Left-wing past of neoconservatives

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Left-wing past of neoconservatives

Postby tKl » Thu May 29, 2008 12:18 am

Hey, it's a wiki, not me...


Author Michael Lind argues that "the organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-communist Congress for Cultural Freedom, founded in 1950, to the Committee on the Present Danger (1950-1953, then re-founded in 1976), to the Project for the New American Century (1997), and adds that "European social-democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy" (founded 1983).

The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class.'" He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution." He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism," which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence.

Critics of Lind contend that there is no theoretical connection between Trotsky's permanent revolution, and that the idea of a global democratic revolution instead has Wilsonian roots. While both Wilsonianism and the theory of permanent revolution have been proposed as strategies for underdeveloped parts of the world, Wilson proposed capitalist solutions, while Trotsky advocated socialist solutions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
"He needs less and more blankets!"

-Walk Hard
tKl
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:55 pm
Location: A big time lag called "now."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Thu May 29, 2008 1:47 am

Except for the Trotskyite part, which is fucking absurd, every part of that is kind of like sayinrg:

Newsflash! The roots of a water molecule can be traced in a straight line back to the formation of the elements hydrogen and ogygen!

What is your point?
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu May 29, 2008 2:11 am

.

I find this tedious since so many right-wing blowhards of today were also the right-wing blowhards of yesterday.

From Sloterdijk to Mamet, there's always been a high bonus in media coverage for any and every leftist who later peddles it on the right. Even if they were never really leftists in the first place. Wolfowitz and Perle, for example, were staffers with the Democratic Senator Scoop Jackson, neither a leftist nor a liberal really but more like the Lieberman of his time. It means nothing that they say they would support a European-style domestic social state, since that concept only appears leftist to .... Americans.

The obsession with finding the origin of neocon ideas amuses me - like with all these people who think all should be blamed on the long-dead philosophy professor in Chicago, who after all didn't say anything that Carl Schmitt and a thousand faithful sycophants to elite tyranny hadn't said before. Let's outdo ourselves finding the most outrageous rationalization for the exercise of unaccountable power and call it freedom; what's the idea in that?
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

"Coffee is for Closers"

Postby MinM » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:11 am

JackRiddler wrote:.

I find this tedious since so many right-wing blowhards of today were also the right-wing blowhards of yesterday.

From Sloterdijk to Mamet, there's always been a high bonus in media coverage for any and every leftist who later peddles it on the right. Even if they were never really leftists in the first place. Wolfowitz and Perle, for example, were staffers with the Democratic Senator Scoop Jackson, neither a leftist nor a liberal really but more like the Lieberman of his time. It means nothing that they say they would support a European-style domestic social state, since that concept only appears leftist to .... Americans...

Much ado at the DU about Mamet. Kudos to you JackRiddler for nailing this at least 2 years ago.
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Seth Swirsky: "Why I Left the Left"

Postby MinM » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:53 pm

Image
This Seth Swirsky character seems to be another one of these faux reformed leftys.

Lennon was a closet Reagan fan
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests