Results 1 to 20 of 52
I just got done watching the Bill Maher season premiere and a former left-wing idealogue, Christopher Hitchens, was one of the guests. I realize that he was once a leftist, not really as left as some of you but he was far to the left nonetheless. Almost chomsky-like in a way.
Anyway, it's no secret that he was once a hard-line left-winger only to recant his ideology and become a little bit more rational in his beliefs. Now, before you call him a "traitor" or "Neo-con lackey", just remember that he is despised among the right-wing, particularly religious figures and organizations. I'm pretty sure he's not a neo-liberal economist and probably prefers some form of wealth redistribution in order to prevent communism from emerging, which is why he's probably not supported among communists.
So, here's a guy who became a far-left idealogue to a more realistic thinker, centrist indivdual: he supported Iraq, Afghanistan and supports American foreign policy and aide programs.
What do you all think of him? Do some of you here think that maybe you'll go his route and be a bit "less communist" in your thinking? Is he a "preview" as to what you all might be in a few years or maybe even longer?
I think he is a sort of "inspiration" for people like you.
After all, isn't it sort of dumb to compare Bush to "the next Hitler"? Or to refer to America as "the biggest threat to the world"?
(I believe those comments by his left-wing colleagues is what drove him in a new direction in regards to his political beliefs)
A lot of New Left Trots became Republican Neo-Cons, just like lots of University "socialists" go on to become managers. Its reflective of their class background more than anything else.
I think your assertions that no leftist politics are rational is a bit asinine.
Yes.
No.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
What exactly is wrong with the neo-conservative platform?
It seems like you disagree with it just out of principle or you blindly accept the stereotype that seems to be attached with it?
Neo-Conservatism promotes capitalism, of course. American economic policy is damaging to human rights around the world. Neo-Conservatism is also very active in promoting the meddling of the United States into other countries and people business.
sounds like a pretty good reason to oppose bourgeois reformism and support class war
Christopher Hitchens claimed he was a socialist. That means supporting workers power and workers rights.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, some marxist academics have probably become alot less influential. This might be a reason.
If he thinks marxism is bullshit, then all it means is that he rejects marxism.
BUT, he was never a socialist or communist. You cannot go from supporting workers to opposing them just because you dont like marxism anymore.
He is and was nothing more than a fucktard academic.
Hes an ugly fat fucking rich moron too!
"just remember that he is despised among the right-wing, particularly religious figures and organizations"
Not all enemies of the 'right' are friends of socialists.
I reject Neo-Conservative ideology because it maintains that the United States should invade sovereign nations, take their resources, and achieve military and economic dominance over the entire world through capitalism, which I disagree with. That is, the entire platform is a mix of things I cannot support.
Christopher Hitchens is a "drink-soaked former-Trotskyite popinjay," as George Galloway called him. I'll let Alex Cockburn take over from here:
"What a truly disgusting sack of shit Hitchens is. A guy who called Sid Blumenthal one of his best friends and then tried to have him thrown into prison for perjury; a guy who waited till his friend Edward Said was on his death bed before attacking him in the Atlantic Monthly; a guy who knows perfectly well the role Israel plays in US policy but who does not scruple to flail Cindy Sheehan as a LaRouchie and anti-Semite because, maybe, she dared mention the word Israel. She lost a son? Hitchens (who should perhaps be careful on the topic of sending children off to die) says that's of scant account, and no reason why we should take her seriously. Then he brays about the horrors let loose in Iraq if the troops come home, with no mention of how the invasion he worked for has already unleashed them."
"While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."- Eugene V. Debs
Anyone who wants to see that bumptiouis fool Hitchens taken down, read this:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/01/chr...ns-dossier.html
The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.
What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.
And you know it, or at least you should know it.
That's why it's so amusing.
Human life is not commodity, figures, statistics or make believe.
So?
I doubt you could defeat Lenin in a debate
I doubt it.
you doubting it is a sure sign you'd be increidbly easy for him to destory. he cold probably do it even more suaced up then he was when he creamed that lunatic galloway.
"NO! Please don't kill me! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"
-Che the Coward, prior to his death
My doubt of his logical capabilities has nothing to do with how I would perform in a debate against him, in reality.
Your classification as a "Libertarian Neo-con" tells me everything I need to know about you. You support wars for oil, oppression of the poor, the bombing of civilian populations, and the worship of money.
If Che Guevara really did say that, and he almost certainly didn't, he only said it after he was shot multiple times and rendered unable to fight. He was a hero.
I'm finished with this topic. I don't want to talk about a fascist like Christopher Hitchens right now, so I'll leave it to other people who have the patience.
1) i would indeed support a war for oil becus oil is vital to our eocnomy
2) i don't know waht you mean by oppression fo the poor here so i cant respond
3) civilians of enemy naisno generaly die in wars, this is true of almost all wars.
4) i whorship only god, money is just nice.
no, he siad it whe he was surrounded by bovlian troops. he died sevlera days later.
I'm finished with this topic. I don't want to talk about a fascist like Christopher Hitchens right now, so I'll leave it to other people who have the patience.
"NO! Please don't kill me! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!"
-Che the Coward, prior to his death
as a capitalist you need to realize that the neo-con idealogy doesn't align with anything that can be claled free market.
"The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended." - Ludwig von Mises
This communist said neo-cons promote capitalism, yet you maintain that they don't?
Which communist has a more valid statement on the matter?
And if they don't promote the free-market (which is what capitalism is), then what name do you attache to it?
You're against capitalism/free-market economy and whatever the neo-cons promote.
Are you expressing sympathy for the free-market and what true capitalists stand for?
mixed economy corporate protectionism for lack of a better term.
no. neo-cons don't advocate capitalism though.
yeah
"The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended." - Ludwig von Mises
yeah? hitler can out-debate an eight-year old, perhaps.
and noam chomsky can out-debate hitler.
and hitchens probably can't out-debate chomsky.
erich fromm can out-debate mussolini.
leo tolstoy can't out-debate i.a. richards.
w.h. auden can't out-debate william carlos williams.
i can't out-debate von mises.
and karl popper can't out-debate von wittgenstein.
emma goldman can out-debate george jackson.
and you can't out-debate raoul vanegeim.
i wonder if this says much, or nothing at all.
i'd go with.. nothing at all.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain - and since some labor is pain in itself - it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect collective ownership and punish plunder. - Brederic Fastiat
