What do you think?
Rate this book
A Foreign Policy for the Left
Something that has been needed for a leftist foreign policy with a clear moral basis
Foreign policy, for leftists, used to be relatively simple. They were for the breakdown of capitalism and its replacement with a centrally planned economy. They were for the workers against the moneyed interests and for colonized peoples against imperial (Western) powers. But these easy substitutes for thought are becoming increasingly difficult. Neo-liberal capitalism is triumphant, and the workers’ movement is in radical decline. National liberation movements have produced new oppressions. A reflexive anti-imperialist politics can turn leftists into apologists for morally abhorrent groups. In Michael Walzer’s view, the left can no longer (in fact, could never) take automatic positions but must proceed from clearly articulated moral principles. In this book, adapted from essays published in Dissent , Walzer asks how leftists should think about the international scene—about humanitarian intervention and world government, about global inequality and religious extremism—in light of a coherent set of underlying political values.
Foreign policy, for leftists, used to be relatively simple. They were for the breakdown of capitalism and its replacement with a centrally planned economy. They were for the workers against the moneyed interests and for colonized peoples against imperial (Western) powers. But these easy substitutes for thought are becoming increasingly difficult. Neo-liberal capitalism is triumphant, and the workers’ movement is in radical decline. National liberation movements have produced new oppressions. A reflexive anti-imperialist politics can turn leftists into apologists for morally abhorrent groups. In Michael Walzer’s view, the left can no longer (in fact, could never) take automatic positions but must proceed from clearly articulated moral principles. In this book, adapted from essays published in Dissent , Walzer asks how leftists should think about the international scene—about humanitarian intervention and world government, about global inequality and religious extremism—in light of a coherent set of underlying political values.
216 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 9, 2018
29 people are currently reading
374 people want to read
About the author
Michael Walzer
110 books149 followersMichael Walzer is a Jewish American political philosopher and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, he is editor of the political-intellectual quarterly Dissent. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics, including just and unjust wars, nationalism, ethnicity, economic justice, social criticism, radicalism, tolerance, and political obligation and is a contributing editor to The New Republic. To date, he has written 27 books and published over 300 articles, essays, and book reviews in Dissent, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and many scholarly journals
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
July 13, 2023
An outstanding book, even if I don't precisely share Walzer's politics (we're close though). Walzer has taken a series of old and new essays, updated them to create a more coherent book spelling out what a foreign policy for the Left should look like. He starts with the idea that the Left once could just take a fairly Marxian line on foreign affairs, but this position collapsed in the 20th century for a number of reasons. Since then, he argues, the Left has been adrift in the foreign policy realm, offering much critique (a good deal of it hyperbolic and unrealistic) but little in the way of constructive principles. The Left is more at home in the domestic political realm than in the anarchy of international politics, but Walzer seeks to and largely succeeds in correcting this here.
MW starts by critiquing a number of tendencies in leftist FP thought. A few stand out to me: being willing to side with or defend regimes and movements that are horrible because they are on the "side" of the left. This could range from terrorist groups like the PLO to regimes like Stalin, Mao, and many Third World dictatorships today. The Left, he argues, should oppose vanguardist movements/ideologies that claim to represent the people or the forces of history but end up creating new and often worse forms of tyranny and destruction. The Left also has a tendency what he calls the "politics of pretending," or pretending that forms of world government are more advanced than they really are as a way of avoiding tough questions. What to do post 9/11? Give it to the UN Security Council, which won't do anything. Got a dictator massacring his people? Get an indictment at the ICC that won't do anything until after the crimes are over. Finally, the Left has an America obsession: it sees America as having all the agency and all the responsibility for everything that happens in the world (everything bad, that is), and they tend to reflexively oppose any US use of force, folding it all into an imperial paradigm that Walzer argues has been stretched to the conceptual breaking point (if imperialism is just capitalism, or if all US interventiosn are imperialism even when countries like Iraq make their own decisions and policies, often those against our interests, why do we use this term?)
SO Walzer recommends a series of principles that can guide the Left in making FP in a serious, empathetic way rather than just sniping from the sidelines or, even worse, supporting anti-democratic, illiberal movements. First, it has to reconcile itself with state power in several ways. States are the dominant, operative unit of global politics today. ALmost everything that gets done is done by states, including things done through multilateral bodies like the UN or EU or NATO, which coordinate and regulate the actions of states but usually don't act themselves. Leftists need to realize that the goods they want to achieve in the world will be done by states and states alone, and that actually stabilizing the international system requires solidifying and making competent most states rather than trying to transcend the state, which at this point in history is just way premature.
This relates to big point 2: do what you can to help others. This means, in the case of humanitarian intervention, being willing to support the US of force and even of some level of occupation in other societies to stop and prevent massive atrocities (genocide level, for the most part). The Left has been left looking foolish in its criticisms of US interventions like Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo (not to mention dozens of purely humanitarian interventions), where tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. In most cases, however, such as routine tyrannies, intervention isn't justified and leftists should focus on forms of pressure, activism, incentive, and appeal to try to change those states' behavior. Walzer makes a strong case for a limited doctrine of humanitarian intervention and calls on the Left to take seriously the use of state power for moral ends. We can build global institutions without pretending that the state will soon pass away.
Third, and most interestingly to me, Walzer calls on Leftists to listen to people in other societies. Instead of just opposing the US presence in Iraq no matter what, or US support for Ukraine, listen to the people who are in those societies. What do they want? What would make their lives better? Don't project your ideology onto these people: respect their agency and find ways to help them, whether that be through activism, humanitarian action, material support, etc. It isn't always true that people with US forces or personnel on their soil simply want us to go home; societies' reactions to intervention are incredibly complex. Leftists should particularly help build up people who don't have voices yet (women in Iraq, for example) and listen to what they think would best help them. I thought this was highly relevant to Ukraine, where instead of respecting the agency of Ukrainians, too many Americans project their ideology onto this complicated conflict (often leading many Leftists to oppose US intervention no matter what).
Fourth, support an "internationalism of agency," in which pursuing global justice aims at producing people capable of helping themselves and determining their future. This is a pushback at the often condescending attitude of Americans, including some of the Left, who see . Instead, we can do a great deal of good helping to build unions, LGBT and women's groups, secular and liberal organizations, educational institutions, and other elements of a strong civil society that empowers rather than dictates to people in foreign societies.
Walzer also is pretty skeptical of capitalism (he's kind of a democratic socialist), and I'm a little more friendly to it, but he makes the insightful point that neoliberalism has largely been imposed upon the rest of the world. Most of the world wants access to markets, technology, global finance, etc, but they want to have some control over the process and its effects, which they often lack in societies where political representation is limited. I think this is a fair point, and more attention to it would help ease much of the resistance to US economic/financial power around the world.
Finally, Walzer argues that leftists must firmly stand up for universal liberal values. Enough pretending that Islamists are somehow allied with the Left because they too resist US hegemony. The same foes do not make good friends, and Islamists are as hostile to pretty much any cause of the Left as a movement could be. Stop apologizing for terrorists and tyrants because they hate the same people you do. Listen to and support dissidents who are willing to speak out against intolerance, hatred, and discrimination overseas just as you would at home rather than just saying, "well, society X just has different values than us." This is a critical point: we shouldn't be invading societies to impose our values, and we shouldn't pretend that the average citizen of the world is liberal/leftist like us, but that should make us no less insistent on the rights and dignity of ALL people.
At the end of the book, Walzer quotes Camus saying "The great event of the 20th century was the forsaking of the values of freedom by the revolutionary movements," by which he mainly means the Left. I agree. As horrific as the crimes of the right were in the 20th century, those of the Left ultimately stacked more bodies. Thankfully, most of the world rejected leftist illiberalism...except for all too many in the West. Walzer pushes back effectively against these people and ideas without simply drawing clear moral lines and rules for behavior; he's far too subtle a thinker for that.
Recommended to anyone of liberal/left persuasion, especially those seeking to actualize those principles in the international sphere without becoming full-on neocons.
MW starts by critiquing a number of tendencies in leftist FP thought. A few stand out to me: being willing to side with or defend regimes and movements that are horrible because they are on the "side" of the left. This could range from terrorist groups like the PLO to regimes like Stalin, Mao, and many Third World dictatorships today. The Left, he argues, should oppose vanguardist movements/ideologies that claim to represent the people or the forces of history but end up creating new and often worse forms of tyranny and destruction. The Left also has a tendency what he calls the "politics of pretending," or pretending that forms of world government are more advanced than they really are as a way of avoiding tough questions. What to do post 9/11? Give it to the UN Security Council, which won't do anything. Got a dictator massacring his people? Get an indictment at the ICC that won't do anything until after the crimes are over. Finally, the Left has an America obsession: it sees America as having all the agency and all the responsibility for everything that happens in the world (everything bad, that is), and they tend to reflexively oppose any US use of force, folding it all into an imperial paradigm that Walzer argues has been stretched to the conceptual breaking point (if imperialism is just capitalism, or if all US interventiosn are imperialism even when countries like Iraq make their own decisions and policies, often those against our interests, why do we use this term?)
SO Walzer recommends a series of principles that can guide the Left in making FP in a serious, empathetic way rather than just sniping from the sidelines or, even worse, supporting anti-democratic, illiberal movements. First, it has to reconcile itself with state power in several ways. States are the dominant, operative unit of global politics today. ALmost everything that gets done is done by states, including things done through multilateral bodies like the UN or EU or NATO, which coordinate and regulate the actions of states but usually don't act themselves. Leftists need to realize that the goods they want to achieve in the world will be done by states and states alone, and that actually stabilizing the international system requires solidifying and making competent most states rather than trying to transcend the state, which at this point in history is just way premature.
This relates to big point 2: do what you can to help others. This means, in the case of humanitarian intervention, being willing to support the US of force and even of some level of occupation in other societies to stop and prevent massive atrocities (genocide level, for the most part). The Left has been left looking foolish in its criticisms of US interventions like Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo (not to mention dozens of purely humanitarian interventions), where tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. In most cases, however, such as routine tyrannies, intervention isn't justified and leftists should focus on forms of pressure, activism, incentive, and appeal to try to change those states' behavior. Walzer makes a strong case for a limited doctrine of humanitarian intervention and calls on the Left to take seriously the use of state power for moral ends. We can build global institutions without pretending that the state will soon pass away.
Third, and most interestingly to me, Walzer calls on Leftists to listen to people in other societies. Instead of just opposing the US presence in Iraq no matter what, or US support for Ukraine, listen to the people who are in those societies. What do they want? What would make their lives better? Don't project your ideology onto these people: respect their agency and find ways to help them, whether that be through activism, humanitarian action, material support, etc. It isn't always true that people with US forces or personnel on their soil simply want us to go home; societies' reactions to intervention are incredibly complex. Leftists should particularly help build up people who don't have voices yet (women in Iraq, for example) and listen to what they think would best help them. I thought this was highly relevant to Ukraine, where instead of respecting the agency of Ukrainians, too many Americans project their ideology onto this complicated conflict (often leading many Leftists to oppose US intervention no matter what).
Fourth, support an "internationalism of agency," in which pursuing global justice aims at producing people capable of helping themselves and determining their future. This is a pushback at the often condescending attitude of Americans, including some of the Left, who see . Instead, we can do a great deal of good helping to build unions, LGBT and women's groups, secular and liberal organizations, educational institutions, and other elements of a strong civil society that empowers rather than dictates to people in foreign societies.
Walzer also is pretty skeptical of capitalism (he's kind of a democratic socialist), and I'm a little more friendly to it, but he makes the insightful point that neoliberalism has largely been imposed upon the rest of the world. Most of the world wants access to markets, technology, global finance, etc, but they want to have some control over the process and its effects, which they often lack in societies where political representation is limited. I think this is a fair point, and more attention to it would help ease much of the resistance to US economic/financial power around the world.
Finally, Walzer argues that leftists must firmly stand up for universal liberal values. Enough pretending that Islamists are somehow allied with the Left because they too resist US hegemony. The same foes do not make good friends, and Islamists are as hostile to pretty much any cause of the Left as a movement could be. Stop apologizing for terrorists and tyrants because they hate the same people you do. Listen to and support dissidents who are willing to speak out against intolerance, hatred, and discrimination overseas just as you would at home rather than just saying, "well, society X just has different values than us." This is a critical point: we shouldn't be invading societies to impose our values, and we shouldn't pretend that the average citizen of the world is liberal/leftist like us, but that should make us no less insistent on the rights and dignity of ALL people.
At the end of the book, Walzer quotes Camus saying "The great event of the 20th century was the forsaking of the values of freedom by the revolutionary movements," by which he mainly means the Left. I agree. As horrific as the crimes of the right were in the 20th century, those of the Left ultimately stacked more bodies. Thankfully, most of the world rejected leftist illiberalism...except for all too many in the West. Walzer pushes back effectively against these people and ideas without simply drawing clear moral lines and rules for behavior; he's far too subtle a thinker for that.
Recommended to anyone of liberal/left persuasion, especially those seeking to actualize those principles in the international sphere without becoming full-on neocons.
March 12, 2020
Weak. I've been a progressive/"liberal" for most of my adult life but over the past five years have become really disgusted with the group. While I cannot stand (even believe) where the far right has gone, A) the left could look to them for some damn lessons, because B) the Dems eat their own, constantly bickering among themselves, constantly attacking their own while the right gets behind their candidates and fucking WIN while Berniebots hate their OWN leading candidates so much, they fucking voted Trump INTO office last time! It's their damn fault that moron is president and so for the past four years, most of America, including nearly every liberal, has counted on seemingly ANYONE running against Trump to kick his ass and put some sanity back in the White House, ... but it's happening again, and it started at least two years ago. I've read some books by some disillusioned lifelong Republican strategists and advisors who are desperate to join with everyone in a centrist effort to vote Trump out, although they say they won't vote for a Hillary or Bernie. I understand that. It's called compromise and it used to be a big part of our government. These major players write that the Dems can be counted on to bicker with their pet projects and pet peeves so much that they lose sight of the election and lose the election as a result of infighting while the conservatives all rally around whatever asshole is their candidate, like him or not. And the Dems lose and they do this to themselves and they never learn. And these people are 100% right. Trump WILL win again because for the past two plus years the Berniebots have insisted that NO ONE except Bernie will be okay with them - Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, no one. Because he's the "outsider." HE'S BEEN IN FUCKING OFFICE LONGER THAN ANY OF THEM!!!!! You stupid dumbass hypocritical traitors! So because you hate people in your own *alleged* party so much (because obviously you're Republicans as you'd rather have an autocratic insane Republican president than someone from a party you claim to be a part of who is not your favorite choice...), you'd rather have a treasonous Russian puppet in office. You're the damn problem, not the conservatives! Idiots. And this book? Rewritten regurgitation with few new ideas. Neither party has a grasp on quality, successful, diplomatic-yet-cautious foreign policy and the leaders of both parties have taken the "winner" from the Cold War and they've fucked the country and world up with their idiot foreign policies, and we want these people recommending anything? The liberals are idealists with no concept of reality and the evangelical right wing nutjobs are fascist nationalists intent on getting behind an apocalyptic nationalist Mussolini wannabee. Awesome. And my wife won't let us move to New Zealand... Both parties have proven to be failures at public policy and foreign policy over the past 25+ years. Please get the centrists together and form a real, actual third party to wipe these idiots out of office and start over with some sanity and reason. This book? About as good as current conservative books calling for "change" -- bullshit.
March 31, 2024
The thesis of this book, brilliantly put, will stick with me for a while. Obligatory 4 stars for a couple typo’s.
February 6, 2021
This book is neither radical nor revolutionary. Mr. Walzer's position on interventionism sounds like any mainstream politician with a penchant for more military exercises and continued American involvement across the world. it's essential for the left to remain critical of American imperialism and skeptical of calls for democratization in other countries.
the left has historically provided moral clarity in a political world devoted to power and domination. this book provides more of the same and does not seriously challenge the status quo.
the left has historically provided moral clarity in a political world devoted to power and domination. this book provides more of the same and does not seriously challenge the status quo.
August 18, 2024
-Looks at box- “Left foreign policy”
-Opens box- Zionist apologetics
Basically makes the case in far too many words that the left needs to be more internationalist and stop focusing on only the issues at home. You can get this from other, actual leftists that don’t spend most of their book denouncing imperfect revolutionary struggles and waste their time with boring, BORING soviet bashing. We get it, Stalin was not a good guy.
Walzer also at one point makes the case that the left, not liberals, are too pro hamas and organised the “We are Hamas” marches which for a world leading academic is an embarrassing caricature of clearly a movement he has only a scholarly and not an active engagement with. A book on leftist foreign policy ought to better realise exactly how hamas came into power but of course in the beginning of this book Walzer thanks his Israeli friends for the support he received from them.
-Opens box- Zionist apologetics
Basically makes the case in far too many words that the left needs to be more internationalist and stop focusing on only the issues at home. You can get this from other, actual leftists that don’t spend most of their book denouncing imperfect revolutionary struggles and waste their time with boring, BORING soviet bashing. We get it, Stalin was not a good guy.
Walzer also at one point makes the case that the left, not liberals, are too pro hamas and organised the “We are Hamas” marches which for a world leading academic is an embarrassing caricature of clearly a movement he has only a scholarly and not an active engagement with. A book on leftist foreign policy ought to better realise exactly how hamas came into power but of course in the beginning of this book Walzer thanks his Israeli friends for the support he received from them.
November 15, 2020
"Przeciwstawiamy się działaniom antyzwiązkowym, rasizmowi, mizoginii, ksenofobii, rosnącym nierównościom w dochodach, coraz większej roli pieniędzy w wyborach i umacnianiu się plutokracji, skażeniu środowiska, homofobii, atakom na państwo opiekuńcze oraz wszelkim próbom podważania praw wyborczych – sporządziłem tę listę w przypadkowym porządku, ponieważ każde lewicowe ugrupowanie ma swoje priorytety. Wszyscy jednak znamy skalę lewicowego zaangażowania i (przeważnie) popieramy się wzajemnie… we własnym kraju.
[...] Naszym obowiązkiem jest solidarność z ludźmi znajdującymi się w opałach, a obecnie najgorsze tragedie rozgrywają się poza granicami naszego kraju".
[...] Naszym obowiązkiem jest solidarność z ludźmi znajdującymi się w opałach, a obecnie najgorsze tragedie rozgrywają się poza granicami naszego kraju".
March 17, 2024
If the author's liberalism is considered "left" then the Overton window has shifted far enough to the right that the word has no meaning. Everything is black and white to the author ("I have been concerned with conflicts that take a relatively simple form: there are murderers, and there are victims."), missing the nuance in every conflict he mentions.
July 25, 2022
Left wanting — A Foreign Policy for the Left (Michael Walzer)
Adding to a rich history of inter-left critique (I think a term of art for excoriation, in this case), Walzer presents a coherent and mostly realistic foreign policy advancing the ideals of the left. It’s certainly not a description of typical leftist foreign policy — this is characterised by what Walzer calls the “default position”, which is no policy. A just world begins at home — we should put our own house in order. Walzer correctly identifies this as wrong, unjust, and delusional.
