Was or is Christopher Hitchens a Socialist ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Was or is Christopher Hitchens a Socialist/Marxist/Trotskyist ?

Christopher Hitchens debates Dinesh D'Souza on "Is Socialism Obsolete?" 1989 Segment 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aytdi6pWyM4

Why Christopher Hitchens Called Himself a Trotskyist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pkWQ-DwgmA&feature=fvwrel

Reflects on the intellectual underpinnings of socialism and discusses its evolution within the British Labour Party, from Clement Attlee’s administration following World War II, to Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power, and finally to Tony Blair’s creation of New Labour.

What was it about socialism that first attracted you to it?
My motives, in short, would have been a dislike for the class system and for the attitudes that it instilled not in its victims but in the people who thought they benefited from it -- a suspicion of those who felt entitled to inherited privilege, of whom I was not one, and; an intense dislike for the British conservative party. That was the impulse. There's a big difference, as I'm sure you know, it's a slightly manneristic one, between people of the '60s and people of '68. Being a soixante-huitard -- it's so nice to have a French word for it -- is very different from just having happened to been a baby boomer in the '60s. That's the difference between myself say, and Bill Clinton, I suppose. What I was signed up for in '68 was what I thought then was the beginning of something. But I now see was the end of something. I took part in what was actually the last eruption of Marxist internationalism. We really thought that year, there was going to be a revolution. Well, indeed there was revolution everywhere from Vietnam to Czechoslovakia.
I joined a small but growing post-Trotskyite Luxembourgist sect. Well, not a sect actually. It was a faction called the international socialists. I gave a good deal of my life to that before realizing that in fact the '68 upheaval was the last flare-up, the last refulgence of this and not the beginning of a new wave.

http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/interviews_hitchens.html


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens%27s_political_views

[#FF0000]

I think at one point he was, but yeah, no he's not a communist or Marxist now. Dude makes bank on justifying American wars all the time.

[L.A.P.]

He still calls himself a "Marxist" but not a Socialist and believes globalization is internationalist plus saying that "Marx failed to realize how revolutionary capitalism could be". He gives meaning to the term social gadfly or better yet, political troll.

[Thug Lessons]

He used to be a Trot and carried out the long-standing Trot doctrine of betrayal, as outlined by Trotsky's extended confession The Revolution Betrayed.

[Ocean Seal]

Both the Hitchens brothers were once socialists, and today they are both capitalists. Nowadays Hitchens is more of an Imperialist Trollist.

[Chirstopher Hitchens]
I like to bomb people because bombing them makes them more secular/ democratic. Killing those statist religious zealots is a good thing because they have it coming.
Not actual quotes

To be honest, the man isn't even a liberal. He's a hawkish imperialist who's probably to the right of the late Bush.

[CommieTroll]

I think he followed Trotskyism in collage and took part is anti-Stalin socialism but then he got some money and his views went out the window with his dignity

[JerryBiscoTrey]

I remember him saying in one interview that he was a member of a Trotskyist-Luxemburgist(whatever that means) political organization. But now he is quite conservative and vehemently defended Bush and the Iraq war

[Jazzratt]

He's a hawkish imperialist who's probably to the right of the late Bush. Wait, when did one of the Bushes die?

[hatzel]

Wait, when did one of the Bushes die?

I assume he meant Donie Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donie_Bush) :)

[pluckedflowers]

I've always enjoyed the takedown of Hitchens by As'ad Abu Khalil at angryarab [dot] blogspot [dot] com. If you search for Hitchens you should be able to find it pretty easily. I can't link because I'm new here.

In any case, yeah, he's a former leftist and good evidence for former leftists being the lowest possible form of life

eta: Though I suppose D'souza does sort of complicate my thesis on the lowest form of life.

[RGacky3]

most ex leftists were trotskyists.

[Sir Comradical]

I'd love to smash Dinesh D'Souza's head in with a baseball bat. As for Hitchens, although I abhor his views, for some reason I have a soft sport for him. I can't explain why. Perhaps it's his style.

[SpineyNorman]

Hitchens was once both eloquent and thought provoking even if you didn't agree with him. Now he's just tedious, odious and predictable.

There is, however, a ray of sunshine breaking though the clouds - the Hitch has recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty form of cancer so we hopefully won't have to tolerate his literary flatulence for much longer.

[Ocean Seal]

Wait, when did one of the Bushes die?
Hehe, I was referring to Bush Jr., I actually just learned that when using the word late it refers to someone who died, I thought it just referred to someone who is most recent in memory. Thank you for correcting me though.

[Aspiring Humanist]

He's an imperialist scumbag who supported the war in iraq + afghanistan. He also supported CIA waterboarding until he got waterboarded himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58

If thats socialism I'm no socialist

[RadioRaheem84]

What was to like about this blatant opportunism?

That debate he had with Dinesh on Socialism was so fucking laughable.

Hitchens made no sense and attacking Dinesh's arguments should've been easy for any real Marxist to break apart.

The man was always a fraud.

[reformnow88]

yea i saw some old videos of him when i guess he claimed to be a trotskyist or whatever but he never really said why... now if u watch him he just talks about how bombing third world countries to fight terrorism is completely justified if he talked about trotsky and the revolution betrayed im pretty he ended up betraying the revolution anyways

[RGacky3]

btw, a lot of neocons were ex trots ... as was this dude.

[dernier combat]

btw, a lot of neocons were ex trots ... as was this dude.
oh god I can just see where this shit is going

[Per Levy]

btw, a lot of neocons were ex trots ... as was this dude.

and? why do you mention it twice in this thread? btw the neoliberal greens in germany have a lot of ex maoists and ex marxist-leninists in their high ranks, heck even anarchists can be opportunistic assholes. no tendency is free from opportunism.

[RGacky3]

and? why do you mention it twice in this thread?

Because there might be a connection, I don't know.


btw the neoliberal greens in germany have a lot of ex maoists and ex marxist-leninists in their high ranks, heck even anarchists can be opportunistic assholes. no tendency is free from opportunism.

I don't think its opportunism, I think his imperialism is something he actually believes in, but sure, opportunism is one thing, but full on ideological shifts is another.


oh god I can just see where this shit is going

I'm against trots, marxist-leninists, maoists, and so on, but there is something about the trotskyite version of marxism, to where this happens a lot.

[dernier combat]

but there is something about the trotskyite version of marxism, to where this happens a lot.
Correlation is not causality.

[RGacky3]

Not always, but it could be.

[Jazzratt]

It seems to me a lot of these ex-trots tended to be trotskyites in university and went on to be in academics and a lot of non-jobs that kept them quite divorced from the proletarian mileau. It's no surprise really, when you look at it like that, why these people did what they did.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not always, but it could be.
Correlation, by definition, cannot imply causality at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[Imposter Marxist]

All Trotskyists become Neocons.

The life cycle of Trotskyism.
1) Find a revolution, a revolutionary movement, or a revolutionary ideology.
2) Condemn it with all your power.
3) Disagree with half of party, massive split!
4) Turn into Neo-Con, use your past to condemn "Marxism!"
just trolling!

[RGacky3]

Correlation, by definition, cannot imply causality at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE.


(though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation can be a hint).

Read your links.

[Android]

Yeah, Hitchens was in International Socialists when he was at Oxford University. Actually him and Terry Eagleton were in the same IS branch. Interesting considering how they are fierce opponents of each other today in the God debate. Eagleton has recounted on numerous occasions how back then he was known as Chris, the Christopher bit only came when he started going up in the world. Eagleton's review of Hitchens work are quite hard hitting.

Like a previous poster I have a soft spot for Hitchens for some reason, even though I find his politics abhorrent and do not really have that much time for the New Atheism crowd.

Also, Hitchens is currently terminally ill with cancer.

[Thirsty Crow]

Read your links.
O really? :


Not always, but it could be.You stated here that "correlation can be causation".
Now go back to that paragraph and read it carefully.

[RGacky3]

yes, in other words, corrolation can be due to causation, or it could not.

[RadioRaheem84]

What is with the whole "globalization is a force for development and it must be revered with awe" position Hitchens and some other "Marxists" I've heard take.

Meghnad Desai, a "Marxist" academic was nearly booed off a panel discussion with David Harvey and other Marxists, when he mocked the chant Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min, and the protests of the sixties and how we should all revere the free market's powerful development and transformative qualities.

He literally made the audience go buck wild and hurl insults at him.

So what is it with former Marxists or even Marxists like Desai, Norman Geras and Hitchens wishing for acceptance from the mainstream by mocking leftists for failing to see the transformative power of globalization and the humanitarianism of the US Army?

I hate to really be a prick about this, but why do a lot of them happen to be British too? A lot of the idealism of the leftish rhetoric stems from people closely associated to but not part of other leftist groups like the Euston Manifesto group.

The "anti-totalitarian" leftists and leftists who mock other leftists for not seeing the changing power of capitalism, as they claim Marx would have (and also would've supported Western intervention into the third world).

[Publius]

Correlation, by definition, cannot imply causality at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Correlation doesn't imply causation but causation implies correlation.

[Rafiq]

To be fair, you don't necessarily have to be a Socialist to be a Marxist.

[The Idler]

I think you mean you don't have to be a Marxist to be a Socialist.
And Christopher Hitchens used to write for Socialist Worker, so I rest my case.

[bailey_187]

I think you mean you don't have to be a Marxist to be a Socialist.
.

No, i think he meant what he said. Hitchens accepts certain parts of Marx's analysis but doesnt accept socialism as the future. Whether or not he is a "true Marxist", i dont care for such debates, as if "Marxist" is any sort of strict category in the first place

[Rafiq]

I think you mean you don't have to be a Marxist to be a Socialist.
And Christopher Hitchens used to write for Socialist Worker, so I rest my case.

No, I didn't mean that.

Karl Marx was more than just a commie.

He invented a Science, that of which is used to study the history of human civilization.

[The Idler]

You don't have to be Socialist to be Marxian (which denotes acceptance of some theories). You do have to be Socialist to be Marxist (which is a much broader term).

[Red Future]

Who was that Trotskyite who later became a key conservative ?? Not in the 1990s with the neocons but in the 1930s??

[hatzel]

Who was that Trotskyite who later became a key conservative ?? Not in the 1990s with the neocons but in the 1930s??

Oh yeah I get it that's really funny :bored:

[Red Future]

Jesus Christ this is complex

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/trees/ustree.htm

[Rafiq]

You don't have to be Socialist to be Marxian (which denotes acceptance of some theories). You do have to be Socialist to be Marxist (which is a much broader term).

You just contradicted yourself.


Anyway, you don't have to be a socialist to be a Marxist.

Hell, I don't even know if Marx today would call himself a Socialist. Socialism and Communism are just things he hitched a ride on to use as a tool for the workers to take power.

I mean, yes, I'm a Socialist, (you could say), but I still firmly believe that we need to ditch the 'history' and re-invent communism (Similar to what Slevoj Zizek blabbers out).

[Red Future]

Oh yeah I get it that's really funny :bored:

Sounds stupid and sectarian, but this actually was the case with one of the US Trotskyists..his name just escapes my memory.:confused: