Christopher Hitchens

[Die Rote Fahne]

...why is he so confusin with his political positions.

Today he still considers himself "a Marxist, but not a socialist".

Wassup with him?

[pierrotlefou]

He's a neocon.

[Die Rote Fahne]

He's a neocon.

Not many neocons still refer to Lenin and Trotsky as great men.

[Chicano Shamrock]

He is a neocon though. I thought he renounced is socialist ideals a while back.

[The Feral Underclass]

People call him a neo-con because he supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. This was done from an anti-theist perspective (and not one that should be supported). He's not actually a neo-conversvative in any other respect.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Oh my bad then.

[Revy]

People call him a neo-con because he supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. This was done from an anti-theist perspective (and not one that should be supported). He's not actually a neo-conversvative in any other respect.

Sam Harris did the same thing.

Although I think Richard Dawkins was against the war in Iraq, not sure about Afghanistan, probably.

[Holden Caulfield]

I love Chris Hitchens and could watch videos of him all day long, mainly because he goes off on Nietzschen polemics and swears alot, oh and becasue he constantly looks pissed.

However the man politics are awful, he is a former member of what would be the SWP when he was in the UK, but later became a neo-conservative. He gives far too much weight to religion in his ideas and thus falls down the same shit hole as Fukuyama and other neocons by not putting economics at the base of things. By doing this he buys, whether he wants to or not, into a concept of autonomous ideas, which is un materialistc and bullshit.

By not putting capitalism first in his analysis he will condem the Islamic resistence in the middle east as some kind of theocratic hive mind that just popped up and that we need to crush for the benafit of all. However would he also say that there is no correlation between imperialism and religious resistence, does he not see the relation? When the British were bleeding Ireland we used much the same excuses, 'we must be there as home rule is Rome rule' because Imperialist opression is better than a theocratic republic.

However these arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. I would like to see Hitchens talk about Tibet for example, would he (as an american neocon) justify Chinese troops putting down resistence as Tibet free would be a theocracy. I think he would do backflips to not have to justify this, something non material thinkers will do time and again.

[Demogorgon]

He is little more than an apologist for the Iraq War these days. A cautionary tale of where that kind of dogmatic anti-theism can lead-and pretty ironic too given it put him in alliance with Christian Fundamentalists.

He was quite amusing when he was on Question Time a few years ago along with his brother (a real right-wing piece of work) and was obviously drunk as a Lord whereas his brother Peter was the pinnacle of respectability yet Christopher still came off better. That made for good television.

[OrganisedRandomness]

He told Rhys Southan from Reason Magazine that he could no longer call himself a socialist, my conclusion is that he is a libertarian heavily influenced by his Marxist youth, someone from the right who isn't afraid to mention Marx every so often - as contradictory as it sounds, that's the best way I can think of looking at it.

[Orwell'sLeftEye]

Well he says that he is a Marxist but not a socialist. And he justifies this by saying that, Global capitalism is more revolutionary and more internationalist than state socialism.

So my view is that he no longer believes in EXISTING socialism (Cuba, North Korea) - However, if that is socialism or not - it's debateable.

[Holden Caulfield]

^
He is a neocon, he isn't a socialist, a marxist or whatever elese he might say, no matter what jargon he uses he is an apologist for US imperialism.

Another thing Mr Rationality does is that he is he gets very loud and shouty when confronted with genuine marxists and starts to use emotional language. He has sold out no doubt, perhaps even he is aware of it

[h9socialist]

Would it save time to just say that Hitchens is a disagreeable fellow with opportunistic tendencies?

[GPDP]

I sometimes wonder how he doesn't buckle under the sheer weight of cognitive dissonance, considering his constant ideological backflips and heavily contradictory statements and positions.

It may be the reason he's always drunk off his ass. Precisely to deal with his poor ideological and opportunistic self-worth.

[Holden Caulfield]

haha what GPGD said is bang on


Would it save time to just say that Hitchens is a disagreeable fellow with opportunistic tendencies?

I think he deserves more criticism and praise

He is a very intelligent man, he is a master orator and I would never want to have to debate him in the public sphere. He also has a brilliant disrespect for the religious right and other religious nuts, which is refreshing. If the man was still on the left I'm sure we would hold him in massively high regard.

However his views are massively biased, they are warped by a slavish support for capitalism and American Imperialism, something he should know better than to support.

It is a case of his good work being drowned in the mire of his shitty political stance. It has no material basis or contextual setting.

But you cannot just write him off as you would with other dickheads like him (Fukuyama and other RAND Corp losers)

[RadioRaheem84]

Hitchens is a liberal-hawk, nothing more. He even refers to liberals as people on the left now like any DC establishment pundit. I remember when he was trying to convince people that Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik were people on the "left" that supported the war. Yes, the same Solidarity member that later pushed for economic shock therapy in his own nation.

It should be noted that while Hitchens never claimed to be a neo-con, he did say that if neo-con meant toppling dictators and replacing them with liberal democracies then sign him up.

[Ismail]

Social-Democrats claimed to be Socialists. It obviously doesn't mean they were. If anyone wants to be an apologist for him, it'd be nice to see his modern "Marxist" works first. Marxist economics, historical materialism, etc.

[spiltteeth]

When you clear away the BS, Hitchens politics are really more in line with Glenn Becks. He's personal friend of several high ups in the world bank (including the former president) and he's just in love with liberalism and the free market and imperialism, despite any confused rhetoric to the contrary.

[The Feral Underclass]

^
He is a neocon, he isn't a socialist, a marxist or whatever elese he might say, no matter what jargon he uses he is an apologist for US imperialism.

Being an apologist for US imperialism doesn't make somebody a neo-conservative.

On what grounds do you make this claim? The fact that he supported the invasion of Iraq is not evidence. Many liberals supported the invasions of Iraq.

While I accept that neo-conservatism can be identified as an ideology which advocates the use of military force to bring about American political and moral values around the world, that is not its sole definition and it's certainly not a philosophy that Hitchen's advocates. He supported the Iraq and Taliban invasions for the simple reason that he thought it was an attack on fundamentalist Islam and theocracy.

For the record, I'm not defending Hitchen's, but if you're going to use words at least use them correctly.

[The Feral Underclass]

It should be noted that while Hitchens never claimed to be a neo-con, he did say that if neo-con meant toppling dictators and replacing them with liberal democracies then sign him up.

Where did he say that?

It sounds to me as if he said it as a retort towards people who use the neo-con label as some form of epithet towards his support of the wars, which to be honest is just a lazy criticism.

[Holden Caulfield]

Being an apologist for US imperialism doesn't make somebody a neo-conservative.


I am not just throwing the name around because I don't understand it. I do, I study IR at university and have for the last year and a half.

I think because of his area of focus, because of where he applies his theories about religion and theocracies he is a neoconservative. He gives some ideological justification for the toppling of 'dictators' and establishment of secular democracies, that is why I wondered what he would say about China/Tibet, and also why I thanked GPGD when they mentioned he is forced to do: "his constant ideological backflips and heavily contradictory statements and positions".

Because of the IR myths his ideas are based on, because of where he directs the ideas he formulates and because of his use of leftist jargon and him attesting to support progressive things: I class him as a neo-conservative.

Sure he doesn't attest to being a neoconservative, many people don't admit to being what they are, many aren't aware of what they are. But even the neo-con RAND Corp don't just come out and say what they are in their publications

[The Feral Underclass]

I think because of his area of focus, because of where he applies his theories about religion and theocracies he is a neoconservative.

I don't see how that follows...


He gives some ideological justification for the toppling of 'dictators' and establishment of secular democracies

Not as an advocate of American political and moral values, and it's that which identifies a neo-conservative. I also give ideological justification for the toppling of dictators and the establishment of secular democracies. Does that make me a neo-conservative?


Because of the IR myths his ideas are based on, because of where he directs the ideas he formulates and because of his use of leftist jargon and him attesting to support progressive things: I class him as a neo-conservative.

You haven't explained why that makes him a neo-conservative. What are these ideas and progressive things for which he attests that make him a neo-conservative?

[RadioRaheem84]

Where did he say that?

It sounds to me as if he said it as a retort towards people who use the neo-con label as some form of epithet towards his support of the wars, which to be honest is just a lazy criticism.

Of course it was a retort. He isn't really a neo-con but strongly aligns himself with them and admires Paul Wolfowitz. Most neo-cons are strongly hawkish in foreign policy and believe that they can curve the US military to enfore peace and stability in the world, while making room for US and other corporations to help prop up the economy. It's naked American Imperialism disguised as a revoltionary force. It's sick. Hitchens is madly deluded if he thinks it was worth supporting.

Iraq wasn't a democracy. It was a land of no-bid contracts, labor union oppression, military occupation and a total free enterprise system that turned the nation into a squalid hellhole. BUT on the plus side it did bring a semblance of democracy to the nation and Baathism was defeated.

