Discussion:
Trots --> neocons: why?
Doug Henwood
1996-09-09 17:21:57 UTC
Permalink
What happened is that the avant-garde Trotskyist connection gave birth to
some reactionary anticommunist impulses, most notably expressed in the
shift to the right of echt-modernist journal Partisan Review.
Continuing a bit Trot-bashing I started the other day on the Left Unity
list (bashing in the name of unity - ah the dialectic!), another question
(my question to the LU crowd being just why is it that Trots are so often
disruptive, divisive assholes?): why did so many U.S. 1930s Trots become
the core of modern neoconservatism?

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <dhenwood at panix.com>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>




--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Louis N Proyect
1996-09-09 17:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Henwood
Continuing a bit Trot-bashing I started the other day on the Left Unity
list (bashing in the name of unity - ah the dialectic!), another question
(my question to the LU crowd being just why is it that Trots are so often
disruptive, divisive assholes?): why did so many U.S. 1930s Trots become
the core of modern neoconservatism?
Louis: I think the answer in a nutshell is Stalinophobia. There has always
been a hatred toward the Stalin the individual that spilled over into
negative feelings toward the Soviet socialist state. The Trotskyists of
the 1930s had this inclination but were also anticapitalist. As the cold
war started, they dropped their anticapitalism and burnished their
anti-Stalinism to such a high degree that it turned into anticommunism.

What I find interesting is the degree to which "post-Trotskyist" Jim
Miller thought the collapse of the USSR was an unqualified step forward
for socialism. With the fall of "Stalinism", Cuba no longer had to use the
nasty tractors, fuel oil and food they got from the murderers of Trotsky.
They would instead use pristine and politically correct oxcarts and
handplows for agriculture.



--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Louis R Godena
1996-09-09 22:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis N Proyect
Louis: I think the answer in a nutshell is Stalinophobia. There has always
been a hatred toward the Stalin the individual that spilled over into
negative feelings toward the Soviet socialist state. The Trotskyists of
the 1930s had this inclination but were also anticapitalist. As the cold
war started, they dropped their anticapitalism and burnished their
anti-Stalinism to such a high degree that it turned into anticommunism.
There is much to be said for this explanation; however, one should not
neglect the role of the "Stalinist" CPUSA in
moving many toward an anti-Stalinist, and, ultimately, anti-Communist
position. For every Sidney Hook or Max Eastman, there were hundreds of
honest Communists who could not, for one reason or another, stomach much
of what the CP was doing in the thirties and early forties. This included
working closely with the Democratic Party, the trade union bureaucracy,
etc., and later, swallowing whole the Stalin-Hilter Pact, and, eventually,
abjuring strikes and slowdowns in an attempt to secure the opening of a
Second Front against fascism. Add to this the behavior of the Party
leadership to most non-Party elements within American Marxism , treating
them in effect as a potential "fifth column" of subversives, and one can
readily view the familiar Trotskyist path from revolution to reaction if not
with equanimity, at least with a measure of understanding.

True, as Louis (P) points out, there were other factors, and, of course,
opportunism played its role. Many second generation immigrants,
especially, once free of the impetuosity of youth (as well as the
constraints of urban poverty), discovered the blandishments of middle class
life in the US, and went rapturously "native" in defense of the American
Way of Life (sometimes even before being asked). But I would be remiss
in not pointing out that the American CP's slavish following of Moscow's
line as regards opposition on the Left (understandable in some limited
respects), together with other factors, extracted a high price in unity
and, ultimately, popular support.
Post by Louis N Proyect
What I find interesting is the degree to which "post-Trotskyist" Jim
Miller thought the collapse of the USSR was an unqualified step forward
for socialism. With the fall of "Stalinism", Cuba no longer had to use the
nasty tractors, fuel oil and food they got from the murderers of Trotsky.
They would instead use pristine and politically correct oxcarts and
handplows for agriculture.
I agree. And not just the American SWP. A genuinely nauseating spectacle.


Louis Godena






--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Michael Hoover
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Henwood
disruptive, divisive assholes?): why did so many U.S. 1930s Trots become
the core of modern neoconservatism?
I believe Louis P responded to this question by suggesting that their
anti-Stalinism was an important factor...the role that some of these
intellectuals played in the Committee for Cultural Freedom (CCF) - a
1939 precursor to the post-WW2 American Committee for Cultural Freedom
- supports Louis' proposition and points to how their rightward movement
was facilitated...

the anti-Stalin marxists (most of whom were Trotskyist of one stripe or
another) were fewer in number but more fervent than the liberals
that they aligned themselves with in the CCF...and importantly -
for their subsequent rightward trajectory (some were already
experiencing a "crisis of faith" even if they had not yet left the
marxist-fold), they insisted that the sentence "The totalitarian
idea is already enthroned in Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, and
Rebel Spain" be included...CP intellectuals immediately recognized
the anti-Stalinist intent (and, by extension, attack on the Popular
Front) and tried to discredit the group with "reactionary" &
"Trotskyist" epithets...CCF liberals - among them titular chairman
John Dewey (Sidney Hook actually ran things) - thought that the
Nazi-Soviet Pact would undermine CP hegemony of "progressivism" in
the US...anti-Stalinists disagreed and their influence can be seen
in the organization's last publication (written by a "deradicalizing"
- Judy Kutulas' word - Ferdinand Lundberg) in mid-1940...the document
asserted that communist membership was proof of sinister activity.
..this assumption was but a few steps from deciding that US democracy
was threatened by allowing communists civil liberties

Hook (a non-party Trotskyist) had long since abandoned marxism when he
assembled the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (ACCF)
in 1951...so had some other initial ACCF members with Trot backgrounds
- James Burnham (SWP), Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer,
Seymour Martin Lispet, Melvin Lasky (members of YPSL at City College
in the late '30s)...totalitarianism was their theory and anti-
totalitarianism was their practice...the latter meant a US democracy
protected against communist machinations...Michael


--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Louis N Proyect
1996-09-13 12:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Hoover
I believe Louis P responded to this question by suggesting that their
anti-Stalinism was an important factor...the role that some of these
intellectuals played in the Committee for Cultural Freedom (CCF) - a
1939 precursor to the post-WW2 American Committee for Cultural Freedom
- supports Louis' proposition and points to how their rightward movement
was facilitated...
Louis: An ancillary question that is worth discussing is why the
ex-Trotskyists of today have not drifted into the anticommunist camp. My
observation is that the grass-roots leadership of many labor, peace,
feminist and environmental struggles today is composed of ex-Trotskyists
and ex-Maoists.

The generation of 1968--my generation--may have given up hope on the
ability of "vanguard" parties to lead anything anywhere, but we have
retained an abiding hatred for the capitalist system and a belief in the
need for socialism.

That is one of the reasons I find Tariq Ali's book so fascinating. Many of
the secondary characters are exactly like me, fiftyish generic
socialists. While many of these characters are portrayed as total
fools on a personal level--just like me--they seem to make much more
political sense than Ezra Einstein (Ernest Mandel), Jimmy Rock (Tony
Cliff) et al.

I plan to wrap this book up this weekend and post a long, brilliant
examination on both Ali's ability to see through Trotskyism and his
inability to see through his own failings.



--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Michael Hoover
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis N Proyect
Post by Michael Hoover
I believe Louis P responded to this question by suggesting that their
anti-Stalinism was an important factor...the role that some of these
intellectuals played in the Committee for Cultural Freedom (CCF) - a
1939 precursor to the post-WW2 American Committee for Cultural Freedom
- supports Louis' proposition and points to how their rightward movement
was facilitated...
Louis: An ancillary question that is worth discussing is why the
ex-Trotskyists of today have not drifted into the anticommunist camp. My
observation is that the grass-roots leadership of many labor, peace,
feminist and environmental struggles today is composed of ex-Trotskyists
and ex-Maoists.
I'm not usually one to fire off an immediate response but I managed to
delete (something I do a lot of by mistake) the very last portion of my
previous post on this subject which left it incomplete...the addendum
may also point towards answering Louis' above question...between the
anti-Stalin marxism of the Trotskyite intellectuals in the '30s and
their final destination as neo-conservatives was a period of Cold War
liberalism - which I would define as support for anti-Soviet/anti-
communist US foreign policy and acceptance of New Deal-Keynesian
domestic policies...having aligned themselves with US global interests,
they could not - generally - oppose the Vietnam War (and many were
rabid hawks)...and when the '60s turned "radical" here at home, they
saw an excess of democracy...the New Deal was ok, but the Great Society
was "going too far"...coming of age in this latter ear, however, the US
was the enemy...one consequence may have been the "third way" politics
identified with some of those in and around New Left Review at different
times and with the journal New Politics here in the states...Michael


--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Loading...