Caveat

I could not have said that better myself. I am Fiona, and I endorse this message

These are good points, but at the moment, I think vagueness is important. Rather than using it to recruit people before they know what they are going to be told the specifics of the manifesto, it should be used to recruit people to shape the manifesto to what everyone agrees is right, not necessarily what the creator thinks is right.

I have seen this coming over the preceding posts and am not surprised. I hope we can clear this up.

I understand that you both would prefer more detail in the manifesto, as you consider it too vague. I have said time and time again that the main points in the OP are rough, generalist and need to be polished. I have said that the reason I have left them so general, for now, is for precisely this reason, that we would be bogged down in talking about individual policy at it's conception. I even put a disclaimer on the bottom of my long post that outlined my more detailed opinions on policy to this effect.

It now appears that you think I (I can not speak for damjan) am trying to 'trick' people into agreeing with a broad set of easily agreeable beliefs, then slap them with a highly detailed prescribed manifesto I happen to have conjured up in the meantime. I can understand this confusion and I can assure you it could not be further from the truth.
Let me clarify somewhat. Again I say that I leave the starting principles general and basic. This is to give us a framework to work with and goals to attain. As this manifesto is, at it's core, a promotion of discussion of alternatives to the current system, the generalist nature of the founding principles allows discussion to take place with respect to the method by which we implement these aims. If I were to have rolled out a detailed and prescriptive second by second plan, this discussion of possible alternatives would have been stifled. This is because, as you say
The great majority of people that would have agreed with the main goals and principles would be deterred by some of the methodologies and would not have contributed. By not setting my views on methodologies down on paper, as a set in stone prescription, I am putting my opinions on an equal footing with others who agree on the same goals. This can only promote discussion and will eventually lead to methodologies that combine the best of everyone's ideas, not just mine. These details have not been democratically developed yet! This is the way by which we develop a detailed manifesto, in a democratic and open way, so you can see why I was reluctant to promote my views on methodology as the official views of the manifesto, which, I believe, is the way you have taken them.

As I have already said, what this manifesto aims to achieve firstly is consensus on key points or key goals, from which we can democratically derive the more detailed methodologies, with participation from everyone. Vninect states that the current manifesto is
I'm not entirely sure that a great many people on the right would see it that way. In fact I'm sure they would be in uproar over elimination of political funding from corporations, an entirely secular state or the elimination of profit as the driving force of society. And even you yourself disagree with the policy of fazing out religion. So how can the general points be so "meaningless" and abstract, as you so flippantly put it?

I have no idea where the accusation of totalitarianism and opposition to democracy on my part comes from
Apparently Vninect must have skipped the parts in both the original post and in discussion where I state
and

Vninect and Fiona seem to have a rather large problem with 'an end to the war on drugs' being on the list. I still can not see a great difference in saying "Let's look for an alternative to the current global corporate capitalist system" and "Let's look for an alternative to the current global drugs policy' from a goal point of view. Both have been identified as current failing systems, and both are called upon to be replaced. Granted, I give an example of a possible alternative to the war on drugs, but only to highlight that there are successful alternatives available, nothing more. In addition, I can not for the life of me fathom why it would bother them so much, other than for some strange expression of OCD.

As yet, I have seen very little in the way of positive contribution from Vninect or FionaK with respect to developing the manifesto. They are more than happy to de-construct others suggestions on policy without offering anything of their own. It is, after all, all too easy to criticise without proffering anything in return. While I ascertain that criticism and debate is welcomed and encouraged, even being central to the democratic process, criticism for the sake of criticism is ultimately futile.

What I would hope for in future is more constructive criticism, paired with suggestions of your own.

As for the policies I specified on immigration, I clarified that this was an opinion of my own, about a possible methodology and, again, up for debate. This was not put in the original post and the opinions I expressed were not to be one of the core values of the manifesto. What could have been put on the manifesto with regards to immigration is "alternatives to current immigration systems need to be found", as you would have to be blind to see that there are not issues arising from the current system. Again, neither FionaK nor Vninect offer an alternative here, preferring, in fact, to solely criticise.

I could have left a far larger response to these accusations, but instead of dedicating my time to constant rebuttals and defending from accusation, I am spending it developing a website to promote these shared views, trying to recruit more support and helping, with the aid of others, to develop the mainifesto.

Edited by NathanSanders - 4/8/2011, 02:12

Greetings all! It may seem inappropriate for me to just introduce myself randomly in this section of the forum but this caught my attention.

I agree with OP, that starting with a generalized "wish-list" to point in a general direction to begin this movement is not a bad idea. We can see it's outline through the mist, but as for it's actual form, we shall shape it as the community becomes better established.

In the mean time, may I suggest creating separate sub-forums or threads for each issue on the manifesto to be discussed, debated on, and voted on in greater lengths. Just to get discussion started in an orderly fashion.

Each point in the manifesto would be stated clearly in the OP of its section. With an author that would edit it and keep it up to date as it evolves.

Let me try to clarify in my turn, because I do not think we are communicating well at present.

I do not think that your answer to the OP is an answer really: and I think that is because you have misunderstood what is being said. I freely concede I don't really know what you are talking about much of the time. I do not think that should be the case.but when I and others have tried to clarify it does not get any better. Let me illustrate by going back to your original OP.


So far so good. No-one on the left would see that as news: of course there are alternatives. Despite TINA being promoted for at least 30 years there remains a plethora of people and groups who do not believe it. What seems to me to be also true is that there has been a successful campaign to obscure what those alternatives might be, as a coherent analysis. That has been done in part by discrediting any overtly left wing analysis of any stripe. The extent to which that has been successful varies from place to place: that is one of the reasons why it is helpful to consider Scandinavia: for in those countries an alternative is plain to see. What also seems to be true is that they are not in advance of the UK or America: the crucial point is that they are behind. That is the point which has emerged from discussion with Helenagain on this board: and with others from the nordic countries I have spoken to elsewhere. And it seems to be somewhat true of Holland as well (though less so). It is also true that even within the UK the hegemony is not as pervasive in my country (Scotland) as it seems to be in England. We retain more of the values of the post war consensus than England does, at least that is my impression. You will note that tory MP's are an endangered species in this country: and that has only become true since the shift to the radical right was effected. But Helenagain informs that the direction of travel in her country (Sweden) is towards increased acceptance of the hegemony. I am not sure if that is a change in the minds of the people, as is the case in England: or a change in the views of a political and corporate elite which is imposed from above without altering the views of the people so much, as is the case in Scotland.

So if it is your perception that people do not understand that there is an alternative, I simply disagree.

If, on the other hand you are saying that the problem is means, then I am fully in agreement. Given the sustained legal attack on all alternative power bases: anti trades unon laws; centralisation and micromanagement of the professions; the increasing exclusion of the poor both in practical financial terms, and in the othering of them (a them and us split which has been fostered in order to sustain the big lie) etc etc then ways of opposing the wishes of the elite are not easy to see. These are all issues which have been discussed on this board, and we have attempted to explore the implications of those things, and to see how they have been fitted together as a right wing strategy to entrench all power within their own ranks. That attempt is new because the board is new. The issues are complicated and we have been trying to get an analysis of how this has been achieved. It is not easy, but without it there is not much hope of devising effective ways of making change. We have been talking about the transfer of power from the citizen to the corporation and about the dismantling of the power of the state, for example. In short I do not believe for one moment that the ideology of the left has died: it is always there, as is that of the right. The constituency already exists. But at present it feels powerless: and that is because it IS powerless. That is beginning to change, in my opinion, but as yet people do not quite know how to implement the change they want to see.

So when I read your first sentence I thought that this was also your interest, or part of it. Thus my interest in the details. I did NOT suggest for a moment that your proposals would be set in stone: there was no point in coming here if that was the case. I assumed you came for discussion with us about the "how".

That is not to suggest the "whether" and "why" are settled: the case still has to be made on the basis of principle, and I am also very interested in that. But I do not see your manifesto as principled: and I will try to explain why as this long post develops.


In this sentence I have my first problem. These policies are not "common sense", as you acknowledge when you say. "I'm not entirely sure that a great many people on the right would see it that way". Absolutely. The fact is that the right genuinely disagree with these policies, and they do so because they have a different ideology. There are some who are just cynical, as I said in another post: but there are true believers, too. What stands in the way of these policies is not religious dogma; or conservative fear mongering; or business lobbying. What stands in the way of them is votes. All of the things you mention are used to secure those votes. But so far we are, at least ostensibly, a democracy; and that is why that is true. So if you hold to a democracy then your business is to secure votes for the policies you wish to see implemented. To do that you have to show that they are not utopian and not unattainable: we can have them if we want them. This is nothing new, as Helenagain said. It is old fashioned politics, and it is nothing more. It is not a radical "movement" in any sense: it is a political platform and you can just form a poltical party, if all you want is a particular combination of policies which are all to be found in the mainstream. Perhaps that is all you want? I don't get that impression from the name you have given this nor from the description of it as a "movement". That implies something more to me: and you specifically said you wish to transcend party politics, so it must mean something more to you too. But the content does not reveal what that is: all we are seeing is rather pedestrian policies which can easily be encompassed within a political party without any radical change to the system at all.

The example you gave of portugal demonstrates that is true on your policy on drugs. It has been implemented by a mainstream party in a democracy, without any radical change at all.

On politics: you said that you wish to prevent corporations funding political parties and on further enquiry you said you would enshrine that in law. It is already enshrined in law in every country I know of. So once again the only thing required is a change in thresholds and proper enforcement. There has been recurrent debate about the failings of enforcement and the loopholes, and mainstream political parties in this country have been periodically proposing that funding should come from taxation: the people have not supported that idea but it is hardly radical: all you need to do is campaign for it within any political party you care to mention. They all have at least some members who agree with it: and almost every politician, and most people, agree there should be limits even if they do not accept central funding.