Common and unthinking leftist heuristics (“ideological shortcuts”) get roundly criticised by Walzer. One is the common elision of oppression and virtue (Walzer points out one reason why we should oppose oppression is that it can produce vicious pathologies in its victims and promote cycles of violence). That is, just because some group is seen as “oppressed” does not mean that they should get unconditional support from the left. Another, the reflexive “anti-imperial” bent of leftists, which is typically simply an unconditional anti-American shortcut. This extends into supporting every government that calls itself leftist (even though it may be deeply oppressive) or anti-imperialist and is opposed to America. Walzer is right to criticise these positions — they are unthinking and unhelpful. He advocates for a “politics of distinction” which on my reading is asking for less aesthetic reflex and more moral and political judgement.
Another key takeaway from the book is a focus on agency. It’s probably best put in the context of global justice: “Everyone should have the justice they need right now so they can pursue the justice they will never finally have”. That is, the left should focus on making sure that those who are invisible, quietened, or otherwise politically unengaged the agency they need for self-determination. That’s a very good principle and I agree. It means that we should intervene with an aim to stop problems from reoccurring by giving people the power they need to manage it themselves. Walzer is most convincing here on military intervention (he did write Just and Unjust Wars, after all!) but fairly doctrinaire when it comes to economics. I don’t even disagree about the disdain of “neoliberalism”, but certain topics (e.g. trade-led development, which some consider a euphemism for sweatshop globalisation) are not seriously engaged with.
There’s a degree of crossover here with liberal internationalist thinking — especially Ikenberry. His plan for a more just and ordered world begins with completing the Westphalian state system, then progresses through EU-style alliance building, improvement of international institutions, and then international civil society (NGOs). Walzer focuses on domestic justice — particularly distributive justice — being critical too. All of this sound suspiciously similar to a liberal world order with “embedded liberalism” (crudely, social democratic security for citizens). Walzer even says this explicitly.
There is a bit of confusion here regarding the IMF having a sort of democratic deficit but simultaneously needing to be reinforced. I don’t think I agree with Walzer here — if I were going to make a legitimacy argument it would focus more on results less than consent. In any case, the IMF articles of agreement — requiring signature and ratification — seems like consent to me and thus legitimacy in this sense. Think of it as a commitment aid, which is a perfectly legitimate thing for a government to want to do.
There’s a chapter devoted to separating America as an imperial power (it’s not) from America as a hegemonic power (it is). Hegemonic power is, in a sense, more legitimate than imperial power because it relies more on consent, bargaining, and compromise. I think this is a good rebuttal to reflexive leftist claims of American imperialism. It’s also quite similar to some of the stuff liberal internationalists have to say.
Finally there’s a discussion on Islamophobia. Walzer sensibly criticises many leftists who apologise for what are extremely regressive and violent regimes. Mostly this filters though the ideological shortcuts above — “Islamists are virtuous” because they are anti-American. He advocates that leftists should listen more to the people in these countries they claim to speak for. I think Walzer should have made a more convincing case about religion being an important causal factor here however.
This is an excellent book that is unlikely to convince many doctrinaire leftists. Walzer makes a strong case for democracy and strongly dislikes vanguardism, for example — positions I agree with myself (think principal-agent problems and credible commitment!). He ends the book advocating against leftist unity (“no enemy to the left”) and is more than happy to fight “wars” on more than one front. I think this is a natural extension of his “politics of distinction”.
Adding to a rich history of inter-left critique (I think a term of art for excoriation, in this case), Walzer presents a coherent and mostly realistic foreign policy advancing the ideals of the left. It’s certainly not a description of typical leftist foreign policy — this is characterised by what Walzer calls the “default position”, which is no policy. A just world begins at home — we should put our own house in order. Walzer correctly identifies this as wrong, unjust, and delusional.
Common and unthinking leftist heuristics (“ideological shortcuts”) get roundly criticised by Walzer. One is the common elision of oppression and virtue (Walzer points out one reason why we should oppose oppression is that it can produce vicious pathologies in its victims and promote cycles of violence). That is, just because some group is seen as “oppressed” does not mean that they should get unconditional support from the left. Another, the reflexive “anti-imperial” bent of leftists, which is typically simply an unconditional anti-American shortcut. This extends into supporting every government that calls itself leftist (even though it may be deeply oppressive) or anti-imperialist and is opposed to America. Walzer is right to criticise these positions — they are unthinking and unhelpful. He advocates for a “politics of distinction” which on my reading is asking for less aesthetic reflex and more moral and political judgement.
Another key takeaway from the book is a focus on agency. It’s probably best put in the context of global justice: “Everyone should have the justice they need right now so they can pursue the justice they will never finally have”. That is, the left should focus on making sure that those who are invisible, quietened, or otherwise politically unengaged the agency they need for self-determination. That’s a very good principle and I agree. It means that we should intervene with an aim to stop problems from reoccurring by giving people the power they need to manage it themselves. Walzer is most convincing here on military intervention (he did write Just and Unjust Wars, after all!) but fairly doctrinaire when it comes to economics. I don’t even disagree about the disdain of “neoliberalism”, but certain topics (e.g. trade-led development, which some consider a euphemism for sweatshop globalisation) are not seriously engaged with.
There’s a degree of crossover here with liberal internationalist thinking — especially Ikenberry. His plan for a more just and ordered world begins with completing the Westphalian state system, then progresses through EU-style alliance building, improvement of international institutions, and then international civil society (NGOs). Walzer focuses on domestic justice — particularly distributive justice — being critical too. All of this sound suspiciously similar to a liberal world order with “embedded liberalism” (crudely, social democratic security for citizens). Walzer even says this explicitly.
There is a bit of confusion here regarding the IMF having a sort of democratic deficit but simultaneously needing to be reinforced. I don’t think I agree with Walzer here — if I were going to make a legitimacy argument it would focus more on results less than consent. In any case, the IMF articles of agreement — requiring signature and ratification — seems like consent to me and thus legitimacy in this sense. Think of it as a commitment aid, which is a perfectly legitimate thing for a government to want to do.
There’s a chapter devoted to separating America as an imperial power (it’s not) from America as a hegemonic power (it is). Hegemonic power is, in a sense, more legitimate than imperial power because it relies more on consent, bargaining, and compromise. I think this is a good rebuttal to reflexive leftist claims of American imperialism. It’s also quite similar to some of the stuff liberal internationalists have to say.
Finally there’s a discussion on Islamophobia. Walzer sensibly criticises many leftists who apologise for what are extremely regressive and violent regimes. Mostly this filters though the ideological shortcuts above — “Islamists are virtuous” because they are anti-American. He advocates that leftists should listen more to the people in these countries they claim to speak for. I think Walzer should have made a more convincing case about religion being an important causal factor here however.
This is an excellent book that is unlikely to convince many doctrinaire leftists. Walzer makes a strong case for democracy and strongly dislikes vanguardism, for example — positions I agree with myself (think principal-agent problems and credible commitment!). He ends the book advocating against leftist unity (“no enemy to the left”) and is more than happy to fight “wars” on more than one front. I think this is a natural extension of his “politics of distinction”.
December 29, 2018
Osinskipoludzku.blogspot.com
"Laickie oświecenie, prawa człowieka i demokratyczny rząd. Lewicowa polityka zaczyna się od obrony tych trzech idei". Podążając za tymi słowami Walzera, pozostaje mieć nadzieję że naprawdę będzie komu bronić lewicowej polityki gdyż na chwilę obecną znamiennym pozostaje fakt, iż miesiąc po premierze po tę książkę nie sięgnęło zbyt wiele osób. Pierwszą opinią o niej jest ta przeze mnie właśnie publikowana. Chciałbym wierzyć, że brak opinii na lubimyczytac.pl nie odzwierciedla rzeczywistego zainteresowania tą publikacją jednakże trudno oprzeć się wrażeniu, że lewicowcy są od dłuższego czasu w odwrocie i nie są realnie obecni w publicznej dyskusji.
"Lewica. Stare błędy, nowe wyzwania" powstała zapewne po to by pokusić się o diagnozę tego jak kształtuje się potencjalne miejsce ludzi z tej opcji politycznej, a że nie wygląda to najlepiej, to autor pokusił się o pewne propozycje jak wyjść z podziemia i realnie wpływać na politykę jeśli twoje serce wciąż pozostaje po lewej stronie. Zacznę od tego, iż niejednokrotnie nie zgadzałem się z refleksjami Michaela Walzera, aczkolwiek trzeba mu przyznać że potrafił nie tylko zainteresować mnie swymi wywodami, a również zachęcić do rewizji własnych poglądów. Diagnozując przyczyny marginalizacji lewicy i wzrost popularności ultraprawicowych, populistycznych partii Walzer zwraca przede wszystkim uwagę na to, że wielu polityków lewicy jakby odseparowało się od problemów poprzez krytykę poczynań własnych rządów bez jednoczesnego realnego pomysłu na to jak mogą doprowadzić do zmiany tejże polityki. Odnosi się również do takich kwestii jak demonizacja Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki jako imperium zła, któremu przypisuje się odpowiedzialność za światową niesprawiedliwość, a każda międzynarodowa reakcja tego mocarstwa jest z założenia zła. Potępia też wprost Walzer tych lewicowców, którzy romansują z ruchami wspierającymi terroryzm jako metodę walki z uciskiem i imperializmem ( przykład choćby Algierii, Palestyny i Iraku). Wreszcie odnosi się do przestarzałych myśli po stronie lewicy czego przykładem ma być marksizm.
Wydźwięk wszystkich zawartych w tej książce esejów jest taki, iż lewica jest bardzo potrzebna w kontekście walki o sprawiedliwość i ład nie tylko na przestrzeni poszczególnych krajów, ale również jeśli chodzi o porządek i redystrybucję potrzeb i dóbr na świecie. Właśnie z uwagi na potrzebę kształtowania instrumentów służących eliminowaniu tyranii, wyzysku i łamaniu podstawowych praw człowieka, lewica zwraca uwagę na potrzebę wyjścia ludzi lewicy ze swego kokonu i dostosowania się do głosu ludu. Chociaż zgadzam się z Walzerem jeżeli chodzi o kształtowanie ruchów służących zapobiegających chociażby skutkom globalnego ocieplenia czy działań na rzecz pokoju na świecie to nie uważam iż lewica powinna iść na ustępstwa jakie on w swej książce proponuje. W tym względzie chodzi mi chociażby o kwestie upaństwowienia. Myślę, że idea świata bez granic jest akurat ideą do której powinniśmy zmierzać i powinna istnieć realna przeciwwaga dla ultraprawicy i nacjonalistycznych ugrupowań bazujących na populizmie. Jest wiele kwestii w których lewica ma przestrzeń do ewaluowania, ale myślę sobie że bliżej mi jednak do krytykowanych przez Walzera myślicieli jak choćby Noam Chomsky. Uważam też, że trochę się autor pogubił w rozważaniach na temat islamu, ale może to też może zbyt jestem przywiązany do mojego punktu widzenia w tej kwestii.
Podsumowując, "Lewica. Stare błędy, nowe wyzwania" to książka nie łatwa w odbiorze, ale pozycja ważna dla każdego kto bardziej niż trochę interesuje się polityką i kto wieży że nie jest ona do krzty zepsuta. To również pozycja dla każdego kto w lewicowym sposobie myślenia na temat świata dopatruje się obrony słabszych, uciśnionych i widzi potrzebę laickiego oświecenia. Jeżeli cokolwiek ma zmieniać świat to myśl oparta na potrzebie współpracy na rzecz tego by było nam wszystkim lepiej i sprawiedliwiej, a nie byśmy okopywali się w szowinistycznych enklawach jak dzieje się to coraz częściej obecnie. Z tego też powodu książki takie jak ta Michaela Walzera są ważne.
"Laickie oświecenie, prawa człowieka i demokratyczny rząd. Lewicowa polityka zaczyna się od obrony tych trzech idei". Podążając za tymi słowami Walzera, pozostaje mieć nadzieję że naprawdę będzie komu bronić lewicowej polityki gdyż na chwilę obecną znamiennym pozostaje fakt, iż miesiąc po premierze po tę książkę nie sięgnęło zbyt wiele osób. Pierwszą opinią o niej jest ta przeze mnie właśnie publikowana. Chciałbym wierzyć, że brak opinii na lubimyczytac.pl nie odzwierciedla rzeczywistego zainteresowania tą publikacją jednakże trudno oprzeć się wrażeniu, że lewicowcy są od dłuższego czasu w odwrocie i nie są realnie obecni w publicznej dyskusji.
