Christopher Hitchens

[Spasiba]

What can you tell me about this guy? He seems... weird? Sometimes rightist, sometimes leftist?



I should also add its great to see how members have joined recently, and hopefully I'll get more active here, and go back to some unanswered posts of mine.

[Die Neue Zeit]

He's a Eustonite social-fascist extraordinaire.

[BlackCapital]

I have seen him several times and thought the exact same thing.

Apparently he is a democratic Socialist and former Trotskyist. He left the far political left after 9/11 and now sympathizes with foreign interventionism, but still calls himself socialist. He is anti-theist (wrote God Is Not Great), hates the Clinton's and Henry Kissinger, ect.

Very weird guy

[Diagoras]

By his own comments anyway, he was some sort of trot for quite some time. While he is still (I think?) economically some sort of leftist, he found himself supporting Wolfowitz-style neoconservatism (at least in ideals) as a means of spreading democracy and fighting fundamentalist religious governments (after 9/11). I read a faux-bituary of Hitchens a little while back mourning the loss on 9/11/01 of the "progressive Christopher we knew". It was by another Nation writer, I think.

[Post-Something]

Wow! I was just reading a couple articles he wrote just now!

His story is pretty much this:

He started off as a Trotskyist, joining the IST, as a result of the Vietnam war etc. (Funnily enough, so did his ultra-conservative brother, but that's another issue). Hitchens got more involved with the left, and began writing articles in the ISJ, and he was a prominent figure in the British Trotskyist movement. He started doing various journalistic things, and criticizing various leaders. Then he sort of got annoyed at the left, and that escalated especially after 9/11. He had an interesting debate with Chomsky actually, about the nature of Islamic fundamentalism, and what to do; which you can find easily online.

Then, basically, he pretty much renounced his Socialist past, and started getting interested in American interventionist policies, notably his support for the Iraq war. He's pretty much a neo-conservative now.

Another point of interest would be his anti-religious stance. Him and Richard Dawkins are pretty much the most recognised living British atheists today, and he's been in various debates concerning religion and it's impacts.

Overall, he's a traitor, and he never really articulated why he "left the left". I actually don't like his debating style that much either, but if you're interested, he has a lot of videos up on youtube. Also, he has appeared on the British TV programme "Question Time", which might be worth checking out.


Hope this helps :)

[Spasiba]

Thanks, that helps a lot!


Wow! I was just reading a couple articles he wrote just now!

Overall, he's a traitor, and he never really articulated why he "left the left".
Weird.

I wish I knew what made him, and other former leftists, change. A quick wiki look says he not only still calls himself a socialist, but defended Trotsky recently too.

And speaking of writing articles, any good papers or the like I should be aware of? The Nation is liberal, yes?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most ex-Trotskyites-turned-neocons thankfully fulfilled Marx's dictum about tragedy and farce: they're the multiple farces to the tragic renegacies of Second International figures like Kautsky. [In other words, unlike with pre-renegade Kautsky, don't bother with what Horowitz wrote as a Trot, for example. :) ]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check out these take-downs of Hitchens:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, there are plenty of ex-communists who go the same way, too!

In fact, there are hundreds of thousands in the old USSR alone.

[Die Neue Zeit]

By "Trotskyite[-fascist wrecker]," Rosa, please note that I don't mean honest Trots like yourself. :)

[benhur]

There's nothing weird about Hitchens. He's a realist, unlike most self-proclaimed leftists here and elsewhere. People say he was annoyed with leftists. Who wouldn't be, especially when we find leftists reaching out to reactionaries like taliban/hamas:rolleyes: (even on this forum), expressing selective outrage (blame US, but don't say a word about Saudi or any theocratic societies), and all the rest of that hypocritical stuff?

At least, Hitchens is consistent. He's left-wing in his economic policies, and because his foreign policies don't coincide with the usual, naive leftist rhetoric (that of offering 'support' to taliban and other despicable reactionaries), he's being conveniently branded as a Muslim hater, neocon, fundamentalist, and what else not.

Truth is, Hitchens is smarter than all of you.

[Post-Something]

I wish I knew what made him, and other former leftists, change. A quick wiki look says he not only still calls himself a socialist, but defended Trotsky recently too.

Protip: It doesn't pay to be a communist.

And about being a "socialist", he even said himself:


In 2001, however, he told Rhys Southan of Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) magazine that he could no longer say "I am a socialist". Socialists, he claimed, had ceased to offer a positive alternative to the capitalist system. Capitalism had become the more revolutionary economic system, and he welcomed globalisation as "innovative and internationalist". He suggested that he had returned to his early, pre-socialist libertarianism, having come to attach great value to the freedom of the individual from the state and moral authoritarians.

But, that was to "Reason", so who knows. The best way to judge is to actually look at who he supports, and along those lines, he is no leftist.


And speaking of writing articles, any good papers or the like I should be aware of? The Nation is liberal, yes?

Yup.

[Post-Something]

There's nothing weird about Hitchens. He's a realist, unlike most self-proclaimed leftists here and elsewhere. People say he was annoyed with leftists. Who wouldn't be, especially when we find leftists reaching out to reactionaries like taliban/hamas:rolleyes: (even on this forum), expressing selective outrage (blame US, but don't say a word about Saudi or any theocratic societies), and all the rest of that hypocritical stuff?

At least, Hitchens is consistent. He's left-wing in his economic policies, and because his foreign policies don't coincide with the usual, naive leftist rhetoric (that of offering 'support' to taliban and other despicable reactionaries), he's being conveniently branded as a Muslim hater, neocon, fundamentalist, and what else not.

Truth is, Hitchens is smarter than all of you.

What are you talking about? He's dreadfully inconsistent! And he labled himself as a neo-con by the way.

On a more important note though, how is support for the Iraq war justifiable from a Leftist perspective?

[jake williams]

Hitchens's basic argument is that Islamic fundamentalism is the most important problem there is. He believes the only way to stop it is violence, and he believes it's such a threat that any violence used to fight it is worth the costs. It's a "logical" argument, it's just insane.

PS, I can't actually find the Chomsky-Hitchens discussion.

[The Idler]

Isn't Christopher Hitchens still a Trotskyist? He just thinks sporadic Jihadist terrorist attacks are a greater threat than all the might of the US army and all its interventions.

[Cumannach]

The man is nothing but a clown. He doesn't even take himself seriously. No one else should.

[Wanted Man]

"Truly disgusting sack of shit" ((C) Alexander Cockburn) and "drink-sodden former trotskyite popinjay" ((C) George Galloway) are both phrases that sum him up pretty well.

[GPDP]

How can you be a neo-con and an anti-theist at the same time? I mean, I get his support for foreign interventionism coincides with that of neo-cons, but neo-cons are extremely hawkish conservatives with deeply reactionary social views, especially considering religion.

From what I've seen so far of this man, his recent views appear to be the result of his anti-theism thoroughly overcoming his socialism. He sees religion and fundamentalism as the root causes of the world's ills, in place of the system that fosters the conditions for their rise. Whether or not he is conscious of this is hazy, but that's what I see.

Anyway, I'm actually going to read a book from him about Henry Kissinger for my American Foreign Policy class this semester. Hopefully it'll be worth reading.

[fabiansocialist]

Overall, he's a traitor, and he never really articulated why he "left the left".

He never was of the Left (unless you want to include "radical chic"). A champagne socialist.

[fabiansocialist]

How can you be a neo-con and an anti-theist at the same time? I mean, I get his support for foreign interventionism coincides with that of neo-cons, but neo-cons are extremely hawkish conservatives with deeply reactionary social views, especially considering religion.

Difficult to agree with that. Neo-cons are radical in their espousing of violent unilateralism. Since their focus is on foreign policy and they're indifferent to the domestic situation, one can't say they have reactionary social views. They also believe in big and intrusive government -- not smaller government. And they are utterly indifferent to huge fiscal deficits. Just these two points alone put them at loggerheads with traditional conservatives. Neo-cons are probably mostly atheists or agnostics themselves.

[JimmyJazz]

He's basically driven by his anti-theist convictions more than his explicitly political convictions, and he's one of the American/British atheist pundits who are currently in a really bizarre alliance with right-wing Christians and neoconservatives to fight "Islamofascism" (the "greater threat" zOmG).

[Wanted Man]

It's not really unique, though. In every country, you have some idiots in the elite circles who think that they get to decide that "socialism" means support for neocons. In the Netherlands, there was some shit magazine by "left conservatives", and some dude (who is always used as a source by the right) wrote a book about "The Betrayal of the Left". And in Belgium I'm sure you can find some "left intellectuals" who line up with the fash in supporting Flemish nationalism.

Nobody within the real socialist movements on the ground takes them seriously. Just their buddies in the journalistic and intellectual navel-gazing elites. So for benhur to call him "consistent" with left politics in any way is hilarious. Maybe if benhur feels embarrassed for the left in general, he should do like Hitchens and join the right.

[PoWR]

A large number of former "Third Campists" have gone full circle and become open rightists. A number of former "socialists" have become capitalist apologists.

Many of yesterdays Shachmanites are todays neo-conservatives. Many of yesterdays "New Lefts" are todays liberal hawks. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

[The Idler]

Huh? Isn't Christopher Hitchens still a Trotskyist on welfare and wealth redistribution? Its only some foreign policy on which he agrees with neocons. He still supports Palestine doesn't he?

[JimFar]

Check out these take-downs of Hitchens:

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

Richard Seymour (aka "Lenin") sort of reminds me of the young Christopher Hitchens. Hopefully, he won't turn the way that Hitchens has.

[Post-Something]

PS, I can't actually find the Chomsky-Hitchens discussion.

Original articles by Hitchens:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens20010924 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens20010924)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/hitchens

Chomsky's reponse:

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/chomsky-2.htm

Hitchens:

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/hitchens-3.htm

Chomsky:

http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/chomsky-3.htm




He still supports Palestine doesn't he?

He believes Israel has the right to exist.

[Dimentio]

There is nothing weird with him. It looks quite straightforward.

As a trotskyite, he won't get as much attention and money, simply.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


By "Trotskyite[-fascist wrecker]," Rosa, please note that I don't mean honest Trots like yourself

And I did not mean decent communists like you, either.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


Richard Seymour (aka "Lenin") sort of reminds me of the young Christopher Hitchens. Hopefully, he won't turn the way that Hitchens has.

He's a personal friend of mine -- and no, he won't back-sass like Hitchens.

[Random Precision]

I'm beginning to honestly wonder whether Jacob Richter can type a normal sentence in English.

[JimFar]

Jim:



He's a personal friend of mine -- and no, he won't back-sass like Hitchens.

Good! We trust that you will keep him on the straight and narrow. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm beginning to honestly wonder whether Jacob Richter can type a normal sentence in English.

:rolleyes: [See my work]

Using a slanderous insult from the "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist" tradition describes these "champagne socialists"-turned-imperialists quite nicely. :)

[GPDP]

:rolleyes: [See my work]

Using a slanderous insult from the "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist" tradition describes these "champagne socialists"-turned-imperialists quite nicely. :)

I lol'd.

[Chapter 24]

reaching out to reactionaries like taliban/hamas:rolleyes: (even on this forum),

No one I've seen post here explicitly supports those groups, and I highly doubt that the majority of leftists do as well. In fact very few would. However, there are leftists that support self-determination.


expressing selective outrage (blame US, but don't say a word about Saudi or any theocratic societies),

Lack of expression toward those reactionary theocracies does not imply lack of outrage overall, but the U.S. is more spoken out about because of its grip-hold on the rest of the world due to its superpower status. It is the head of the imperialist nation clique.


At least, Hitchens is consistent.

his foreign policies don't coincide with the usual, naive leftist rhetoric

What in shit's name is your definition of "consistent"? Is it very consistent that he opposed the Vietnam War while now he supports the U.S. occupation of Iraq? I should hope that the "usual, naive leftist rhetoric" we keep spouting don't coincide with his views. His foreign policy is shit.


Truth is, Hitchens is smarter than all of you.

Nice blanket statement, considering it's coming from the same person who's under the assumption that we can "vote" socialism in. I really don't think any of the posters here have to try and prove themselves worthy of debating Hitchens to the likes of you.

[genstrike]

It seems to me like Hitchens is two things:

1. A fucking cartoon character. I don't know how anyone can take his drunk ass seriously.

2. One of those people who claims to be a leftist so they can use whatever shreds of left cred to attack the left, partially for ideological reasons and partially because they can get paid more (the Canadian equivalent would be Terry Glavin, or to a lesser extent Bob Rae)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim:


Good! We trust that you will keep him on the straight and narrow.

I'll do my best, but I am sure he won't need my help.

[benhur]

Jim:



I'll do my best, but I am sure he won't need my help.

Pity the guy already.:D In any case, the guy's confused, so I suggest you don't confuse him any further.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


In any case, the guy's confused, so I suggest you don't confuse him any further

In that case, I challenge you to log on to his blog and try take him on -- and may the non-existent deity have mercy on your imaginary soul...

[Killfacer]

Still, "God is not great" is a good read.

[GPDP]

I just bought Hitchen's book, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger". Any opinions? It's for a class.

[welshboy]

On a more important note though, how is support for the Iraq war justifiable from a Leftist perspective?

It could quite easily be argued that firstly Sadam Hussein is(was) a brutal dictator and therefore his removal and replacement with liberal democracy would be a step in the right direction for the Iraqi working class.
Secondly that a stable liberal democracy in the middle east would serve as a temper to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and could hopefully serve to reign in Israels destabalisation of the area, the good cop to Israels bad as it were.
Thirdly. The rise of fundamental Islam is a great threat to civilisation due to its desire to reduce the world to a global medieval theocracy and must be countered at any cost.
Not too different to the Socialist Workers Party arguing that troops be sent into Northern Ireland.
Whilst the above is not a revolutionary leftist position it is easily conceivable of Leftist groups supporting such things.

[Post-Something]

It could quite easily be argued that firstly Sadam Hussein is(was) a brutal dictator and therefore his removal and replacement with liberal democracy would be a step in the right direction for the Iraqi working class.
Secondly that a stable liberal democracy in the middle east would serve as a temper to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and could hopefully serve to reign in Israels destabalisation of the area, the good cop to Israels bad as it were.
Thirdly. The rise of fundamental Islam is a great threat to civilisation due to its desire to reduce the world to a global medieval theocracy and must be countered at any cost.
Not too different to the Socialist Workers Party arguing that troops be sent into Northern Ireland.
Whilst the above is not a revolutionary leftist position it is easily conceivable of Leftist groups supporting such things.

1. That argument is full of fallacies that I won't even begin to dissect. No real leftist would hold that position.

2. That is not Hitchens' argument.

[welshboy]

1) Didn't say it was a good argument. Just wanted to show that it is possible for leftist groups to support imperialist ambitions. Like the SWP did with the whole Northern Ireland thing.
2)Didn't say it was.

[Mather]

Old farts like Christopher Hitchens actually rely on people taking notice of them, if no one paid any attention to wankers like him they would be out of a job.

Yes he is a smug and pompus tosser, but he is not worth a minute of anyones time.

[Demogorgon]

He is a textbook example of how anti-theism is a path to the right. It says a lot now that his foreign policy views are now to the right of his brother's.

Of course, a lot of what he does is just for the attention. He discovered during Clinton's impeachment that there was a large audience (and plenty of money) available from appearing on Conservative talk shows and now does everything in his power to keep appearing on them.

Really though, as I say, if you want a hard and fast reason why anti-theism should be avoided like the plague, you need look no further than Hitchens.

[welshboy]

He is a textbook example of how anti-theism is a path to the right.

What a load of rubbish. Just because Hitchens is a cock does not mean that anti-theism leads to the irght. Superstition and mumbo jumbo are, if any thing, far more likely to lead to reactionary right wing ideologies.

[Demogorgon]

What a load of rubbish. Just because Hitchens is a cock does not mean that anti-theism leads to the irght. Superstition and mumbo jumbo are, if any thing, far more likely to lead to reactionary right wing ideologies.
I regard anti-theism as "superstition and mumbo jumbo" given that it ascribes power to ideas independently of material circumstances. So if we accept your premise it in fact follows that I am right and that Hitchens' journey is a typical one.

He is a long way from being the first anti-theist to justify war against the Islamic World on such a basis. Indeed I reckon that the majority of anti-theists who do not soften their views (which the vast majority do as they grow up) will end up sympathising with Neo-Cons.

That's why so many former "leftists" ended up being cheerleaders for Reagan.

[welshboy]

EH?
OK so because some folk to the right espouse a particular view - that religion is an inherently negative phenomenon - then all who feel as such are on the path to the right?
What about all the agnostics/christians/atheists?
What is your understanding of the term anti-theism?

[Demogorgon]

EH?
OK so because some folk to the right espouse a particular view - that religion is an inherently negative phenomenon - then all who feel as such are on the path to the right?
What about all the agnostics/christians/atheists?
What is your understanding of the term anti-theism?
Anti-theism is broadly defined as opposition to religion. It necessarily holds that religion is harmful in of itself, meaning it falls into the idealist camp of philosophies.

I think it is naturally a right wing outlook, even though it has obvious appeal to more immature leftists. It isn't compatible with Marxism because it rejects materialism by giving power to ideas and holding that they are something more than a reflection of the material world and it can't be part of the soft left because it rejects social tolerance so far as religious people are concerned. I think many of its adherents will initially hold to some form of leftism that is not Marxist or similar, though they may feel it is Marxist, further I suspect the vast majority will simply grow out of anti-theism, but those that don't will be likely to move to the right, either to Neo-Conservatism or else to Libertarianism (or both of course).

[gilhyle]

"Even Marxists dont admit to being socialists nowdays" Christopher Hitchens, BBC Newsnight 20 January 2009

[Spasiba]

I heard he did some coverage of Obama's inauguration today with BBC?


"Even Marxists dont admit to being socialists nowdays" Christopher Hitchens, BBC Newsnight 20 January 2009

:mellow:
What? What is he trying to say about us, and about him?