Short history of the development of neoconservatism. The New Left won the cultural war — "sex drugs and rock n' roll,"feminism, multiculturalism and libertarianism ("doing your own thing"). Neoconservatism won the political war — neoliberalism, neo-imperialism, and neo-colonialism under the rubric "exceptionalism."
The Neoconservative Counterrevolution
Andrew Hartman
49 comments:
So Bohemian Bourgeois versus Neoconservatism Bourgeois? They can both die in a fire.
Do we really need to use prefix 'neo', when most of those are not really different than their own old versions?
And te left continues to focus on cultural issues while ceding "leadership" to the neocons on everything else.
The Left have ceded economics, and are focused on gender politics. Not a winning strategy, apparently.
Neocryptopaleoeconomics!
I wouldn't exactly describe it as a difference between a cultural war and a political war, since the cultural changes were manifested in real political effects.
But I agree that the left lost (or rather deserted) the parts of the political war that have to do with military and economic power, and the economic structure of society.
The idea that personal liberty issues - sex, drugs and rock and roll, etc. - are part of the "left" to begin with doesn't really bear up that well historically. They are more of an infusion from the radical wing of 19th century classical liberalism.
"And te left continues to focus on cultural issues while ceding "leadership" to the neocons on everything else."
In a way, the "left" is a caricature version of Snagglepuss, the cartoon character.
(1) Snagglepuss often, but not always, does the "Exit stage, right".
(2) The "left", faced with a problem, an election setback, criticism, or whatever, always does the "Exit stage, right".
Now, this goes for all the "left", from the intellectual Marxist "left" in France to the crappiest Labour Party ever (the one in Australia).
To justify their inaction -- or, worse, their counterproductive action -- on substantial matters, they adopt all sorts of causes, from the most legitimate, to the absurd (with a marked preference for the most absurd and meaningless ones). This, now, defines them as "left".
Take, for example, the Labour parties of the U.K. and Australia. Both were founded by trade unionists, their finances largely depend on trade union donations, their vote traditionally came from working class areas, even their freaking names are "Labour"!
But to be seen as respectable, they turn to anti-trade union policies; to court donations from the rich, they do a crackdown on unions. To not displease the paranoid right, they adopt police state surveillance. To suck up to the Yanks, we send troops to every single war the Yanks start (and then cut the budget, because -- hey! -- they are fiscally responsible). It's the serious, responsible thing to do, you know.
But, never mind, they remain "left": they support same-sex marriage, a non-issue which not even the poor gay people give a shit about. They push for a Republic (when the Queen plays no role whatever in Australian life).
That's how the gay sister of our very own right-wing Prime Minister, a man who is both anti-gay and a misogynist, campaigns for him: he might still change his mind on same-sex marriage.
Give me a break.
I was there, and the New Left that provided principal leaders behind the cultural revolution in the US was most certainly "leftist." There were also some European-style communists, too, but their message was hopeless out of tune with young Americans.
The New Left was not the Old Left, and it rejected its very basis in organization. The New Left was unorganized and libertarian. Its characteristics were anti-war activism and anti-imperialism, on one hand, and on the other, it promoted a lifestyle transformation of American culture away from the Ozzie and Harriet bourgeois conventionalism of the Fifties, as well as the propagandistic mush that was being spouted in the media to justify the antics of TPTB. The New Left was also anti-liberal (in the US sense) since it was no longer engaged with the ideas of the New Deal. The New Left didn't think that the New Deal went far enough socially, economically and politically, and it also concluded that most "liberal" politicians were hopelessly clueless. No one in the New Left looked for change from the political system as it was at the time.It was really a revolutionary spirit of "throw the bums out." But very few were on board with burn the house down to rebuild it either. There was a lot of thinking about better ways to ensure a desirable future.
When the war ended and the draft repealed, that side of the New Left died out pretty much as has never really gained much traction since, despite the vast increase in military and intelligence operations since then. But the cultural war continued full steam until the moguls realized that there was a lot of money to be made and commercialized it. This began happening in the late Sixties and the "pure revolution" ended with Woodstock. Before then, there weren't that many participants and there was real camaraderie. That began to disappear in the early Seventies when the movement began to go mainstream and heavy drugs began to pervade the culture. When the Vietnam War ended, that was pretty much the end of the New Left as a political force. But it won the culture war decisively, against which the right is still fighting unsuccessfully to recoup at least some lost territory.
in spite of the success of the cultural revolution, the New Left never managed to gain political traction. In fact, just the opposite. It can be argued that the success of the cultural revolution created the Reagan Democrats that joined the Southern Democrats that left the party as result of civil rights. That gave the GOP a decisive edge that moved the Overton window to the right politically, dragging the Democratic Party away from the traditional left of the New Deal.
continued
continuation
Some pundits are jabbering about a New New Left, but so far it is wishful thinking. There is no real left in US politics today. There is a neoliberal-neoconservative coalition joined with Old Conservatives that is opposed by some political factions that are called "left," but there is no coherent organized opposition that can be categorized as actual leftist faction in the political sense, whether Old Left, New Deal, New Left, or New New Left. There is no leftist vision and no leftist leadership in US politics today. The only real leftists remains public intellectuals and other intelligentsia that are thoroughly bourgeois in temperament and lifestyle.
This is probably why so many fixed on Obama as the new leader and embed him with a vision and qualities that he doesn't have and has not exhibited as president. There is no on in the field of candidates or potential candidates to play that role in the next election either.
On the other hand, the cultural revolution of the Sixties and Seventies has transformed American culture in ways that most people of the Forties and Fifties could not even imagine in their wildest dreams. In this days this was considered a bohemian (unconventional) lifestyle that only artists, musicians, writers etc, including wannabes, engaged in, along with associated "pervert." They were confined to places like in places like Greenwich Village only visited as tourists.
Sorry, Tom, I'm sure you don't realize it, but you have given the reason why the New Left was a failure.
These are the two banners under which the New Left fought, in your own words:
(1) "anti-war activism and anti-imperialism",
(2) "it promoted a lifestyle transformation of American culture away from the Ozzie and Harriet bourgeois conventionalism of the Fifties".
At one hand, people are dying, getting maimed for life, their children born malformed and, on top, impoverished (as a consequence of American capitalism, I must add); at the other, I am sure there are lots of people who are having some kind of troubles with American conventionalism.
Are the two problems equally important? Let me answer this way, from my point of view. Made to choose, I'd have supported the first banner (even though it's only a symptom, not the disease), but I wouldn't have supported the second. Mind you, I may have sympathized with those supporting the second. But it's no priority for me.
But that's me. What can I do? I was born dumb.
Apparently, for what I gather from your reply, the New Left were smarter and way more ambitious. They pursued both and succeeded in the second: the disease wasn't addressed, only the symptoms and the patient only experienced relief in the second problem. That was the improvement, which U.S. society owes the New Left.
No longer Ozzie and Harriet, hurrah! Has the U.S. stopped invading people willy-nilly? Are the poor less poor within the U.S.? Have the U.S. oligarchs lost any power? Aren't cops killing black guys whenever they feel like?
No need to answer.
Thank goodness at the time nobody saw vegetarianism as a revolutionary thing. Otherwise, the New Left would have pursued the three banners and, chances are, succeeded in the least important. Ozzie and Harriet would still be the norm, and we'll see a lot more vegetarian American G.I.s bombing the living shit out of already crappy countries.
There's a lot of misconception about the actual role that the New Left played in the events of the time.
Neoconservatives and some political theorists see the New Left as planting the ideas and exerting the leadership that led to the antiwar movement and the cultural revolution and directed it. Not so.
That's not what happened from my perspective. I was a grad student and an anti-war vet at the time, so I not only observed this unfolding as a participant but also thought and wrote about it some papers that led to a master's thesis. I was warned by the department against doing this as a career killer, but I did it anyway.
The anti-war movement and cultural revolution were joined at the hip as a grassroots phenomenon that attracted a large swath of middle class US youth. It was opposed by the grown-ups, the working class, and TPTB.
The New Left hitched a ride on this train that was pulled by its own engine.
This is the reason that it did not result in permanent revolutions and Neoconservatism has. Once the war ended and the cultural revolution sufficiently advanced, the movement evaporated and the leaders pretty much assimilated. It was a flash in the pan, so to speak.
However the neoconservatives were former Trotskyites that jettisoned their socialism for neoliberalism, but they remained committed to permanent revolution.
So now the US is pursuing a policy of global hegemony in which everyone and everything is to be made subject to neoliberalism and the neocons will not rest until that objective is completed and secured permanently through global institutions.
This is the basis for a US foreign policy of global hegemony that brooks no rival, and a military policy based on forward projection of power base on "full-spectrum" offensive superiority instead of defensive parity. This is what makes the US so dangerous.
Forward projection of full-spectrum offensive superiority as a policy along with the use of hybrid warfare, including economic warfare, makes other countries insecure and provokes a reaction that all but guarantees endless war, which allows the neocons to argue for continued increasing funding to meet the rising challenges that drives military Keynesianism and is the based for a military-industrial complex.
Public intellectuals like Chomsky point out the similarities of this with 20th century fascism to no avail since there is no viable opposition to pick up the message, and no real party of the left to counter the rightward charge of neoliberalism and neoconservatism toward their permanent revolution that is aimed at cementing hegemony of neoliberalism capitalism and oligarchic "democracy."
So far there is no grassroots revolt or mass uprising by youth protesting the future it sees and doesn't like. Occupy was a start. It's possible that Occupy corresponds roughly to the situation in the mid-Sixties when the anti-war movement and cultural revolution were just getting off the ground. It may be that the revolution won't begin in the US either. There is pushback building to neoliberal-neocon US overreach and the overreach of its associated vassals, minions, and cronies.
There's another factor that played a huge role in coopting the "revolution" in the US — the massive expansion of credit extension for consumption that began with the introduction of credit cards in the Sixties. This enabled a consumer consumption binge that finance the cultural revolution that entrepreneurs and then TPTB accommodated in providing the new products and services that were desired.
Revolution depends on pressure, usually economic pressure. The pressure that led to the cultural revolution was two=fold — pressure of the draft and dissatisfaction with conventionality., So it was pretty simple to coop the movement, first, but ending the draft and going to a professional military, and secondly by loosening conventions and providing purchasing power without having to raise wage by loosening credit.
It was an ingenious strategy that worked to co-opt even many of the former leaders of the New Left.
In addition, there was also the development of an alternative society and underground economy that took the pressure off the most committed. They could just drop out of the system pretty much and do their own thing.
The neocons had a completely different strategy and went directly for power, and they succeeded in getting it and keeping it. As former Marxist-Trotskyites they understood the dynamic of revolution and were able to pull it off by organizing behind the scenes and enlisting big money in the project to rule the world in the name of "freedom."
Why did they change their minds and "sell out"? They became convinced that the revolution could not occur from the bottom. That the people at bottom couldn't be radicalized as Marx thought, and they certainly couldn't govern even if they were successful.
So I don't think that actually think in terms of taking over the world for oligarch capitalism as much as trickle down as the only alternative to improve the general welfare as much as possible as quickly as possible. But they have hooked up with some wealthy ad powerful social Darwinists who are interested in imposing plutonomy through a competition of interests and "survival of the fittest." This mentality seems to have found a place in the collective mindset judging from the reality show, Survivor.
Ignacio,
It's very important to prefix everything with "neo": it makes what you're saying sound technical and scientific. That's very important when you're actually talking thru your rear end.
Personally I prefix everything with 3 neos, as in neo-neo-neo-conservatism. That way I outsmart everyone..:-)
"That way I outsmart everyone..:-)"
Particularly yourself.
I follow Bill Kristol's twitter currently and all he tweets about is the US/Israel/Iran thing....
NOTHING on Ukraine/Russia... nothing Greece/EU .... nothing on domestic policy...
and sometimes the elections/Hillary... that is about it...
imo not much going on wrt domestic policy from the "neo-cons" (Sorry Ralph! ;)
Story I linked to above from Kristol's 'Weekly Standard' one of the first on GOP domestic policy in quite a while ....
rsp
Words are used to draw distinctions. "Neo" something implies similarity with the old but different enough to require a new name to distinguish. The New Left was the opposite of the Old Left in many ways, and Neoliberalism is different enough from Classical Liberalism to merit calling attention to with a difference in name. These categories are about ideas so the members of the set that they characterize is diverse and overlapping with other relevant sets.
Neoconservatism is chiefly about politics, while neoliberalism is chiefly about economics.
Neoconservatism is different from traditional conservatism, in that neoconservatism about a conservative interpretation of liberalism, whereas traditional conservatism is anti-liberal.
Neoconservatism is about spreading the blessings of liberty domestically and globally through political liberalism, that is "democracy," which assumes economic liberalism. Economic liberalism along with political liberalism ensures that those who govern are the "meritocracy" because they wield the power of wealth and social status. Representatives are elected exclusively from this class as a general rule.
Neoliberalism is chiefly about economic liberalism based on political liberalism. Classical liberalism was about wresting economic control by the bourgeoisie from a declining feudal state. That battle was won by the end of WWI. Then the issue became overcoming the welfare state that arose in response to government intervention in the economy due to the devastation of the Great Depression and WWII. Politically, it results in bourgeois control of the political system through wealth and class.
The left of all strips is about worker control rather than bourgeois control because workers are a vast majority of the population. The rationale is that it doesn't make economic, political or moral sense for the most populous group that contributes the most real benefit to be forced to support a mostly parasitic minority owing to institutional rules. The program of leftists is to change the institutional rules to reflect reality (contribution) and morality (fairness, social justice).
So when the neo/old we do use neo-neo- or remove the neo and start over? Just trolling sorry...
There are two main problems with the "left", one related to everywhere... and the other more related to some countries (specially USA):
1) They want to be part of the VSP (ie. YV); while some of them will never be accepted in the club (ie. YV).
2) Radical-individualism. This is a plague specially in USA, you guys are screwed because of this. There still is some hope in other places.
All this "new-left" are just a modern version of the eccentric burgois of the past with embeded radical-individualism, which will preclude any real action ever.
I think most serious people on the left understand that the problem here is the same that the bourgeoisie encountered in the case of the remnants of feudalism. The system needs to be changed, which means changing principle institutions.
After the bourgeois revolution, only a few figurehead monarchies were left and aristocrats became a anachronism that gathered in Switzerland. There were entirely new faces and new laws and institutions reflecting the shift.
The bourgeoisie actually had a plan. It was classical liberalism and laissez-faire in economics. It was implemented somewhat differently in different countries and regions, but the basics were close enough to enable international commerce on a liberal basis.
The left had several proposals that can be categorized in terms of anarchism and socialism. Socialism was imposed through revolution in Russia and China, as well as a few other smaller countries like Cuba.
Anarchism never got off the ground politically.
The only alternative to economic liberalism that has been successful in the mixed economy that combines aspects of economic liberalism with aspects of socialism, as in Scandinavian countries, which fare best in equality and happiness measures.
Sao the left now is chiefly involved in a political debate with neoliberals over the mix in mixed economies.
But most of the contributors to the debate on the left either come from the bourgeoisie or intelligentsia.They understand to have power in the existing system one needs to be considered a VSP, and, of course, that means basically joining the bourgeoisie that one is supposed to be opposing on the part of ordinary workers aka "the little people" that don't have a seat at the table.
Since the enlightenment, the political debate has been about liberalism and now to implement it. That's a huge step forward for humanity. Now we are mostly dealing with the details. But previously, there is very little record of liberalism in society historically since the advent of surplus societies.
The basic narrative historically since the surplus society is about dividing the surplus and increasing it it by expanding territorial influence.
The neocons had a completely different strategy and went directly for power, and they succeeded in getting it and keeping it. As former Marxist-Trotskyites they understood the dynamic of revolution and were able to pull it off by organizing behind the scenes and enlisting big money in the project to rule the world in the name of "freedom."
Why did they change their minds and "sell out"? They became convinced that the revolution could not occur from the bottom. That the people at bottom couldn't be radicalized as Marx thought, and they certainly couldn't govern even if they were successful.
That would make them Stalinists. Why would they abandon Marxist theory and join forces with those advocating a survival of the fittest agenda?
You would have us believe that they went from advocating worker control to outright hatred of the working class.
As far as the US was concerned, neoliberalism's objective was to undo the New Deal and to ensure that it never happens again. Neoconservatism provides the military muscle to complement the new economics.
Why would they abandon Marxist theory and join forces with those advocating a survival of the fittest agenda?
You would have us believe that they went from advocating worker control to outright hatred of the working class.
Read the article — actually book excerpt.
The author claims the switch was racially driven like most of what happens in US politics.
Most of the originators of Neoconservatism were Jews that came from a working-class background and blamed other minorities for not using the freedom and opportunity that the US affords in order to break out of the ghetto. They concluded that socialism is unworkable.
After that it is very simple to transfer this thinking to the ROW and come to the conclusion that the US a moral responsibility to spread the blessings of liberty to all, otherwise they will never rise to the opportunity. It used to be called "the white man's burden" to justify colonialism.
Neoconservatism is the imposition of neoliberalism, forcibly if necessary through neo-imperialism and neocolonialism, until other countries develop the ability to govern themselves without US oversight to prevent backsliding. Of course, one can never be sure that other's won't backslide, so the US musts control international institutions and have full-spectrum military superiority permanently.
What they don't see is that this is Trotskyism morphed into a type of Stalinism, with the powerful US president calling the shots based on the deep state and US nomenklatura, and the legislature rubber-stamping it. Court-packing ensure legal decision that establish favorable precedent.
This is the Neocon playbook for globalization and why it is so dangerous to actual liberty.
One point to clarify here is that the article was about the originators of Neoconservatism. The question is then to what extent have the influences on them and their influence on Neoconservatism influences succeeding generations of Neoconservatives?
Some may argue, not so much since the context has shifted considerably. I don't entirely dispute that but I contend that strong influences persist institutionally.
That's a feature and a bug of institutions. Those focusing more on individualism tend to miss this important factor and institutionalists hold that it fatally affects their analysis.
To summarize my view, it is that neoconservatives have given US foreign policy an internationalist bias that favors permanent revolution not of socialism but rather of neoliberalism and neoconservatism, under such slogans as "bringing the blessings of liberty to all" and "making the world safe for democracy." With encouragement of increasing power of the executive, culminating in the unitary executive doctrine and "if the president does it, it is legal," the Trotsky influence morphed in the direction of Stalinism. Add American "exceptionalism" and there's a recipe for incipient fascism.
I view these parallels as too close for comfort. Others may see it as far-fetched.
Tom perhaps you are ignoring the Sept 11, 2001 attacks... things changed from a "post ww2" or "post cold war" era to the start of a new era after that event .... as far as foreign policy wrt neocons....
Im telling ya I follow these people and they have currently almost no interest in domestic policy.... for instance they could care less about " the deficit", etc...
They could care less about Ukraine that is some sort of Democrat oriented madness... its a Clintonista debacle. ..
If GOP wins next election, Metallica will be back playing in Moscow... and Vlad will become "Pootie-Pute" again...
Gertrude Himmelfarb, Irving Kristol, and their milieu learned the art of polemics during years spent in the CCNY cafeteria’s celebrated Alcove No. 1, where young Trotskyists waged ideological warfare against the Communist students who occupied Alcove No. 2. During their flirtations with Trotskyism in the 1930s, when tussles with other radical students seemed like a matter of life and death, future neoconservatives developed habits of mind that never atrophied.
In other words, a bunch of kids playing at radical politics, who moved on to other ideologies when they grew up. If we're going to call these dilettantes Trotskyist, then Trotskyism has no meaning.
Jesus Fucking Christ. The author of this book should read about the history of labour struggles in the US. Then maybe he'd be able to tell the difference between a revolutionary and an intellectual.
“… making the world safe for democracy”
Like in heaven, where there are no countries and no exceptionalism? Hindus get along with Muslims get along with Christians get along with Americans getting along with Chinese and Russians and cuddly Eskimos…. Ahhhh! No wonder they all want to send each other to heaven! (Or maybe heaven too is heavenly partitioned?).
Until the masses educate themselves there won't be any hint of social justice being achieved. Intellectuals and bourgeois left/VSP and all that trash don't form part and ever won't form part of 'the lesser people' and defend their interests.
The problem is for the masses to transcend bigotry, hatred and envy amongst the ones of their same class (the 99%). We have a better chance at an asteroid hitting the earth right now than that happening... So probably the only escape will be the third way (national socialism in one of it's many forms, based on pride and hatred on 'the others' while instituting a different social justice which initially at least is perceived as more just towards your own group).
There is a good hint of this already starting to happen in the West and will continue during the next two decades. Meanwhile the ignorant projects of the bourgeois right and bourgeois left will crumble and fall apart, while "unexpected alliances" raise. History does not repeats itself, but it rhymes.
Matt, Victoria ("Fuck the EU") Nuland was front and center on Ukraine, and she is "Mrs. Neocon." being the wife of Neocon honcho Robert Kagan, who was recently invited to a private meeting with the president in which the two reportedly treated each other as equally "serious people." This hugely boosted the neocon image as well as Obama's image with the neocons, which was under attack by the war hawks led by John McCain.
But you are correct that neocons in general are internationalists who are not particularly interested in domestic affairs outside the military-industrial complex. They leave domestic affairs to the neoliberals, with whom they agree that capitalism and neoliberalism are two sides of the same coin.
The present day neocons are chiefly known through PNAC, but that is only one aspect of neoconservatism.
From the Wikipedia article on Neoconservatism:
Trotskyism is the type of communism advocated by Leon Trotsky and his followers, emphasizing orthodox Marxist concepts of workers' power in opposition to state bureaucracy, and international proletarian revolution, while critical of Stalinism and the USSR. Critics of neo-conservatism have charged that neo-conservatism is descended from Trotskyism, and that Trotskyist traits continue to characterize ideologies and practices of neo-conservatism. During the Reagan Administration, the charge was made that the foreign policy of the Reagan administration was being managed by Trotskyists.[citation needed] This claim was called a "myth" by Lipset (1988, p. 34):[101] This "Trotskyist" charge has been repeated and even widened by journalist Michael Lind during 2003 to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists;[102] Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of 'the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement' [in Lind's words]" was criticized during 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald,[103] who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of "the New York intellectuals".[104][105]
The charge that neoconservativism is related to Leninism has been made, also. Francis Fukuyama identified neoconservatism with Leninism during 2006.[20] He wrote that neoconservatives:
"…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. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."
Bob, read the Wikipedia article on Neoconservatism or just read the piece on Trotskyism and Stalinism that I excerpted and posted in a comment above. I am not making this up. You are free to disagree, of course, but it is not fringe viewpoint.
@ Ignacio
Until fairly recent history the masses were not only not educated but didn't have the opportunity. Now the masses in developed countries have access to the leisure and materials to get an education, pretty much free through secondary school. Of course, this varies in the emerging world and the underdeveloped world is still stuck, although that is improving somewhat, too.
Bucky Fuller's somewhat technocratic solution to the problems and opportunities facing the world was essentially raising the general level of education. Even though he is best known for his technocratic contribution, his bottom line was education because he held that humanity's metaphysical resources are infinite while the physical resources of this planet are finite. The only way to deal with emerging challenges is by tapping humanity's metaphysical resources and the bottom line there is education.
With the technological innovation that has rocketed humanity into the digital age in a matter of a few decades, it is now becoming possible to provide a high quality education to everyone at extremely low cost per capita.
If we were designing the educational system today with today's resources, would be adopt the legacy that we are presently operating in terms of? I doubt it.
For example, emerging countries are not working through phone service by land line to start with. They are jumping right to cell phones, and even in primitive environments, these are smart phones.
For the digital age to really take off, the pre-digital people, comprising most people now in power, will have to die off. Then humanity will see opportunities for real change that is so obvious it will be a no brainer.
Also from Wikipedia on Neoconservatism:
John McGowan, professor of humanities at the University of North Carolina, states, after an extensive review of neoconservative literature and theory, that neoconservatives are attempting to build an American Empire, seen as successor to the British Empire, its goal being to perpetuate a Pax Americana. As imperialism is largely considered unacceptable by the American media, neoconservatives do not articulate their ideas and goals in a frank manner in public discourse. McGowan states,[78]
"Frank neoconservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal internationalism. Yet both Kaplan and Ferguson also understand that imperialism runs so counter to American's liberal tradition that it must... remain a foreign policy that dare not speak its name... While Ferguson, the Brit, laments that Americans cannot just openly shoulder the white man's burden, Kaplan the American, tells us that "only through stealth and anxious foresight" can the United States continue to pursue the "imperial reality [that] already dominates our foreign policy", but must be disavowed in light of "our anti-imperial traditions, and... the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse"... The Bush administration, justifying all of its actions by an appeal to "national security", has kept as many of those actions as it can secret and has scorned all limitations to executive power by other branches of government or international law."
Tom,
This is just part of dog-whistle politics, intended to discredit or demonize an adversary. The left is similarly accused of practicing 'cultural marxism'.
Thanks to this bastardization, we now have people professing to be marxist, trotskyist, or what-have-you, without any concept of what these terms mean. The importance of class has been completely erased by these so-called radicals.
Critics of neo-conservatism have charged that neo-conservatism is descended from Trotskyism,...
They may as well say that it is descended from Satanism, for that would be as accurate.
Your view, Bob, to which you are welcome. To others it is tracing lines of influence.
But the question began with the difference between conservatism and neoconservatism, with the suggestion that there is actually no significant difference.
One notable difference is that traditional conservatives are nationalists — "God and country" — whereas neoconservatives are internationalists. This is also a different between left and right, with the left being internationalist and the right nationalist.
Neoconservatives are rightists that are also internationalists and, coincidently or nor, neoconservatism originated with disaffected Trotskyites. Some of us don't think that this is coincidental but rather the result of a line of cultural and institutional influence.
Whether one is willing to go that far or not, the parallels are interesting to some of us who think that history matters and institutions are influential on perpetuating ideology and behavior.
They may as well say that it is descended from Satanism, for that would be as accurate.
Evidence has been brought forward for and against. People have to come to their own conclusions based on it.
But the conclusion is that if not Trotskyites, then straight up imperialists, I am OK with that POV, too. It probably suites some of them. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt over advocacy of permanent revolution rather than imperialism. It amounts to the same behavior pretty much. Just the mindset is somewhat different.
Probably, the truth is some combination of Trotskyism at the outset and more outright imperialism later as neoconservatism got more mixed with neoliberalism in general.
There may be lines of influence (i.e. a conspiracy) linking Nazi Germany with contemporary Animal Rights activism. Why is that relevant? Are we trying to establish guilt by association?
Here I am, defending Neoconservatism from the smear tactics of their critics.
Actually, that would be very relevant and it anything close to that could be shown, there would be a pretty large PR campaign by vested interests to show that animal rights activists are really Nazis.
But recent events show that people at large are not afraid of a Nazi threat as much as a terrorist threat. So the push now is to link social activism with terrorism because some activists proposed using violence.
So TPTB then assume that the necessary course is assume that all activists are potential terrorists that must be watched by intelligence services and files kept on peaceful protestors as a precautionary measure.
Makes perfect sense, right?
Tom,
Isn't Michael Hudson Trotsky's Godson?
Maybe if he would ever agree to come on Mike's podcast he could shed some light on what has been going on with these people.....
Imo, again I follow these people and have all my life Im GOP and have never voted for a Democrat .... its related to Israel and the Jews.. many in Christendom are right on board with them ...
The only reason imo that they may be tormenting Putin is that Putin deals with Iran...
And the 'fuck the Eu' stuff comes from much Palestinian support coming out of Europe.. so of course Its 'fuck the EU'... and you had the holocaust there with the Nazis, etc... Jews dont really live there maybe there are some in France but th ey are probably getting the hell out of there now...
We on the right hate Iran, cant stand those mfers and the neocons are just part of that..... they provide some leadership for sure..
If tomorrow there was a big earthquake and Iran and everyone there got swallowed into the earth we would all be relieved... perhaps then the focus would shift back to domestic...
rsp
According to Yves Smith, Michael Hudson is Trotsky's godson and inherited his writings.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/michael-hudson-real-logic-18-billion-ukraine-rescue-package.html#comment-1952473
There's more from another commenter there:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/michael-hudson-on-fictitious-collateral.html#comment-776496
On Hudson and Trotsky, the original interview (in German) can be found here:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/sahra-wagenknecht-und-michael-hudson-im-gespraech-nicht-der-euro-wird-gerettet-sondern-eine-ideologie-11837817.html
A loose translation from Hudson's introductory remarks goes like this:
"I was born and brought up in Minneapolis, the center of the American labor movement. Minnesota had a governor named Floyd Olson, who wanted capitalism to go to hell. My father was a leader of the American Trotskyists and for that he ended up in prison. Before that, Roosevelt and Stalin had closed a deal: if the American Trotskyists were kept on a tight leash, then there would be no labor strikes in wartime. Many "comrades", exiles from Russia and Europe, showed up in my home, including those that had known Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg. As a child I greatly admired them and made up my mind that in later times I would "visit the University of the revolution", that is, I would go to jail. I must confess to my shame, that I have not yet succeeded in that purpose. Leon Trotsky was my godfather. By the way, the ice ax, with which he was murdered, belonged to my aunt. But that's another story."
19 Reasons Why You Should Never Visit Iran
Snark advisory.
19 Reasons to bomb Iran back into the Stone Age?
Makes perfect sense, right?
Looking for an excuse to turn America into a police state makes perfect sense. Just don't tell anyone.
World Socialist Website can give an idea of what Trotskyists are up to nowadays.
https://www.wsws.org
19 Reasons to bomb Iran back into the Stone Age?
Did you look at the link? I said it was snark.
Did you look at the link? I said it was snark.
I looked at it from a neoconservative perspective. You can decide whether that is an accurate representation of their perspective, or snark on my part.
BTW, the transition from Trotskyism to neoconservatism is not as great as the transition from socialism to fascism that Mussolini made, for example. Like the former Trotskyite neoconservatives he became disillusioned about the ability of the masses to get it together and came to believe that a strong (authoritarian) state ruled by a competent economic and political elite was the answer.
Mussolini was a buffoon. He had a head start on Hitler yet had to be propped up by Germany throughout the war.
There is such a thing as repudiation. Makes transition a snap.
Post a Comment