"Lewica. Stare błędy, nowe wyzwania" powstała zapewne po to by pokusić się o diagnozę tego jak kształtuje się potencjalne miejsce ludzi z tej opcji politycznej, a że nie wygląda to najlepiej, to autor pokusił się o pewne propozycje jak wyjść z podziemia i realnie wpływać na politykę jeśli twoje serce wciąż pozostaje po lewej stronie. Zacznę od tego, iż niejednokrotnie nie zgadzałem się z refleksjami Michaela Walzera, aczkolwiek trzeba mu przyznać że potrafił nie tylko zainteresować mnie swymi wywodami, a również zachęcić do rewizji własnych poglądów. Diagnozując przyczyny marginalizacji lewicy i wzrost popularności ultraprawicowych, populistycznych partii Walzer zwraca przede wszystkim uwagę na to, że wielu polityków lewicy jakby odseparowało się od problemów poprzez krytykę poczynań własnych rządów bez jednoczesnego realnego pomysłu na to jak mogą doprowadzić do zmiany tejże polityki. Odnosi się również do takich kwestii jak demonizacja Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki jako imperium zła, któremu przypisuje się odpowiedzialność za światową niesprawiedliwość, a każda międzynarodowa reakcja tego mocarstwa jest z założenia zła. Potępia też wprost Walzer tych lewicowców, którzy romansują z ruchami wspierającymi terroryzm jako metodę walki z uciskiem i imperializmem ( przykład choćby Algierii, Palestyny i Iraku). Wreszcie odnosi się do przestarzałych myśli po stronie lewicy czego przykładem ma być marksizm.
Wydźwięk wszystkich zawartych w tej książce esejów jest taki, iż lewica jest bardzo potrzebna w kontekście walki o sprawiedliwość i ład nie tylko na przestrzeni poszczególnych krajów, ale również jeśli chodzi o porządek i redystrybucję potrzeb i dóbr na świecie. Właśnie z uwagi na potrzebę kształtowania instrumentów służących eliminowaniu tyranii, wyzysku i łamaniu podstawowych praw człowieka, lewica zwraca uwagę na potrzebę wyjścia ludzi lewicy ze swego kokonu i dostosowania się do głosu ludu. Chociaż zgadzam się z Walzerem jeżeli chodzi o kształtowanie ruchów służących zapobiegających chociażby skutkom globalnego ocieplenia czy działań na rzecz pokoju na świecie to nie uważam iż lewica powinna iść na ustępstwa jakie on w swej książce proponuje. W tym względzie chodzi mi chociażby o kwestie upaństwowienia. Myślę, że idea świata bez granic jest akurat ideą do której powinniśmy zmierzać i powinna istnieć realna przeciwwaga dla ultraprawicy i nacjonalistycznych ugrupowań bazujących na populizmie. Jest wiele kwestii w których lewica ma przestrzeń do ewaluowania, ale myślę sobie że bliżej mi jednak do krytykowanych przez Walzera myślicieli jak choćby Noam Chomsky. Uważam też, że trochę się autor pogubił w rozważaniach na temat islamu, ale może to też może zbyt jestem przywiązany do mojego punktu widzenia w tej kwestii.
Podsumowując, "Lewica. Stare błędy, nowe wyzwania" to książka nie łatwa w odbiorze, ale pozycja ważna dla każdego kto bardziej niż trochę interesuje się polityką i kto wieży że nie jest ona do krzty zepsuta. To również pozycja dla każdego kto w lewicowym sposobie myślenia na temat świata dopatruje się obrony słabszych, uciśnionych i widzi potrzebę laickiego oświecenia. Jeżeli cokolwiek ma zmieniać świat to myśl oparta na potrzebie współpracy na rzecz tego by było nam wszystkim lepiej i sprawiedliwiej, a nie byśmy okopywali się w szowinistycznych enklawach jak dzieje się to coraz częściej obecnie. Z tego też powodu książki takie jak ta Michaela Walzera są ważne.
September 25, 2021
This is a good introduction to foreign policy issues for leftists. I recommend reading it to see where you agree and disagree with Walzer and then formulating your own views on foreign policy from there.
The Contents:
This book is made up of nine essays, adapted to each make up a chapter. There is no original work here — this book is a collection of Walzer's and others' existing views on foreign policy.
In Walzer's view, foreign policy on the left is currently dominated by what he calls "the default position." The default position is roughly this: a leftist government should remain neutral on foreign conflicts and instead focus on inward improvement. This inward improvement will serve as an example for the rest of the world, giving oppressed peoples the tools to pull themselves out of oppression.
Walzer's project in the book is to argue against the default position.
The core of Walzer's own position is that leftists must disengage from Manichean thinking about foreign policy issues, where international conflicts can only be broken down in terms of good and evil actors. Thus, where some on the left see only "America bad, therefore China good," Walzer would have us be critical of American hegemony while denouncing oppressive regimes who happen to be anti-American.
Some of the best work in the book has to do with the limits of humanitarian intervention (largely adapted from Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars) and his insistence that leftist values (e.g. worker's rights, democratic representation, etc) be used as a measuring stick for regimes in the global South, as well as wealthy Western powers.
The Good:
-Walzer rightly argues against the default position and a variety of foreign policy shortcuts adopted by leftists. Shortcuts such as "American is always wrong," "all foreign wars are imperialist and should be opposed on such grounds," or "support every government or movement that describes itself as anti-imperialist."
-This book provides hints of a future where a left-leaning superpower could intervene in principled ways to stifle the spread of authoritarianism and support oppressed peoples around the world.
The Bad:
-Walzer inexplicably seems concerned about religion as a causal factor in global harms. He dismisses the common view on the left that self-identified Islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by material conditions, such as poverty and endless war spurned on by foreign (primarily American) interventions. Walzer rightly calls some leftists out for their overzealous approach towards Islamaphobia, but he never really explains his view that religion is a causal factor for terrorism, rather than material conditions.
-Sometimes it's not clear who Walzer is arguing against. For example, at various points in the book he denounces leftists who think that the Taliban is good because of its anti-imperialist activity. In the final essay, he admonishes leftists who celebrated 9/11 as righteous judgment for American interventionism in the Middle East. However, are there really leftists who seriously believe these things? I have a hard time believing that there are.
Conclusion:
Overall this book is worth reading. For the most part, Walzer argues his points well and, even when you disagree with him, you can still take away useful information.
I also have to separate myself from some reviewers here who have characterized Walzer's foreign policy as liberal or as consistent with the mainstream views of the Democratic Party in the United States. I don't think this is the case and in places where the rhetoric seems similar, that probably has more to do with liberals paying lip service to ideas from *Just and Unjust Wars* (published in 1977) than Walzer modeling his views off of liberal foreign policy.
The Contents:
This book is made up of nine essays, adapted to each make up a chapter. There is no original work here — this book is a collection of Walzer's and others' existing views on foreign policy.
In Walzer's view, foreign policy on the left is currently dominated by what he calls "the default position." The default position is roughly this: a leftist government should remain neutral on foreign conflicts and instead focus on inward improvement. This inward improvement will serve as an example for the rest of the world, giving oppressed peoples the tools to pull themselves out of oppression.
Walzer's project in the book is to argue against the default position.
The core of Walzer's own position is that leftists must disengage from Manichean thinking about foreign policy issues, where international conflicts can only be broken down in terms of good and evil actors. Thus, where some on the left see only "America bad, therefore China good," Walzer would have us be critical of American hegemony while denouncing oppressive regimes who happen to be anti-American.
Some of the best work in the book has to do with the limits of humanitarian intervention (largely adapted from Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars) and his insistence that leftist values (e.g. worker's rights, democratic representation, etc) be used as a measuring stick for regimes in the global South, as well as wealthy Western powers.
The Good:
-Walzer rightly argues against the default position and a variety of foreign policy shortcuts adopted by leftists. Shortcuts such as "American is always wrong," "all foreign wars are imperialist and should be opposed on such grounds," or "support every government or movement that describes itself as anti-imperialist."
-This book provides hints of a future where a left-leaning superpower could intervene in principled ways to stifle the spread of authoritarianism and support oppressed peoples around the world.
The Bad:
-Walzer inexplicably seems concerned about religion as a causal factor in global harms. He dismisses the common view on the left that self-identified Islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by material conditions, such as poverty and endless war spurned on by foreign (primarily American) interventions. Walzer rightly calls some leftists out for their overzealous approach towards Islamaphobia, but he never really explains his view that religion is a causal factor for terrorism, rather than material conditions.
-Sometimes it's not clear who Walzer is arguing against. For example, at various points in the book he denounces leftists who think that the Taliban is good because of its anti-imperialist activity. In the final essay, he admonishes leftists who celebrated 9/11 as righteous judgment for American interventionism in the Middle East. However, are there really leftists who seriously believe these things? I have a hard time believing that there are.
Conclusion:
Overall this book is worth reading. For the most part, Walzer argues his points well and, even when you disagree with him, you can still take away useful information.
I also have to separate myself from some reviewers here who have characterized Walzer's foreign policy as liberal or as consistent with the mainstream views of the Democratic Party in the United States. I don't think this is the case and in places where the rhetoric seems similar, that probably has more to do with liberals paying lip service to ideas from *Just and Unjust Wars* (published in 1977) than Walzer modeling his views off of liberal foreign policy.
August 9, 2023
książka koszmar
amerykański lewicowiec stara się pokazać jakie są błędy lewicy. czasami mówi o lewicy ogólnie, czasem o amerykańskiej a czasem o europejskiej, zależnie od tego co mu podpasuje. jest to książka w której wielkokrotnie się powtarza że wszyscy tylko chcą USA krytykować i to nieładnie, kiedy autor jest praktycznie bezkrytyczny wobec swojego kraju i szkody, które on stworzył i nadal tworzy.
na końcu "niektóre rzeczy nam się udały przede wszystkim walka z nierównościami w naszym kraju i na świecie" ale to się nie udało. nie dotyka wgl tematu nierówności dochodowych i podziału klasowego, na czym - wydaje mi się - opiera się lewicowość.
nie będę opisywać wszystkiego, bo powstałaby z tego kolejna książka.
ale wydaje mi się że muszę poruszyć jego ignorancję w kwestii różności kulturowej. white saviour complex zaślepia go i nie widzi ile szkody wywołały działania amerykańskich wojsk, bo przecież chcieli wprowadzać demokracje, a tak wgl to ISIS jest taki silny nie dlatego że został przyciśnięty do ściany przez Zachód ale dlatego że jest odrodzenie religijne. kiedy mówi o zagrożeniu świata pod postacią islamu nie podaje żadnych statystyk żeby zobaczyć jaka jest to skala, ale mówi o tym jak o niewiadomo jakim zagrożeniu bazując na zamachach które były w Europie, nie przywołuje USA (bo wątek nie pasował, bo w USA nie oni robią zamachy tylko biali ludzie niezwiązani z religią)
nie krytykuje swojej ameryki tak, aby powiedzieć że powinna ona przestać istnieć, tylko że Unia Europejska powinna się postarać być przeciwwagą (ale taką aby wspierać USA).
poza tym dzieli ludzi wyznających jakąś ideę na mądrych i głupich. i oczywiście mądrzy zawsze czynią dobrze (tak jak on chce). nie ma to jak lewica wartościująca ludzi
amerykański lewicowiec stara się pokazać jakie są błędy lewicy. czasami mówi o lewicy ogólnie, czasem o amerykańskiej a czasem o europejskiej, zależnie od tego co mu podpasuje. jest to książka w której wielkokrotnie się powtarza że wszyscy tylko chcą USA krytykować i to nieładnie, kiedy autor jest praktycznie bezkrytyczny wobec swojego kraju i szkody, które on stworzył i nadal tworzy.
na końcu "niektóre rzeczy nam się udały przede wszystkim walka z nierównościami w naszym kraju i na świecie" ale to się nie udało. nie dotyka wgl tematu nierówności dochodowych i podziału klasowego, na czym - wydaje mi się - opiera się lewicowość.
nie będę opisywać wszystkiego, bo powstałaby z tego kolejna książka.
ale wydaje mi się że muszę poruszyć jego ignorancję w kwestii różności kulturowej. white saviour complex zaślepia go i nie widzi ile szkody wywołały działania amerykańskich wojsk, bo przecież chcieli wprowadzać demokracje, a tak wgl to ISIS jest taki silny nie dlatego że został przyciśnięty do ściany przez Zachód ale dlatego że jest odrodzenie religijne. kiedy mówi o zagrożeniu świata pod postacią islamu nie podaje żadnych statystyk żeby zobaczyć jaka jest to skala, ale mówi o tym jak o niewiadomo jakim zagrożeniu bazując na zamachach które były w Europie, nie przywołuje USA (bo wątek nie pasował, bo w USA nie oni robią zamachy tylko biali ludzie niezwiązani z religią)
nie krytykuje swojej ameryki tak, aby powiedzieć że powinna ona przestać istnieć, tylko że Unia Europejska powinna się postarać być przeciwwagą (ale taką aby wspierać USA).
poza tym dzieli ludzi wyznających jakąś ideę na mądrych i głupich. i oczywiście mądrzy zawsze czynią dobrze (tak jak on chce). nie ma to jak lewica wartościująca ludzi
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 6, 2018
Den här boken är ett bra uttryck för vad som är vänsterns problem; den illustrerar tydligt inom vänstern, och är ett exempel på vad som sker när man försöker komma upp med alternativ.
Visionerna som läggs fram här är relativt realistiska och i linje med det sunda förnuftet. Det är de gamla upplysningsidealen som måste återupplivas; politiken som framförs är misstänkt lik någon sorts socialdemokratisk pragmatism. Definitionen av "vänstern" hoppar omkring mellan socialdemokrati och kommunism. Att Walzer skriver utifrån en amerikansk blick torde vara uppenbart.
Vissa råd är handfastare än andra. Det kanske viktigaste som understryks i den här boken är att man måste kunna föra krig på två fronter. Exempelvis går det att vara kritisk mot USA:s ingripande i Vietnam utan att försvara Viet Cong.
Men hur väl går det att sälja Walzers nyanserade, realistiska visioner till massorna?
Jag hade gärna sett att han attackerade den "postmoderna" (i brist på bättre ord) kritiken av gamla upplysningsprojekt (typ Wendy Brown) på samma seriösa vis som han angriper Marxism och annan gammal skåpmat. Istället tycks han vägra att ens gå över på deras planhalva och förstå deras argument. Inte minst blir det tydligt i hur ytligt han hanterar problematiken med det "falska medvetandet". Religionen beskylls för att ha tagit vänsterns plats, men kan det inte vara så att det sker på grund av att vänstern inte har några trovärdiga visioner?
Inte undra på att efterordet är så bittert.
Visionerna som läggs fram här är relativt realistiska och i linje med det sunda förnuftet. Det är de gamla upplysningsidealen som måste återupplivas; politiken som framförs är misstänkt lik någon sorts socialdemokratisk pragmatism. Definitionen av "vänstern" hoppar omkring mellan socialdemokrati och kommunism. Att Walzer skriver utifrån en amerikansk blick torde vara uppenbart.
Vissa råd är handfastare än andra. Det kanske viktigaste som understryks i den här boken är att man måste kunna föra krig på två fronter. Exempelvis går det att vara kritisk mot USA:s ingripande i Vietnam utan att försvara Viet Cong.
Men hur väl går det att sälja Walzers nyanserade, realistiska visioner till massorna?
Jag hade gärna sett att han attackerade den "postmoderna" (i brist på bättre ord) kritiken av gamla upplysningsprojekt (typ Wendy Brown) på samma seriösa vis som han angriper Marxism och annan gammal skåpmat. Istället tycks han vägra att ens gå över på deras planhalva och förstå deras argument. Inte minst blir det tydligt i hur ytligt han hanterar problematiken med det "falska medvetandet". Religionen beskylls för att ha tagit vänsterns plats, men kan det inte vara så att det sker på grund av att vänstern inte har några trovärdiga visioner?
Inte undra på att efterordet är så bittert.
February 28, 2018
A thoughtful, even-handed, sobering critique of the left’s “default” position of isolationism. Walzer argues persuasively that all people on the left should prioritize a foreign policy that seeks to protect, uplift and empower the oppressed, wherever they are in the world. There are humanitarian causes for going to military engagement, he says, and not all American involvement overseas is de facto imperialist or destructive. As important as domestic politics of equality and freedom from hardship and freedom of self-determination are, the principles of democracy, individual freedom, gender rights are all human principles, not just American ones, and everyone is deserving of them.
January 4, 2019
Mostly a collection of previously written essays from Dissent, a leftist magazine. The author has written an essay with the same title of the book that is available online that briefly gives the main arguments in this book. Leftists will find this book interesting for revealing where their stances may be counterproductive in helping to reduce cruelty and promoting the wellbeing of the least advantaged, while those more on the right will appreciate the author's compassion and clear grasp of the facts. The essay on Islam is particularly good.
October 15, 2020
A huge chunk of this book is Walzer railing against people to his left, which includes far more people and tendencies than I was expecting, and, while unpleasant, contained valuable parts. His proposals are a mix of modest, overhaul, short term and long term. I enjoyed his chapters on "the default position", the leftist track record, in defense of humanitarian intervention, and global justice. Before reading this, my feelings about foreign policy were an incoherent cluster. This has definitely helped me think about possible approaches to foreign policy and where I fit among those approaches.
March 2, 2021
A fresh outlook (reminder?) on what leftism stands for according to Walzer. I can’t speak whether the main points he listed are actually shared by leftists around the world but he is able to list all points with examples to back them up. With enough political background knowledge, none of these points should come as a surprise. Some of them feel very idealistic and almost impractical in the real world but it is an interesting read on what leftists should start/continue to fight for.
September 10, 2021
An important read for thinkers on the left side of politics. Its a good luck at why the left doesn't win. The left is too tongue-tied in stepping over the line in tackling isms (racism etc), a fear of offending, while the right is happy to be outspoken and rely on shock media. Ultimately, if you are loud enough you get heard. Essentially, that's what's wrong with left politics.
May 10, 2018
Not quite what I expected, but better. I appreciated his critique of a point of view from within the leftist orientation. There is so much consider from his point of view.
February 25, 2021
Great read. Coherent policy framework that doesn't engage in reality denial.
July 3, 2025
Analiza trafna, choć niezbyt odkrywcza.
June 14, 2020
According to Walzer, leftist foreign policies have exhibited themselves in various exemplifications such as support for revolutionary struggles and national liberations, anti-militarism and isolationism in international conflicts, support for justice and democracy abroad, and, the notion that the U.S. is the source of international wrongs. But these outlooks sometimes betray inconsistencies and show lack of nuances.
Walzer provides in the book a better articulation of what a coherent leftist foreign policy should consist. To support freedom, justice, and, democracy abroad, a commitment to an internationalism of agency is needed by establishing nation states that are decent societies for effectively providing minimal security, rights, and, welfare. For countries that don't offer decent societies, support should be offered to unions, interest groups, local organisations as well as international civil society such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that support leftist humanitarian goals. Walzer also goes into details of humanitarian interventions (seen in his just war doctrine) that the left should support as well as how to work with various regimes, to include leftist ones, that have questionable policies. As in Walzer's other works, his discussions always feature many cases and examples in history to illustrate his points making it not a mere abstract exercise.
Walzer provides in the book a better articulation of what a coherent leftist foreign policy should consist. To support freedom, justice, and, democracy abroad, a commitment to an internationalism of agency is needed by establishing nation states that are decent societies for effectively providing minimal security, rights, and, welfare. For countries that don't offer decent societies, support should be offered to unions, interest groups, local organisations as well as international civil society such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that support leftist humanitarian goals. Walzer also goes into details of humanitarian interventions (seen in his just war doctrine) that the left should support as well as how to work with various regimes, to include leftist ones, that have questionable policies. As in Walzer's other works, his discussions always feature many cases and examples in history to illustrate his points making it not a mere abstract exercise.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews