Jewish radicals support the cause of a Free Palestine....Noam Chomsky comes to mind.I would also recommend the book THE MYTHS OF ZIONISM by John Rose a Jewish anti zionist whose book deconstructs the zionist project.The book is published by Pluto Press.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:14 PM

Ifor,

"The Palestinian people after 1948 were driven into exile [almost a million of them ]."

There were about 640,000 Arabs who fled what became Israel in 1948- and over 820,000 Jews who were forced out of Arab countries.

So, by the "right of return", you will agree that an additional 28% of the Mandate Palestine lands, which were agreed to become the Jewish Homeland in 1924 by the successsor state to the Ottoman Empire,( and which included ALL of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Jordan,) should be given to Israel.


BTW, do you think that Pakistan should destroy India, or India Pakistan?

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:41 PM

from another thread-

AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, The boundaries of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and the MANDATED JEWISH HOMELAND were specified at the San Remos conference, and treaty negotiations with the successor to the Ottoman Empire ( Turkey) by the Allied Powers. This was confirmed by the League of Nations, giving the British a MANDATE TERROTORY to become a Jewish Homeland. Shall we use THOSE borders??????
........

The ORIGINAL boundaries of the Mandated Jewish Homeland included ALL of Israel, the West Bank and Jordan ( Transjordan) THAT was what was negotiated. Afterwards, WITHOUT negotiation, the League declared that the portion of the Mandate EAST of the Jordan would be excluded from the Homeland, and become an Arab nation. The PARTITION of the Mandate territory was supposed to be into Jewish and Arab areas.
As I have asked before, why do the Arabs who did not accept the invitation to become Israelis have so much greater rights to the land than the Jews in Arab nations who were driven out? As long as it is insisted that the Palestinians "own" Israel, and the Jews who were driven out of Arab countries ( a GREATER number than the Arabs who fled Israel) get nothing, the only thing to think is that Jews are not quite as much human beings as the Arabs. Is THAT what you are trying to say? The Jews driven out of Arab nations had no say in the matter, either- AND they were NOT offered citizenship, as were the Arabs who stayed in Israel.

Mandate Palestine areas

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:44 PM

I believe that the Palestinian should have the right to return to their homeland.
I believe they have earned their right to national recognition.

I believe that the armed Israeli paramilitaries should get out of the West Bank which they have been systematically occupying and terrorising since its occupation in 1967.

I believe that the apartheid wall being built must be dismantled before it robs the Palestinians of even more land

I believe that the Israeli state should stop stealing yet more land from the Palestinians.
I believe that the Palestinians should not be subjected to collective punishment such as having their homes demolished and their movement curtailed for hours and days at army checkpoints.

I believe that the United Nations should hold Israel to account for its continuing violation of Palestinian people.

II believe that Mordecai Vanunu the nuclear technician who revealed to the world that Israel was armed with nuclear weapons and served 17 years in prison shoulsd be allowed to leave Israel having renounced his citizenship .
I believe that zionism is a dead end fo the Israeli people who want peace as much as the Palestinians.
I believe that the USA should stop arming Israel.

Eventually only a democratic ,secular, state guranteeing full rights for all individuals and faiths will begin to tackle the problems in that land.
IFOR

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 02:48 PM

I agree with you entirely- YOU believe those statements.


Care to give any reasons why the rest of us should agree with you?

You fail to address the facts that I have stated: Have you any facts that I might not know to share?

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Piers
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:20 PM

So there is Ifor's admission that he, like his SWP, is not a socialist. He calls for a unified state to administer capitalism in the Israel/Palestine region.

Real socialists call for the 'no state' solution to war, because the state is tool of protecting and advancing the interests of the owning class, war being one means of that. Workers have no country, and socialists call on workers to fight no wars but the class war.

Ifor and the SWP has more in common with the Euston Manifesto liberals than he has with socialists.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:21 PM

I don't think it was for Turkey,America or Britain or any other country to make agreements over the heads of the Palestinian people.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a British imperialist declaration which supported Zionist settlement of Palestine and at the same time Zionist acceptance of British control of Palestine.

At the end of the First World War there were about 56000 Jews in Palestine and around a million Palestinians .It was never a land without a people!
.
The Balfour Declaration and the accelerated Zionist immigration into the Palestinian homeland inevitably soured relationships between the two communities.

From the very start the Zionist leadership set out to exclude the Palestinians from as many areas of life as possible... land ownership, business,undustry,trade unions etc.
Kibbutzes were built on land that had been Palestinian for a thousand years.

A terrible injustice has been done to the Palestinian people and a Free Palestiniae remains a legitimate goal .
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:29 PM

To Piers
What sectarian tosh!
here is a debate about the future of the Palestinian people and all you can come up with is some hoary old line about the SWP.
IFOR

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:30 PM

"The majority of the approximately 750,000 people in this multi-ethnic region were Arabic-speaking Muslims, including a Bedouin population (estimated at 103,331 at the time of the 1922 census [2] and concentrated in the Beersheba area and the region south and east of it), as well as Jews (who comprised some 11% of the total) and smaller groups of Druze, Syrians, Sudanese, Circassians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Hejazi Arabs.

In June 1922 the League of Nations passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home", "

"In 1936-1939 the mandate experienced an upsurge in militant Arab nationalism that became known as the Great Uprising and, "The Arab Revolt." The revolt was triggered by increased Jewish immigration, primarily Jews that were ejected by the Nazi regime in Germany as well as rising anti-Semitism throughout Europe. The revolt was led or co-opted by the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini and his Husseini family. The Arabs felt they were being marginalized in their own country, but in addition to non-violent strikes, they resorted to violence. Husseini's men killed more Arabs than Jews, using the revolt as an excuse to settle accounts with rival clans. The Jewish organization Etzel replied with its own terrorist campaign, with marketplace bombings and other violent acts that also killed hundreds. Eventually, the uprising was put down by the British using severe measures. After he was implicated in killing the British district commissioner for the Galilee, Haj Amin El Husseini fled first to Lebanon, then to Iraq, and finally to Germany in late 1941.

The British placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in the remaining land, directly contradicting the provision of the Mandate which said "the Administration of Palestine... shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes." A similar proposal to limit immigration in 1931 had been termed a violation of the mandate by the League of Nations, but by 1939 the League of Nations was defunct. According to the Israeli side, the British had by 1949 allotted over 8500 acres (34 km²) to Arabs, and about 4000 acres (16 km²) to Jews."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 03:40 PM

Subject: RE: BS: suicide bomber murders 9 in Tel Aviv
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:31 PM

THIS is what the Arabs REJECTED in 1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan


This is the truce lines of 1949
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty

"Borders: the agreed upon border was set to be the Jordan river, and if its flow changed, Jordan's border would be reset by the river's new course. In addition, Israel gave Jordan 300 square kilometers and leased 2850 dunams (2.85 km²) in the Arava (Muvlaat Tzofar). The border segment from Ein Gedi to Beit She'an was not marked, because Jordan said that the Palestinian Authority should be a partner for setting this border. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Jordan_Treaty_of_Peace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Jordan_Treaty_of_Peace





"A terrible injustice has been done to the Palestinian people "

AGREED- but by the Arab nations that did not, as Israel did, take refugees in and give them citizenship. So, why should Israel have to give up land, when Jordan does not- AND BOTH were parts of the Mandate Palestine lands?

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Piers
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 04:13 PM

The future of people living in Palestine is up to them, It's the job of socialists to point out that 'national liberation' is liberty for the few who own, or aspire to own, most of the nation. The emancipation of the working class can only be self-emancipation, and that emancipation can only come by smashing the social relations of capitalism. Yours is the typical leftist strategy of attempting to manipulate any campaign to garner support for your vanguard to lead the grateful working class to the bread queue and the gulag.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 07:47 PM

A free Palestine will indeed be primarily up to the Palestinians who are suffering and dying for for basic human rights in the West Bank,Jerusalem and ,still, in Gaza.
But the Palestinian people can use all the internationalist help they can get...hence the role of the International Solidarity Movement in supporting those residents who have seem their homes bulldozed around them.
Hence the role of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign which organised a big rally in London two weeks ago to highlight the continuing plight of the victims of the Nakba and the inequities of the apartheid wall.
The Stop The Wall Coalition also took the political decision to place the issue of a FREE PALESTINE at the heart of the anti war movement .
In Egypt some of the political dead weight of the past few years is beginning to shift which could well effect events elsewhere in the region.
When the people of Palestine are being daily pulverised in their homes by shells and warplanes the raising of international solidarity is important ....or do we turn our backs and say its nothing but a dead end struggle for national liberation.
Finally, Piers.... you sound like a sad old sectarian......
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: pdq
Date: 02 Jun 06 - 07:57 PM

Ifor sez:

    "only a democratic ,secular, state guranteeing full rights for all individuals and faiths will begin to tackle the problems in that land"

Surely you must be talking about Iraq. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 01:22 AM

ReplY to pdq

We have seen plenty of reports in the past few,weeks amd months about what "democracy" looks like in Iraq when it is brought at the barrel of a gun and via a cruise missile and a big bomb.The people of Haditha,Ishaqi and numerous other places would have loved democracy I am sure but the Marine division never brought that to the 24 men ,women and children gunned down in their own homes in Haditha.

In the same way I am sure that the Palestinian refugees in camps like Sabra and Shatilla ,Jenin and Balata would have welcomed human rights like the right not to be blown up by tank rounds or murdered by sharp knives wielded by Israeli sponsored paramilitary killersor the Israeli army.

Oh and pdq.... the people across the world who have long memories when it comes to the "democracies "brought courtesy of the CIA and its political masters...
Chile 1971
Indonesia 1966
Vietnam
Cambodia....
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Cuba
Iran 1953
Phillipines
Panama
Iraq.....even Saddam was backed by US guns and money.
and many more

Iraq had zilch to do with democracy and plenty to do with oil.
If Iraq was was the main carrot producing country in the world with no oil I dont think there would be an American soldier in Baghdad.
....its called IMPERIALISM.
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Piers
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 02:45 AM

Ifor, Don't put me in your corner with this sectarian tripe. As a socialist I am opposed to all forms of capitalism, private or state. You are advocating the wages-money-profit system, simple and plain, and are thus opposed to achieving the classless-moneyless-borderless system of socialism. Like the Eustonites, you are on the left of capitalism, you seek to reform it whereas socialists seek to abolish it.

I've no doubt you mean well, but what out of history makes you think that rearranging the political structure of a state is going to bring peace and progress?

Incidently a socialist has criticised the Euston Manifesto here.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Ifor
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:09 AM

To Piers
I raised the issue of the armed paramilitary settlers on the West
Bank, the apartheid Wall that is currently being built to steal yet more Palestinian land and the right of Palestinians to live in a Free Palestine.
You have replied with some abstact notions of socialism which sounds great and good but amounts to doing nothing in the present.
And please do not put words into my mouth!!
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:23 AM

"The first room was dark,everything was in disorder, but there was no one . In the second , amid disembowelled furniture and all sorts of debris , I found some bodies cold .Here the cleaning had been done with machine guns,then hand grenades.It had been finished with knives -anyone could see that.The same thing in the next room , but as I was about to leave I heard something like a sigh .I looked everywhere , turned over all the bodies , and eventually found a little foot ,still warm.
It was a little girl of ten, mutilated by a hand grenade but still alive .Everywhere it was the same horrible sight....there had been 400 people in this village -about 50 had escaped. All the rest had been deliberately massacred in cold blood for,as I observed for myself , this gang was admirably disciplined and acted only under orders"

The above statement was given by Jacques de Reynier of the International Red Cross who went to the Palestinian   village of Deir Yassin after it had been destroyed in April 1948 by a Zionist militia called the Irgun ,commanded by Menachem Begin .
The above statement is cited in David Hurst The Gun and the Olive Branch page 139

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 10:36 AM

I nominate this this thread a textbook example of Hijacking. It has not drifted slowly off topic, it has been dragged forcibly in several direcions at speed.

It also shows the Lefts propensity to argue amongs itself, to the extent of not actually getting anything agreed on or accomplished....

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,FREDDIE
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 11:15 AM

The thread has gone a little astray because the question of Palestine was a central part of the Euston Manifeto.It is a massive issue and a crisis for the Palestinians but one that needs to be discussed and debated. I dont think the Mudcat Forum is a place where things of this nature can be "accomplished" but they do need to be aired and the one state or two state proposal for the Istaeli and Palestinians is one that is not going to go away.
freddie

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Piers
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 03:10 PM

Ifor, if doing nothing is the alternative to attempting the impossible task of making capitalism work for workers, then I will do nothing. However it isn't, making socialists is what it is about at this stage, we can't have socialism without socialists. Yet you, like the Eustonites, demand the rights of Social Democratic capitalism, which are nothing if not abstract. I have the right to live in a free Britain, so chuffing what? - it is also the right to be forced into wage-labour, exploited, and the opportunity to choose who will adminster the state to oversee capitalism every few years. These rights I will gladly forgoe for needing no rights at all because I am not separated from the means of living, which is what socialism means - common ownership, democratic control of the means of production and free access to every good and service (note that this is a concrete material change in social relations rather than abstract notion).

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jun 06 - 09:07 PM

..I guess anything with the word Manifesto in it had to end up in a brawl...

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 10:00 AM

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 10:31 AM

Euston, we have a problem.

(sorry)

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 11:24 AM

and well you should be!


8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 04:28 PM

:-) !!

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 08:26 PM

Piers, I am a clause 4 man myself but I do not see why common ownership, democratic control of the means of production and free access to every good and service necessitate the demolition of national identity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jun 06 - 11:10 PM

Carol's contribution, besides being the best thing to happen to the thread in quite a while, is, on top of that, apt.

Squabbling between people left of center, while entertaining to people right of center, isn't likely to help in actually grappling with the substance of the Manifesto.

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: Piers
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 04:37 AM

Richard, Clause 4 (of the British Labour Party) did originally call for common ownership though I think it was always understood to mean state ownership of industry (e.g. nationalisation, 1976 Industrial Common Ownership Act) rather than common ownership in the sense of the early socialists, such as the kind of society described in William Morris' News From Nowhere. That is, involving the abolition of money and associated activities (there is no need for a means of exchange with common ownership).

The concept of national identity is bound up with a class-based society, it is a divisive ideology in defense of the status quo. It is the idea that workers should identify with capitalists (the exploiting class) rather than fellow workers on the otherside of a political boundary. In socialism, there will be no need for the state, the organisation that has evolved to represent the interests of groups of capitalists against other groups and manage a social system where a minority of people own the means of living on which everyone depends. Common ownership negates the state and nation. Cultural identity is influenced by national identity but it is always a product of all the experiences and influences we come across. William Morris was always on about the possibilities of the decorative arts unrestrained by commerce, why not music too? (Whoops, even more digression!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Euston Manifesto
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 04:54 PM

Freda Pebble now