leninism in the U$A.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I just read an article by Christopher hitchens.



Alas, the purity of his Marxism was soon to be corrupted by the likes of William Kristol and Robert Kagan, whose position was "by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States." Pause to note, then, that even the advocate of the new foreign-policy "realism" feels compelled to borrow the most overused anti-Hegelian line from Karl Marx's

This extract seems to imply that he thinks the Neo cons are using Leninist methods, for their own ends. Obviously they want to continue with capitalism, so what does hitchens mean?

Is he just talking about the theoretical similarities between the neocons and Leninists?

Very confusing for me. :blink:

The article is here, if you want to read it. http://www.slate.com/id/2137134/

ps. I know hitchens is a douche, but still.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The bit you quoted is from Fukuyama....a right wing hack who has jumped of the Neo-Conservative bandwagon.

Granted, quite a few of the most prominent Neo-Conservatives got their political training in the "Trotskyist circles" of the 60's and 70's....but it's important to note here that they were part of the Shachtman milieu which was, essentially, a branch of right-social-democracy that had its roots in Trotskyism.

So whilst the Leninist-Trotskyist paradigm undoubtedly did have some impact on Neo-Conservatism, blaming Trotskyism for Neo-Conservatism is a bit silly....as Hitchens mentions, Fukuyama sounds like a "wooden Stalinist hack". :lol:

Essentially, Leninist-Tortskyism contributed a bit to the Neo-Conservative paradigm, and Shachtman's "bureaucratic collectivism" also contributed to it....but essentially, Leo Strauss was the ideological father of Neo-Conservatism, and he an anti-enlightenment thinker who, in many peoples opinion, was heavily influenced by fascism.


Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham
Obviously they want to continue with capitalism, so what does hitchens mean?

This is where "bureaucratic collectivism" comes in....this theory, from my understanding anyway, essentially stated that a post-capitalist economy would be run by tyrannical bureaucrats.

Adherents of this theory, nearly always ended up siding with "western capitalism"....in effect, all western social-democratic parties acted upon this theory post-1950.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Heya Armchair Socialism.

Thanks for giving me the lowdown.

I’ve read a little bit more, on the subject. It seems to me that the whole relationship between Trotskyism and the neocons is thought of in a slightly conspiracy theorist way.

For example, according to this site, some conservatives think that the neocons are attempting to act out Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art...eocontrotp1.htm (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/0304neocontrotp1.htm)


neoconservatism is derivative of Trotskyism but that a "cabal of Jewish neocons" is manipulating US foreign policy and actually implementing Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution from the White House.

Well, attempting to ignore the anti-Jewish part, this does seem immensely crazy.

However, it is quite interesting, as this part


neoconservatives' belief in "permanent worldwide revolution" owes more to the founder of the Bolshevik Red Army than to "America's forefathers"

Attempts to be suggesting that U$ imperialism is actually revolutionizing the world into liberal democracies.

The article also says that this is a widespread opinion within the academic world.

Totally shocking.

[Amusing Scrotum]

That's a pretty good article you found....it certainly refutes a lot of the myths surrounding Neo-Conservatism, in my opinion anyway.

One point where I differ with Bill King's analysis, is the way in which he almost totally dismisses the influence of Shachtman...."Shachtmanism" may not have contributed to the Neo-Conservative paradigm in any significant way; but I think it would be silly to completely dismiss the idea that being involved in "Shachtmanite circles" didn't influence some of the prominent Neo-Conservatives in any significant way.

Certainly when one considers that nearly all of Shachtman's disciples have gone to the right! :o

I mean it doesn't surprise me that some really prominent hawks came out of a Shachtman influenced organisation. After all, quite a few right-social-democrats have become really right wing in later life....think Oswald Mosley.

Likewise, I think King, who comes across as somewhat "pro" Neo-Conservatism, sidesteps the issue of Irving Kristol a bit....


Originally posted by Bill King
A more sober appraisal of the historical evidence shows that, contrary to the claims of the paleocons, and even some of his own writings, Irving Kristol's Trotskyism was far too peripheral and brief for him to be considered a representative Trotskyist of that era, or even much of a Trotskyist at all....

Undoubtedly, Kristol isn't an "expert" on Trotskyism, but I think being in intellectual circles heavily influenced by Trotskyism must have had more impact on Kritsol's thinking than King admits.

For instance, there's a famous quote from Kristol that goes something like this: there are different truths for different people; a child's truth is different to a teachers, and the truth of the teacher is different to the truth of a politician.

That strikes me as a perceptive, almost Marxist sounding statement....but alas, I&#39;ve not had the time to read any of Kristol&#39;s work, so I don&#39;t know whether he writes "like" a Marxist. Though, thinking about it, that set of essays of his that I regularly see in Waterstones do seem more appealing now&#33; <_<

Basically, as I said, Leo Struass is the main ideological influence behind Neo-Conservatism....and the theories on Trotskyist influence, as King says, are mainly an invention of the paleoconservatives ("old right")....and as a tendency, the old right is known for its anti-semitism.

Though, in a documentary I have called The Power of Nightmares, some guy says that the Neo-Conservatives see themselves as "the vanguard of western capitalism"....protecting it from liberalism and the people.

And that really, is about as far as you could draw a link....and lets face it, that link is really weak because concepts of elite groups looking after the interests of the populace are present in all class society based political paradigms.

Really, what I&#39;ve found is lacking, is a really good critique of Neo-Conservatism....preferably from a Marxist perspective.

Because, Neo-Conservatism seems different to me....it&#39;s not liberalism, or fascism or even traditional conservatism. Rather I think that it&#39;s a paradigm designed to benefit only a few sections of the bourgeois.

In my opinion, it&#39;s no surprise that a few Engineering firms, Oil companies and Military corporations really back Neo-Conservatism heavily....because these sections of bourgeois are going to benefit the most from the Neo-Conservative agenda.

Unfortunately though, I doubt this is something I&#39;ll be able to look into in depth....a proper study would require reading at least two of Strauss&#39; major works, which are likely pretty hard to come by (and expensive&#33;), some of the prominent Neo-Cons of today, some in-depth studies of American politics and so on.

And, that&#39;s a lot of work&#33; <_<

[Amusing Scrotum]

On a side note, using the sly quip well Hitchens and Kristol used to be Trotskyists and now their outright reactionaries, is perfectly decent when a Trotskyist starts moaning about this or that tendency leading to reaction....in fact, I positively encourage such practice&#33; <_<