On a change to the current system of greed it is more difficult, and I believe that is because we have moved away from democracy to a plutocracy. This has been extensively discussed here, and reversing that is not easy because it is a profound shift in power. We know it can be done because we did it before, most recently after WW2 in this country. It was not done in the context of "globalisation" at least to the extent that is in play now: But the very wealthy have always been international, and their interests have always been at odds with those of ordinary people: that never changes. It was done through regulation, and through limiting the concentration of wealth in the hands of corporations, so that the nation state was the bigger power. We can do that again if we like. The left have despaired and the "new" left (who are not left at all) have abandoned their ideology in favour of "what works": and thus there is no obvious means at present. One answer is civil disobedience: and questions of how and when it is legitimate to oppose a democratic government by illegal means is also something we need to consider. But the trades unions did it before without that: they formed their party and they got it elected and we had a period of increasing equality and increased social welfare: it came to a dead stop in about 1980 in the UK. But there is nothing inevitable about that, as Scandinavia shows. It is a question of our understanding of what we want and how to get it: the right have a view and they have persuaded enough people to vote for it: that is all that happened. The problem is not "them": it is "us". And once again there is no reason for a "movement" to achieve this aim: it is just politics

On religion: we both believe that this will tend to wither with an effective welfare state. I do not think there is any reason why your party should not be avowedly atheist and include that in its manifesto. I do not even think that it will hurt your chances in a british election. So I don't think that makes any difference to the nature of your project.

It remains clear that you think there is something bigger in what you are proposing. I just don' t see you have made any case at all so far. Everything you say you want is in the realm of mainstream party politics. I see no underpinning principles at all, much less general ones. Your reticence looks like the same old, same old to me: all mainstream parties put as little into the manifesto as they can get away with: and so do you.

So what are your core principles, NathanSanders?

That is not true. The people who are injecting ideas which they are not wiling to discuss or to clarify are you and NathanSanders.


So who is to decide what is important and relevant to a political position? It would appear that you think it should be the party elite, or perhaps the leader? That is a totalitarian approach because it dismisses the genuine concerns and stances of the vast majority of the "movement". You said you don't like a "herd" mentality: but that is precisely what you advocate. It seems to me that you are perfectly happy with a herd, just so long as you are the rancher. And that, my friend, is very scary indeed. I note your attribution of frivolity or infantilism to the majority of us. It is telling


What check and balances would those be? I think you will find that none have been mentioned so far: and since it is rather crucial particularly in the context of a hierarchical party structure I would like to see some concrete poroposals. I haven't so far


Ok


Reality and facts as defined by you, it would seem. "What works" is a nonsense if you do not make explicit what you want to achieve. It is rule by the whim of the leadership, if it is pursued in the context of an elitist authoritarian organisation: and that is what you are arguing. This is indeed totalitarianism. You may be naive enough not to recognise that: or you may be dishonest enough to obscure that fact. But without a set of principles nothing is debarred as policy: nothing at all. And that is horrific, frankly



And all "inspired leaders" become so in spades. You propose nothing which would prevent dictatorship and much which would tend to end there. If that is what you believe then there is not question in my mind that you are a totalitarian. I think it would be a good idea for you to think about that: you may still come to the conclusion that you can avoid that outcome: and then perhaps you will share some of those mechanisms which make sure of it. For you have not done so so far, despite your airy words


You do not want to debate anything which does not accord with a totalitarian structure. Noted


It did not start as a totalitarian movement either, or so you both went to some lengths to suggest: so you shouldn't try to make it one. Though in fact I happen to think that is exactly what it started as. Again I am not sure if that is naivety or dishonesty: but it one of them


I like that sort of mind reading: do you use tea leaves? I particularly like the list because, funnily enough, it looks like "conservative fear mongering" to me. It is certainly neither rational, civil, nor true


Which your elite will sort out and the rest of us can be grateful for? No thanks

This sounds good actually...



We would beat them with a fairly large stick.


In between setting up things and answering on your endless rants I suppose we didn't have much time to sort that out.
Now that the site is up I hope that a clear and straight forward programs will be posted...


-leftist fear mongering





I don't want to debate people who speak just for the point of speaking...




what totalitarian movement?


Since our forum is now up, I see no point in posting here anymore...anyway thanks for the board but I don't think this whole deal was very productive...

So no answers to any questions: not even any acknowledgement of them. Serious debate dismissed as "endless rants". I also think it is unfortunate that Damjam finds he has nothing to learn and nothing to consider. But this level of contempt for other people has no place on this board, IMO. I cannot say I am sorry to see you go after this last post . You do not seem to be a serious individual, to me. Not that that makes you any less dangerous...

Hmm. It appears that Damjam has removed his posts leaving only the insults. How very typical of those who seek to gain power through the big lie and the rewriting of history. More and more straws in this wind...

Let's see I was called dangerous, liar, rewriter of history (?!), authoritarian, totalitarian...hm...what else?

I am deleting because I always do that unless it is something worth archiving. I have a habit of not leaving too many footprints on the internet. Problem?

It's my text and I have the right to delete it.


And yes my last post was not serious because it seems that your idea of what this movement should consist of talking with you two...
It takes me half an hour to read and reply to one of your posts and there is rarely anything concise, relevant or constructive in the debate.

I really can't spend the whole of my day talking with you two.