Point is the humilation and subjigation of a nation didn't seem to cross the mind of the "leftists" with idealistic illusions of national liberation. :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

I also give ideological justification for the toppling of dictators and the establishment of secular democracies. Does that make me a neo-conservative?Depends on how you formulate the way to do it.

Read Oliver Kamm's Anti-Totalitarianism: The Left Wing Case for a Neo-Conservative Policy.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anti-Totalitarianism-Left-wing-Neoconservative-Foreign/dp/190486306X

Kamm is another "left" pundit supporter of the war. What he really is is just a conventional liberal hawk that hides behind the image of the democratic left to excuse blatant neo-liberal imperialism. There were a ton of these hacks during the run up to war. Norman Geras was another, only he is a Marxist!

Johan Hari was another one, but he totally repented once he noticed just how maniacal the neo-cons really were. He supported the overhaul of the Baathist regime, but did not support the military occupation, the torture, the corruption, the free market casino of contracts, and the continued imposition of Saddam's trade union laws!

[Revy]

The imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan has in fact propped up theocratic regimes. Why is that?

The neo-cons/imperialists never wanted to topple Islamism. They just wanted regimes more palatable to US interests. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship (moderately secular for most of his regime) and the Taliban (a rogue isolationist theocracy) were in fact very different kinds of regimes. So the US has a great ally in Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy and Islamic theocracy) while making friends with the despot in Uzbekistan, Islom Karimov, who has been known to boil Muslims alive. US imperialism often takes contradictory positions while advancing its own hegemonic interests.

The US aided the mujahideen against the Soviet-supported Afghan government, leading to the overthrow of the secular regime and then the rise of the Taliban in 1995 after the Islamists fought between themselves. And that is one of many examples of how US imperialism does not oppose Islam at all. Islam is not an "anti-imperialist" cause and never has been, in the post-9/11 era or before.

[RadioRaheem84]

The imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan has in fact propped up theocratic regimes. Why is that?

The neo-cons/imperialists never wanted to topple Islamism. They just wanted regimes more palatable to US interests. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship (moderately secular for most of his regime) and the Taliban (a rogue isolationist theocracy) were in fact very different kinds of regimes. So the US has a great ally in Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy and Islamic theocracy) while making friends with the despot in Uzbekistan, Islom Karimov, who has been known to boil Muslims alive. US imperialism often takes contradictory positions while advancing its own hegemonic interests.

The US aided the mujahideen against the Soviet-supported Afghan government, leading to the overthrow of the secular regime and then the rise of the Taliban in 1995 after the Islamists fought between themselves. And that is one of many examples of how US imperialism does not oppose Islam at all. Islam is not an "anti-imperialist" cause and never has been, in the post-9/11 era or before.



Iraq and Afghanistan have populations that are very religious. It's only natural that Islamic Parties would win elections. Talibani is only supported by the secular Kurdish left. Karzai was propped up by a phony election and the US.

The neo-cons did believe that they wanted to stop Islamism. It's just that they wanted to use the US military as a force for "good". They thought that the US war machine was big and bad ass enough to provide real world stability. Read the PNAC reports. They also thought big corporations would stabilize the economy of any nation they "liberated" if the country was also fully liberalized.

Think of it as a neo-liberal "revolutionary" ideology. Taking conservatism and making it a romantic revolutionary doctrine.

[RHIZOMES]

Iraq and Afghanistan have populations that are very religious. It's only natural that Islamic Parties would win elections. Talibani is only supported by the secular Kurdish left. Karzai was propped up by a phony election and the US.

The neo-cons did believe that they wanted to stop Islamism. It's just that they wanted to use the US military as a force for "good". They thought that the US war machine was big and bad ass enough to provide real world stability. Read the PNAC reports. They also thought big corporations would stabilize the economy of any nation they "liberated" if the country was also fully liberalized.

Think of it as a neo-liberal "revolutionary" ideology. Taking conservatism and making it a romantic revolutionary doctrine.

Zizek made an interesting observation on this, about how politically the roles have been reversed between the traditional Lacanian definition of "fool" and "knave". Basically without all the barely understandable academic theory, the summation is that back in the old days the centre-left where more concerned with changing things (all the social justice movements etc) while the centre-right where more concerned with preserving the establishment and working within the state and perpetuating old norms. But with the rise of "Third Way" politics and neo-conservatism it's actually now sorta the other way around.

[VILemon]

I won't gain any friends here, but, I love Hitchens. He's an incredible writer (and an incredible lush). His polemical and satirical skill is immense and his writing on religion, while not containing philosophically powerful arguments (there are plenty who have done this better and I don't view him as even attempting such arguments), is quite entertaining and persuasive - again as polemic (which is what it is supposed to be).

Here's a recent article of his on Marx for Atlantic Monthly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/hitchens-marx

[HEAD ICE]

I too enjoy Hitchens for everything other than his politics. Dude is a great writer and my lord I always check to see if he has written something about someone who just died. His appearance on Hannity & Colmes after Jerry Falwell's death is probably the greatest, most hilarious thing ever.

[RadioRaheem84]

But with the rise of "Third Way" politics and neo-conservatism it's actually now sorta the other way around.

This is actually one of Hitchens strongest arguments against the anti-war left. That the left now advocates containment and the status quo whereas the neo-cons and the American right are advocating regime change.

To Hitchen's credit, the logic does lie with him.

Hitchens is a great writer and a great orator. I could listen to him read a phone book. He is an amazing man and a once great leftist. Probably the best out there of that era.

But his philosophical works on religion are really sophmoric. Literally. They were picked apart by my philosophy professor and the class, sophmore year of college.

To be honest, Sam Harris and Hitchens represent the pop-atheist movement that makes more of a compelling argument to be snooty toward religion not challenge it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

When you clear away the BS, Hitchens politics are really more in line with Glenn Becks. He's personal friend of several high ups in the world bank (including the former president) and he's just in love with liberalism and the free market and imperialism, despite any confused rhetoric to the contrary.

Maybe so. However,

Christopher Hitchens > Glenn Beck.

Any. Drunken. Day.

[GatesofLenin]

Would it save time to just say that Hitchens is a disagreeable fellow with opportunistic tendencies?
For sure, he's watching after numero uno = himself. He's gonna spew whatever he needs to bring in more $$$$. :cursing:

[9]

However the man politics are awful, he is a former member of what would be the SWP when he was in the UK, but later became a neo-conservative. He gives far too much weight to religion in his ideas and thus falls down the same shit hole as Fukuyama and other neocons by not putting economics at the base of things. By doing this he buys, whether he wants to or not, into a concept of autonomous ideas, which is un materialistc and bullshit.

By not putting capitalism first in his analysis he will condem the Islamic resistence in the middle east as some kind of theocratic hive mind that just popped up and that we need to crush for the benafit of all. However would he also say that there is no correlation between imperialism and religious resistence, does he not see the relation? When the British were bleeding Ireland we used much the same excuses, 'we must be there as home rule is Rome rule' because Imperialist opression is better than a theocratic republic.

However these arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. I would like to see Hitchens talk about Tibet for example, would he (as an american neocon) justify Chinese troops putting down resistence as Tibet free would be a theocracy. I think he would do backflips to not have to justify this, something non material thinkers will do time and again.

Yes, I think he is a living, breathing illustration of why anti-theism is such a load of liberal nonsense. When religion is viewed as an isolated force to be combated, and not as the product of material conditions, all sorts of incorrect conclusions can and will be drawn from this. Because of this thinking, anti-theists have a penchant for supporting imperialist adventures, and Hitchens is a very good example of this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, I think he is a living, breathing illustration of why anti-theism is such a load of liberal nonsense. When religion is viewed as an isolated force to be combated, and not as the product of material conditions, all sorts of incorrect conclusions can and will be drawn from this. Because of this thinking, anti-theists have a penchant for supporting imperialist adventures, and Hitchens is a very good example of this.

Your point is undermined by the uneducated assumption that what you're describing accounts for all anti-theism. And it doesn't.

[9]

Your point is undermined by the uneducated assumption that what you're describing accounts for all anti-theism. And it doesn't.

No, but anti-theism tends to hold religion as something which needs separate and specific combating beyond simply working to overthrow capitalism/the material conditions that make religious belief desirable. Of course, there are exceptions to this. And I suppose because of the ambiguity and variety of "anarchism", an anarchist has more of an excuse for calling herself an anti-theist than a Marxist does because atheism and an analysis of religion is inherent in Marxism, and the position of an "anarchist" - without explicating beyond "anarchist" - is less than clear in that regard. But I see no reason why "anti-theism" needs its own movement or title. And it seems to me that making it into something of its own, as a classification separate from socialism/communism, implicitly suggests that combating religion is something separate from combating the material conditions that cause religion's appeal.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think because of his area of focus, because of where he applies his theories about religion and theocracies he is a neoconservative.

There was an article in the Guardian a few weeks ago on the split among the Eustonites, where a number of them became outright neocons.

[Demogorgon]

There was an article in the Guardian a few weeks ago on the split among the Eustonites, where a number of them became outright neocons.
Aye, you've got the likes of Nick Cohen now calling for cuts in higher tax bands and saying he may vote Conservative. The Euston Manifesto always was a means for former leftists to proclaim rightist views without having to admit they have betrayed their principles, now some of them are making the next step. The ironic thing about Cohen is that he strongly opposed the Afghan War and mocked suggestions that opposition had anything to do with anti-Americanism (a term he said was a made up phrase used to slander opponents of imperialism). Barely a year later he was loudly backing the Iraq War (and the Afghan War) and calling all its opponents anti-American. What happened there?

Hitchens himself is essentially a neocon too, not merely someone who allied himself with them for a particular cause. That could be seen quite clearly from his performance in the American media over the last several years-at least until he endorsed Obama (though Colin Powell did that too). The neocons took him on as one of their own as well, obviously loving the fact another former leftist had come round to their view.

I believe it was indeed anti-theism that led him to this. He abandoned any kind of class analysis to presume that the more secular side in any conflict was ipso facto superior to the other regardless of other considerations. Look where that got him.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

People call him a neo-con because he supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. This was done from an anti-theist perspective (and not one that should be supported). He's not actually a neo-conversvative in any other respect.
I think you're arguing like an idealist here, not a materialist (something which is also true of Hitchens). If, in the real world, his words and actions have the concrete consquence of strengthening the neo-conservative position, then I don't care whether, in the strange world of Hitchens' head, he's still a quasi-Trot neo-Marxist or whatever other label he wishes to use, for all practical intents and purposes he's a neo-con.
I thought this (http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/03/im-right-wing.html) did an excellent job of demolishing the absurdity of "left-wingers" like Cohen, Hitchens and Aaronovitch.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think you're arguing like an idealist here, not a materialist (something which is also true of Hitchens). If, in the real world, his words and actions have the concrete consquence of strengthening the neo-conservative position, then I don't care whether, in the strange world of Hitchens' head, he's still a quasi-Trot neo-Marxist or whatever other label he wishes to use, for all practical intents and purposes he's a neo-con.
I thought this (http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/03/im-right-wing.html) did an excellent job of demolishing the absurdity of "left-wingers" like Cohen, Hitchens and Aaronovitch.

Further to that, neo-conservatism is not alien to the left-wing tradition.

Strauss, the father of neo-con philosophy was in his youth a trotskyist. In fact even many modern neo-cons, including people like Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld were taught by and followed the philosphy of for significant parts of their lives, schachtmanists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Neoconservatism is the shameful legacy of the fusion of New Left politics and American Trotskyism. It is the "permanent revolution" of imperial bourgeois interests.

[Demogorgon]

Neoconservatism is the shameful legacy of the fusion of New Left politics and American Trotskyism.
Sad though it is to admit, there is more than a little truth to that. A lot of the originators of neoconservatism did come from precisely that background and moved to the right for reasons we have discussed. Of course the largest number of neocons today are just the standard right wing jingoists flocking around their latest banner.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I meant to drop that one-liner before some Stalin-kiddie shouted "Trotskyite-fascist wrecker." ;) Neoconservatism is its adherents' adaptation of "permanent revolution" to bourgeois interests.

[Crux]

Iraq wasn't a democracy. It was a land of no-bid contracts, labor union oppression, military occupation and a total free enterprise system that turned the nation into a squalid hellhole. BUT on the plus side it did bring a semblance of democracy to the nation and Baathism was defeated.

Point is the humilation and subjigation of a nation didn't seem to cross the mind of the "leftists" with idealistic illusions of national liberation. :rolleyes:
These very much echoes the betrayal of the leaders of the german social democracy when WW1 broke out, bowing down to the Kaizer and german big capital to help send thousands upon thousands into the hell of war, all this being justified as a struggle against "russian barbarism". Ans isn't that the ultimate idealism assigning german imperilism, or US imperialism as the defenders of freedom and democracy?

[Orwell'sLeftEye]

Neoconservatism is the shameful legacy of the fusion of New Left politics and American Trotskyism. It is the "permanent revolution" of imperial bourgeois interests.

New Left politics? are you for real?

[Demogorgon]

New Left politics? are you for real?
He is referring to the fact that a lot of the original neocons came from the New Left.

[Orwell'sLeftEye]

A lot? I think you're exagggerating. And even if you don't, that means nothing. The New left, as a movement, had nothing to do with pro-imperial, militaristic, radical nationalist hawks. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Just because a bunch of opportunistic idiots who happened to be part of the movement - sold out, doesn't say anything about the movement itself.

[RED DAVE]

Neoconservatism is the shameful legacy of the fusion of New Left politics and American Trotskyism. It is the "permanent revolution" of imperial bourgeois interests.Sorry, Comrade, but you are wrong.

It is true that several of the neocons, Josh Muravchick, Tom Kahn and Penn Kemble come to mind, were Schactmanites (not Trotskyists). However, the phenomenon of left-wingers becoming right-wingers is nothing new. Mussolini was at one time a prominent Italian socialist.

In truth, the strongest elements of independent socialism fought against these scum, who were part of Schactman's move to the right. These left-wing elements comprise, to this day, bona fide socialist organizations such as Solidarity and the ISO.

RED DAVE

[Led Zeppelin]

I won't gain any friends here, but, I love Hitchens. He's an incredible writer (and an incredible lush). His polemical and satirical skill is immense and his writing on religion, while not containing philosophically powerful arguments (there are plenty who have done this better and I don't view him as even attempting such arguments), is quite entertaining and persuasive - again as polemic (which is what it is supposed to be).

Here's a recent article of his on Marx for Atlantic Monthly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904/hitchens-marx

That's a good article, and yes, he's clearly a gifted writer.

Then again, I believe Marquis de Sade was a gifted writer as well, but I don't particularly have any interest in ascribing to his moral standards.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

On the Hitch, check this out:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/01/christopher-hitchens-dossier.html

[RadioRaheem84]

Mussolini was at one time a prominent Italian socialist.

As were most Italian Fascist theoreticians.



It is true that several of the neocons, Josh Muravchick, Tom Kahn and Penn Kemble come to mind, were Schactmanites (not Trotskyists).

Yeah they formed a now defunct party in the States called Social Democrats USA. A sort of third way political party that wrote an open letter to President Bush to liberate Iraq.

There is also an online publication that's published every quarter by Dissent Magazine called Democratiya. It's a hawkish site for social democrats to complement themselves on being the "sensible" left and the inheritors of the anti-totalitarian left. Bunch a bullshit if you ask me.

When a hedge fund manager, Oliver Kamm, calls himself a leftist and Tony Blair is considered a hero of the left, then something is fucking wrong with whats considered left in Western Europe! As bad as it is in the US, I had no idea that Western was likewise suffering from this same delusion.
These idiot social democrats wine and dine with fat cat capitalists and enjoy the comfort of luxury while they cling to the idea of the being "left" as a way of appearing anti-establishment. Fuck Hitchens!

[Orwell'sLeftEye]

As were most Italian Fascist theoreticians.




Yeah they formed a now defunct party in the States called Social Democrats USA. A sort of third way political party that wrote an open letter to President Bush to liberate Iraq.

There is also an online publication that's published every quarter by Dissent Magazine called Democratiya. It's a hawkish site for social democrats to complement themselves on being the "sensible" left and the inheritors of the anti-totalitarian left. Bunch a bullshit if you ask me.

When a hedge fund manager, Oliver Kamm, calls himself a leftist and Tony Blair is considered a hero of the left, then something is fucking wrong with whats considered left in Western Europe! As bad as it is in the US, I had no idea that Western was likewise suffering from this same delusion.
These idiot social democrats wine and dine with fat cat capitalists and enjoy the comfort of luxury while they cling to the idea of the being "left" as a way of appearing anti-establishment. Fuck Hitchens!

I am sure that most Western European Leftists would VEHEMENTLY deny that Tony Blair is a hero of the left. Tony Benn (who I assume you know) can be considered a hero of the left, yes. Tony Blair is a joke and everybody on the left in Western Europe knows that (people from the UK, I'm sure, can assure you of this)

America - god damn I get mad when I watch your news. Using words like Socialist to scare people is the most annoying thing ever. No wait that's not right. The fact that it works is the most annoying thing ever. People actually get scared!!!

Please oh please do not compare Europe to America in that respect. Europe always had a very strong left. Check France, Italy, Greece, even Germany. Very high % of leftists - much much higher than America where the term Leftist or Socialist is considered an insult or something :S

[RadioRaheem84]

I am sure that most Western European Leftists would VEHEMENTLY deny that Tony Blair is a hero of the left. Tony Benn (who I assume you know) can be considered a hero of the left, yes. Tony Blair is a joke and everybody on the left in Western Europe knows that (people from the UK, I'm sure, can assure you of this)

America - god damn I get mad when I watch your news. Using words like Socialist to scare people is the most annoying thing ever. No wait that's not right. The fact that it works is the most annoying thing ever. People actually get scared!!!

Please oh please do not compare Europe to America in that respect. Europe always had a very strong left. Check France, Italy, Greece, even Germany. Very high % of leftists - much much higher than America where the term Leftist or Socialist is considered an insult or something :S


Yeah I get pissed when people refer to Obama and Clinton as people of the left here in the States. But that's as far left as a politician is allowed to go in our restrictive center-right country. Hillary Clinton ran around the nation calling her self a new-progressive! :lol: Apparently, she was so progressive that Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary if John McCain won the Republican nomination.

Ralph Nader was shunned. Dennis Kucinich, ridiculed. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, made unknown. The list goes on. These men would be rather mainstream politicans in your country.

Hitchens jumped on the pundit bandwagon and began referring to mainstream Democrats as people of the "left".

*Of course Tony Benn is a good man of the left. An old Labor type.

[Orwell'sLeftEye]

Yeah I get pissed when people refer to Obama and Clinton as people of the left here in the States. But that's as far left as a politician is allowed to go in our restrictive center-right country. Hillary Clinton ran around the nation calling her self a new-progressive! :lol: Apparently, she was so progressive that Ann Coulter said she would campaign for Hillary if John McCain won the Republican nomination.

Ralph Nader was shunned. Dennis Kucinich, ridiculed. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, made unknown. The list goes on. These men would be rather mainstream politicans in your country.

Hitchens jumped on the pundit bandwagon and began referring to mainstream Democrats as people of the "left".

Hilary Clinton, Ann Coulter? Dear God, I think I'll take Tony Blair :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, Comrade, but you are wrong.

It is true that several of the neocons, Josh Muravchick, Tom Kahn and Penn Kemble come to mind, were Schactmanites (not Trotskyists). However, the phenomenon of left-wingers becoming right-wingers is nothing new. Mussolini was at one time a prominent Italian socialist.

Actually, I see leftists-turned-neoconservatives as the farce to the tragedy of the likes of Mussolini and Sorel. Trotsky's focus on "action, action, action" and "agitate, agitate, agitate" while maintaining mere sects was something shared by Luxemburg, Korsch, Gorter, Bogdanov, etc. and borrowed from Sorel and Bakunin. The leftists who became neocons did so because they saw no mass actions by workers, in spite of all their agitational efforts. [Of course, they conveniently forget education and organization.]

[RadioRaheem84]

Old Schactmanite website:
http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/oldsite/index.html


Nevertheless, we strongly support the determined measures, including the use of U.S. military force, that will almost certainly be required to deal with Saddam Hussein.
http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/oldsite/Iraq.html

Open letter to President Bush:
http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/oldsite/IraqLetter3.html

Interesting Platform:
http://torchandrose.socialdemocratsusa.org/webed/vol1issue01.shtml#article3

Apparently they think groups that are to the left of them are Stalinist and that they're in bed with Jihadists. These other communist groups see North Korea as a model for progress. Oh and Israel is a democratic haven that must be defended at all costs. :rolleyes:

They claim to be the successors to Eugene Debs too.
http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/youngsocialdemocrats.shtml

Their new site is much more "lefty" and less hawkish.

[what's left?]

I dont know if there's been a post about him but he's a former marxist, at a time trotskyist journalist and now famous for his atheist views. Just out of curiousity what's your take on him, any thougts on the guy....

[Led Zeppelin]

Merged threads.

[VILemon]

Further to that, neo-conservatism is not alien to the left-wing tradition.

Strauss, the father of neo-con philosophy was in his youth a trotskyist. In fact even many modern neo-cons, including people like Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld were taught by and followed the philosphy of for significant parts of their lives, schachtmanists.

Strauss, although definitely a father of neo-conservatism was never a trot. He was a Platonist (the "noble lie" and the just city etc.). I think you must be thinking of Irving Kristol who was both a trot and a neo-con.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMTupcRri-c&feature=related

Hitchens vid from 1988! He knew that being called a liberal was pretty much a dirty word to a socialist or anyone on the left, but today he regards to liberals as people of the left? Has he just compromised in order to win favor in the American media or is this a product of 'third way' politics totally pushing them left out of the mainstream?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am sure that most Western European Leftists would VEHEMENTLY deny that Tony Blair is a hero of the left. Tony Benn (who I assume you know) can be considered a hero of the left, yes. Tony Blair is a joke and everybody on the left in Western Europe knows that (people from the UK, I'm sure, can assure you of this)

America - god damn I get mad when I watch your news. Using words like Socialist to scare people is the most annoying thing ever. No wait that's not right. The fact that it works is the most annoying thing ever. People actually get scared!!!

Please oh please do not compare Europe to America in that respect. Europe always had a very strong left. Check France, Italy, Greece, even Germany. Very high % of leftists - much much higher than America where the term Leftist or Socialist is considered an insult or something :S

Aye, I can assure you that Tony Blair is the anti-christ as far as the real left here is concerned. He is a part of the neo-liberal group of power hungry politicians who have taken over the legacy of Thatcher and Reagan and expanded it across Europe over the past 10-20 years.

[RadioRaheem84]

Aye, I can assure you that Tony Blair is the anti-christ as far as the real left here is concerned. He is a part of the neo-liberal group of power hungry politicians who have taken over the legacy of Thatcher and Reagan and expanded it across Europe over the past 10-20 years.


Much like Clinton and even to some extent Obama.

To credit Hitchens in his interview with Reason Magazine he so splendidly put it:


But there is no such thing as a radical left anymore . [I]�a n’existe pas. The world of Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson, let’s say, has all been, though it doesn’t realize it, hopelessly compromised by selling out to Clintonism. It became, under no pressure at all, and with no excuse, and in no danger, a voluntary apologist for abuse of power.
It couldn’t wait to sell out. It didn’t even read the small print or ask how much or act as if it were forced under pressure to do so. I don’t think they’ve realized how that’s changed everything for them. They’re not a left. They’re just another self-interested faction with an attitude toward government and a hope that it can get some of its people in there. That makes it the same as everyone else -- only slightly more hypocritical and slightly more self-righteous.


He is right. The left as it once was had capitulated to third way cronyism and liberal self righteous causes. Then again it could be said that the start of this was with Carter.

[Drace]

I just watched a debate with him and some Indian guy.

I couldn't understand what the f he was talking about

[RadioRaheem84]

I just watched a debate with him and some Indian guy.

I couldn't understand what the f he was talking about

Do you mean Dinesh D'Souza? Which one? They've been debating for years. Strange is that they've made a career of rehashing the same arguments for all that time.

Also, sometimes Hitchens has a habit of totally making up stuff or creating unecessary moral arguments and attacking the other person for not agreeing with his stance. I find it surprising that he can do this on both sides of the arguments without flinching. Makes me question whether he was serious at all in his career or if it was all just an mind game to him (or a total mind fuck to everyone else).

It should be noted that this scene was cut from a major documentary on the Iraq invasion because the director had no idea of what he was talking about, hinting that what Hitchens was saying had no basis in reality.

[RedSonRising]

Neoconservatism is the shameful legacy of the fusion of New Left politics and American Trotskyism. It is the "permanent revolution" of imperial bourgeois interests.

Would you mind explaining what you mean here? As in, how the fusion allows similarities in the ideologies to compliment each other?

[Drace]

Do you mean Dinesh D'Souza? Which one? They've been debating for years. Strange is that they've made a career of rehashing the same arguments for all that time.

Also, sometimes Hitchens has a habit of totally making up stuff or creating unecessary moral arguments and attacking the other person for not agreeing with his stance. I find it surprising that he can do this on both sides of the arguments without flinching. Makes me question whether he was serious at all in his career or if it was all just an mind game to him (or a total mind fuck to everyone else).

It should be noted that this scene was cut from a major documentary on the Iraq invasion because the director had no idea of what he was talking about, hinting that what Hitchens was saying had no basis in reality.Yeah it was him. I am not sure where I found the video, I think it was in posted here somewhere...

But really wow, I'd be surprised when he actually mentioned something that had to do with the economic system. I mean, I don't even think he was discussing history or philosophy. Just some random bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you're arguing like an idealist here, not a materialist (something which is also true of Hitchens). If, in the real world, his words and actions have the concrete consquence of strengthening the neo-conservative position, then I don't care whether, in the strange world of Hitchens' head, he's still a quasi-Trot neo-Marxist or whatever other label he wishes to use, for all practical intents and purposes he's a neo-con.

Has Hitchen's views strengthened neo-conservatism? He agreed with one aspect of their foreign policy and from a completely different perspective. I think you're attributing far more weight to Hitchen's views that they deserve. As far as I'm aware (although prove me wrong), he never once came out saying: "Viva US political and moral values! That's what Iraq and Afghanistan really need! Yay to American intervention!", or any words to that effect. I don't really see how your views follow to the actual reality of the situation...

[Invader Zim]

George Galloway's finnest moment was when he described Hitchens as a drink soaked popenjay, and stated that he was unique in natural history as the only butterfly that has metamorphasised back into a slug.

[Holden Caulfield]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...14963382152969 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...14963382152969)

Hitchens vs Galloway. Classic