Why Christopher Hitchens Called Himself a Trotskyist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ส.ค. 2009
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2009/07/28/Uncommon_Kn...
Author and journalist Christopher Hitchens defends calling himself a Trotskyist. Hitchens says Trotsky "combined in himself the role of man of action and man of ideas," and admires his opposition to Stalin and Hitler as "a person of immense emotional and physical courage."
-----
Leon Trotsky, one of the leading figures of the Russian October Revolution, remains a controversial figure. For many, Trotsky's assassination in Mexico marked a tragedy in Soviet history, cutting off the possibility of a humane version of communism taking hold in Russia, with Trotsky himself arguing that he would have held back the tides of arbitrary rule and terror. But is that so? In answering this question and others about Trotsky's ideas, political defeat, and exile, Hitchens and Service speak to the very nature of communist ideology. - Hoover Institution
Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic. Now living in Washington, D.C., he has been a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Nation and Slate; additionally, he is an occasional contributor to many other publications.
Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits Hoover's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, Uncommon Knowledge.
The chapter on the full video is "called." Apparently the phrasing got mistakenly changed by one of our editors before posting to TH-cam. After reviewing your comment, we've changed it back. Thanks for the heads-up.
Also a mass murderer.
man i miss this guy. A gargantuan intellect who spoke so beautifully and poetically. RIP!
Hahaha someone that calls themselves a Trotskyist cannot be a gargantuan intellect. But I guess the bar’s a bit lower over in Brexit-Land
Wishing hitchens to rest in peace??? Irony committed suicide by jumping off of the flat earth..
'There is no peace for the wicked'. It would be wonderful to hear that he had repented at the last moment, but we have no news of that to date.
@@jesusislordsavior6343 0:15 Freemason hand gesture. They can't hide themselves. Watch how Christopher and the man to his left react. "There's something in this man 👌you admire, something in his writings to which you adhere".
Observe how the man in the beige coat reacts. He looks noticeably uncomfortable once the 666 hand gesture is made, which is well documented in official Freemasonic literature. Can't believe these things have been in front of my eyes for so long, yet I couldn't or wouldn't see.
@@derp8575
Interesting observation. I've paid very little attention to such things myself. But the gesture couldn't be clearer.
Someone might say, 'Big deal, people talk with their hands all the time.'
I thought nothing of it when I first saw the video. But why make such a specific gesture in the course of an ordinary conversation?
For the record, his family did struggle financially to give him the superb education he got. You're right that he did make his way into the upper echelons of society, but his roots were very middle-class.
Are you a Freemason? Your username made me curious.
Education has nothing to do with it, I don’t think.
Genetics is most of it; he wouldn’t have been held back from being a genius writer simply by not having taken political science 201.
@@derp8575 you realize that Mason is just a name that people have right?
@@kommi7658 As a matter of fact no. Thank you for the information. Freemasonry is a group that peaks my interest.
@@Tehownilator He wouldn't have had time to write, nor would he have had time to become so knowledgeable if he was working in a sweat shop or went to prison because he turned to selling crack to help keep a roof over his family's head. there are a lot of really smart guys. What there aren't a lot of are really smart guys born into at least enough security to allow guys like Hitchens to blossom and be less inclined to all the pit falls of poverty i.e. alcoholism/drug addiction, having to drop out of school, having to resort to crime to keep a roof over your head, etc. Now imagine how many Hitchens' we'd have, how much better society would be, how much faster we would advance, if we all had at least the security of healthcare, housing, and education?
Love Hitchens even when I disagree with him.
0:12 is a Freemasonic hand gesture. It's documented in official Freemason literature which dates back to the 18th century. "There's something in this 👌 man you admire, something in his writings to which you adhere".
Observe the professor in the beige coat. Does he seem uncomfortable? Atheists should live by logic, facts and reason. Knowledge doesn't scare atheists. They welcome all facts. Peter Robinson was a speech writer for late ex-president Ronald Reagan. There is a photo of Peter shaking Regan's hand using the official Freemasonic handshake. George Washington was a Freemason. "Freemason and first President of the United States". In my opinion, being the first POTUS should have been mentioned before Freemason. Could you imagine if someone etched into stone "President Trump, Boy Scout and 45th POTUS"? Why in the hell would Boy Scout be more important than POTUS?
Logic, reason, facts, uncensored open dialog and debates with 100% transparency is how we evolve. If my theories do not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, if I can't articulate a logical rationale for my beliefs, explain it in a way reasonable people can understand, or rebut an argument without using ad hominem, actual science is not on my side. Opinions and perspective are subjective, truth is not. There is no "my truth", "your truth", or "their truth". There's is only *the* truth. Freemasons appear to run the world. Is there any way you can refute that statement? Atheists aren't scared of knowledge and truth. Research for yourself. You might want to consider scrolling down past all of the Wiki, corporate and .gov websites. Please read them by all means. But also consider reading those who undermine the corporate and government narrative. Atheists aren't corporate and government establishment shills.
Still waiting for a rebuttal. Trust me, I don't want to be correct. Your admission isn't a win for me. Like you, I still have to live in this crappy world, ruled by an elite class.
thanks for posting Fora
"And people of that kidney" Got to love "The Hitch"
"Vietnam--I completely agree with you. Vietnam was an intervention in the personal civil war of an insignificant country with no Soviet influence."
False. There was no civil war. "South Vietnam was essentially the creation of the United States," it says in the Pentagon Papers.
Vietnam declared itself independent after defeating Japan in 1945. But France wanted its old colony back, and was backed by the US.
this comment was vandalized by editors working on the backend of youtube and i have replaced it with this acknowledgement rather than allow it to continue to sit here to be vandalized. be aware that your words are not safe from editing by youtube on this platform, and that your posts to this medium may be altered to distort your perspectives to either align with the viewpoints of powerful state or non-state actors or potentially even to frame you. youtube can and will change the content of your posts at will, without notice.
the point i was making was that hitchens, like the neo-cons, was a trotskyist. hitchens' arguments for the toppling of saddam hussein and the neo-cons' argument for the toppling of saddam hussein were both directly derived from trotskyist theory; the difference is that hitchens retained faith in the theory, whereas the neo-cons were cynically using it to advance an imperialist agenda. it follows that the idea the hitchens was parroting neo-con propaganda is consequently an absurd strawman; if anything, it was the neo-cons that were parroting hitchens, in an attempt to co-opt him to advance their less altruistic aims.
hitchens was wrong. he might not have been, and history may exonerate him, but he was wrong. he was wrong because he was naive. the neo-cons were not wrong; they got exactly what they wanted.
I am impressed by the mental hoops you jumped through to convince yourself a trotskyite persepective could lead you to support regime change at the hands of the american military.
@@t00bgazer all of the neo-cons were reformed trostkyists and in that sense only did hitchens align with that camp. i suspect he realized he'd found his tribe. this is not my argument. but, why do you think that trotsky - who was pro-american to his core - would have seen the united states as having some kind of manifest destiny to be a capitalist hegemon? let us not mix up trotsky's clear-thinking with the later muddled thought of anti-colonial theory. trotsky's intellectual lineage was looking for the most advanced capitalist state, as that is where communism would develop. he would have no time for the specious backwardsness of anti-colonial theory, and you can hear that contempt in hitchens when he speaks.
“Despite its errors of prognostication, Trotsky book ‘Where Is Britain Going’ is the most, or rather the only effective statement of the case for proletarian revolution and communism in Britain that has ever been made.”-Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky’s biographer.
@Schnozzle a key part of the marxisfest was translated wrong in english, thats y the confusion about free speech
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
and
6. Centralização do sistema de transportes nas mãos do Estado
and
6. Zentralisation des Transportwesens in den Händen des Staats" . (In the 1848 revision he adds after the first " Des " the expression " alles " which means " all " .)
@Schnozzle no chap, i only mentioned the effect that this diference had on the reader. I have no idea which version these asias read, but an order being expressly given in this checklist makes a great difenence
Huh, I'll have to reread it again. XD
Thanks for the info, man.
He actually wrote
Manifesto: Towards a Free Revolutionary Art: Andre Breton and Leon Trotsky (1938)
brilliant explanation on Trotsky
@onemoreturn And who did he kill if I may ask?
I didn’t know Christopher Hitchens was a fan of Trotsky! That’s legit ! Makes me like him more than I did before !
Useful Idiot.
Adam Smith oh get the fuck over yourself
@jsev712
You may be right about Orwell, and you're certainly right about the Krondstadt Rebellion. The sailors were Ukrainian and opposed the policy of War Communism, but the base had been a strong centre of support for the Bolsheviks in October 1917. Therefore, whilst the way Trotsky ordered the sailors to be killed was brutal and wrong, the rebellion had to be put down. Trotsky was a radical, but he planned the October Revolution which was virtually bloodless. I can see why some admire him.
@givinitsome Thank you for that comment.
@KenMacMillan
Ok, but I don't get the connection.
Yes, and if we accept the orthodox view that "Snowball" represents Leon Trotsky, then we can see -- written in black and white -- that, while Orwell considered Trotsky to be preferable in comparison to Stalin, he was by no means desirable. In the novel, Snowball is shown several times to be in active collusion with "Napoleon" (Stalin), against the interest of the others.
Orwell may have shared some points of principle with Trotsky -- but he was no follower!
The left is all asthetics. Trotsky was worse then Stalin in every way.
Orwell is a rapist who belongs in the trash.
I heard that Trotsky admonitioned Stalin for being so lenient and not killing enough people in one of the early conflicts. This may have had a lasting impression on Stalin.
I barely remember any of that, I must read it again. Thank you for responding. I have respect and admiration for both Trotsky and Orwell, although I dislike many things they both said and did.
Socialism/marxism always equal governmental bullying & always the socio-psychopath gets in & rules with their psychopathic ways crammed down the throats of the common man in any society! In any socialism/marxism the bullying psychopaths will 100% always rule to totally control!!!!!
@@RonSafreed I take it youre a Nazi?
@@pobbinista What a dishonest remark! If you object to leftist butchery, you must support right-wing butchery? Wow.
You know, there's this other philosophy, it's not around much anymore, but they used to call it 'liberalism'...
And if you know your history, you know that Nazism -- which is short for "National Socialism", a system where the government controls what remains of the private economy -- would never have existed without Marx's making the stock for that soup:
Benito Mussolini had been one of the leading Communists in Italy when he basically created fascism around the end of WWI; he kept Communism's economics, the working-class appeal, and the idea of the total state, and added extreme nationalism to it -- voila, Fascism. Hitler kept all of that, then added the racism, the imperialism, and the genocide, and called it National Socialism. Thank you, Karl Marx.
(Who was also an utter scumbag to his 'friends' and family, and a screaming anti-semite.)
I consider myself a liberal conservative but I can flux and I will call out stupidity from so called conservative politicians if ever the Tories are actually conservative, but I always had a big admiration for Orwell and at least Trotsky wasn't in it for himself like Stalin or Lenin. Their is a very interesting interview where C Hitchens where he even announces that politically he belongs to no party to the point he said he wasn't really a socialist in what we may think. I think he was too intelligent to just blindly stick to an allegiance. I think this came from his Hegelian thoughts about the past and so forth. I kinda get what he means, politics changes a lot and the to stick to one side is not always wise. I do think the modern day woke left have put a stain on the left and I would be great to have seen Hitchens call them out. Most leftists today are really gutless , not all but most. We need to get the balance back.
You definitely have the "guts." As did both Orwell and Hitchens. As what these guts entail or lead to, only the country knows.
Well, at least Hitch won't be wiped out of the picture like Trotsky
@DouglasHall1947 I like when Rose and Lamb interview Hitchens
I would also like to stress that I don't want to be drawn into any kind of antagonistic debate - Happy to keep it friendly - After all, I might learn something!!
I didn't say he despised Trotsky as much as Stalin!
Snowball (Trotsky), while being portrayed as intelligent and having initiative, is, in my opinion, portrayed in a fairly negative light throughout most of the book. Some examples:
(1) He destroys all of the ribbons, in spite of the fact that Mollie has said she likes wearing them. They contravene no.3 on Snowball's list of 7 commandments, which ""form an unalterable law by which all animals on animal farm must live for ever after""
@TheAttackRat
What I mean is that you very rarely get a point with an argument like "that is not capitalism" when I as easily could claim "that is not socialism".
Anyone here read Fascism: What It Is and How To Fight It by Trotsky? Way ahead of the major western governments, indeed, as Hitchens pointed out
I appreciate your intelligent, detailed and well-researched posts, which unfortunately seem to be belied by the conclusions you come to; I cannot help but feel that your intellect aids your casuistry rather than helping to facilitate fair reasoning. You make a fair point concerning Hitler the strategist, but focusing on his manifest dark side does not denote a poor understanding. Calling oneself a 'Hitlerist' would be deeply offensive, and some interpret 'Trotskyism' in a similar way. Thanks
"And people of that kidney"
I wish Hitchens was given enough time to differentiate between his admiration for Trotsky and Orwell. From what I saw, they seemed to be on a similar level.
Courage: Strength in the face of pain or grief.
Moral: concerned with principles of right or wrong.
I think with these two, you automatically assume that he means he admirers Leon's views. No, Hitchens likes that Leon was an intense and large character. He is unique in history, he showed charisma, he traveled a lot, wrote a lot, he was overall a man who encompassed a lot.
The same goes for someone who says that Hitler was a good strategist.
1. It's true.
2. He's doesn't endorse the man's views.
There's also the possibity that Trotsky was being sarcastic.
In my humble interpretation of "individual freedom" giving working people additional rights in society is not an infringement on their rights, workplace democracy, arming the majority of the population to form a WORKERs state instead of the current minority bourgeois state,is not an infringement on your "personal liberties". If you are too sentimental about taking away the rights of the owners of big business to get even richer off of the labor of their employees, then communism is not for you.
This snowball is gonna roll all the way down the mountain.
Snowball... Anyone? Trotsky?
Nevermind
Animal farm, I see you haha
He was certainly not a follower, but that doesn't mean he despised him like he did with Stalin. Orwell did describe Animal Farm as his "contre-Stalin". When is Snowball being seen working with Napoleon against the other animals? It's been a long time since I read it and I don't remember that.
@CharlesDickens99 That's not really proof. That's a story someone has told you that sounds pretty similar to another story I've heard that I can't remember where from. It does sound kind of wrong for the time period we're in here.
@danielmalpollitt i find myself agreeing with you. I believe that is a good thing.
@gulbirk I recommend a book called 'The Roots of Evil' by Robert Blick, I also recommend 'State Capitalism - the wages system under new management' by Adam Buick. The former illustrates how Leninism and Stalinism are terms that can be used interchangeably and are completely anti-marxist in nature, the is a brief but thorough explanation as to why the soviet union was from it inception a capitalist state, both explain more that I can on a youtube comment!
Haha, we actually have one guy (who we've nicknamed Ultra-Left Bob) who's so crazy the Sparts actually kicked him out!
A Spart called us imperialists because we were handing out anti-war flyers that said "Bring The Troops Home".
He was holding a sign "Death to all US Soldiers, Victory to the Iraqi Resistance".
Hmm...??? I remember reading something to that effect in an article somewhere. I tried to find it, but had no luck.
I might have misunderstood what Trotsky was really saying (?) and interpreted it out of context. It could have been more on the lines of criticising Stalin's military strategies as in the Polish front failure (~1920).
Trotsky also criticised him in earlier campaigns where Stalin was very ruthless.
I know Stalin helped Lenin in 1917, but he should have been taken out by 1920.
What’s physical courage??
Are you shitting me?
@gulbirk I will answer that if you don't mind trotsky was head of the red army during the massacre of about 2000 workers at Kronstadt, a fact many Trotskyists still find uncomfortable to this day.
well said, im glad to see a libertarian that knows something about communism and Russian history.
@TheAttackRat "socialism leads to fascism"
None of the factors leading to the rise of fascism in both Italy & Germany had anything to do with socialism. Germany's economic collapse was seized upon by Hitler who appealed to German nationalism while scapegoating others for Germany's problems (Jews, etc). In America today we have these same factors in play: economic collapse; right-wing elements exploiting worker frustration with scapegoating (immigrants, etc); & a virulent nationalism.
@CarlosMarti123 You're completely missing the point of Dr. Rees. He's saying, as Tyson has so eloquently conveyed at Beyond Belief 2006, that Dawkins' way of discussing religion is unhelpful. I can understand that: as Tyson said, educating is not just putting the facts out there, there's also a sense of persuasion involved.
But I didn't say that, did I? I said it's the _only rational way_ to consider religion. Which is correct.
And atheist dogma? Contradictio in terminis: watch?v=TSbdsvCrq2A
Cont........
(4) The Apples fall from the trees. The other animals assumed they would be shared among the group. Quotes, ""the order went forth that all the apples were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs"". ""All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon"" Squealer was sent to pacify the others, which he did by invoking the passive-aggressive threat that if the pigs were not allowed the apples, the farmer would return.
this doesn't work
"... admires his opposition to Stalin and Hitler as 'a person of immense *emotional* and physical courage.'" At least try to get the quotes right. In this video Hitchens says Trotsky was "a person of immense *moral* and physical courage." 1:00
Cryptonymicus
Sure, it took the Bolsheviks a lot of 'moral courage' to slaughter 'class enemies', to commit mass rape of bourgeois women, etc., and Trotsky was one of their principal leaders. Away with this romantic nonsense about revolutionary 'purity'. Stalin did not invent the Terror.
GOD is Judge even of those who do not acknowledge His existence. Hitchens neglected this fact at his own peril.
(cont) You argued that "Mass murder isn't the reason that Trotsky leaves such a big impression on any intellectual who *actually cares to study him in depth*." - I appreciate your point fully, but would have to argue that this is rather specious reasoning; if, by some phenomenal turn of events, Hitler had been known primarily for some other reason than that which he was, it would not be justifiable to support him (at any stage in your life, outside of infancy, regardless of repudiation.)
Renounce means to declare abandonment for something like a membership, I'm pretty sure I used it right.
You should know what I'm talking about when I say a 'seemingly great and inspiring movement' - One that still resonates with young radicals today [fascism/racism v socialism/communism ideology]. So the point here is, if you're raised in a particular camp, and you go on to declare yourself no longer a 'ist' or renouncing endorsement for this particular 'ism', it's OK. Wouldn't you agree?
Cont...
(5) Men return to the farm and there's a battle. A lad is ko'd by Boxer. Boxer believes the boy is dead & is upset. Snowball's response is grim. Quote, ""No Sentimentality! The only good human is a dead one""
(6) After the battle medals are awarded. The dead animals are awarded "Hero, 2nd class".
Snowball -- still alive -- is awarded "Hero, 1st class". Orwell makes a point of noting that the metal used is exactly the same as the animals were made to wear by the Farmer.
Elaborate, please? Seems like a loaded statement. Not that I disagree with you at all (and I am pretty sure we are of like minds), but it's ambiguous to a degree.
And he remained a Trotskyite in many ways. Still supporting a different type of world revolution. Not much difference between him and Irving Kristol as far as I’m concerned. And his so called conversion, funny how that happened after he started making big bucks after batting (or pretending to at least) for the other team. Just like the East German wrynecks. Big on wit, low on honesty, and a grifter through and through. Altogether overrated.
@liverbitz91 Actually there is structure, but it's built from the bottom up out of voluntary communities of workers, rather than from the top down out of owners and rulers.
@Freethinker12341 "We would be compelled to acknowledge that Stalinism was rooted not in the backwardness of the country, but in the congenital incapacity of the proletariat to become a ruling class. Then it would be necessary to establish, in retrospect, that the present USSR was the precursor of a new and universal system of exploitation." -- Leon Trotsky, 1938
(cont)
3. Hitchens admiration of Trotsky's wide compass of achievement (listed below comment) is well founded, this isn't evident for people who only scratch the surface of this historical figure. Nonetheless both I and Hitchens recognize the, obvious & easy to see, dark side of his career.
Hitler was suffering from diseases that mentally deteriorated him, that's where his rushed "bonehead" mistakes came from. That he was an excellent strategist while he was in competent capacity is no question.
Why not? And given the fact that the concept seems a new one to you (I am not having a go here), how much time have you given to considering it as a possibility? There are too many things to get into one comment, so Google organisations that stand for such a thing and see their arguments as to how it would be possible, the SPGB or libcom have some fairly good stuff on it and Zeitgeist of course has attracted a whole new generation of people to the idea, even if they don't call it 'socialism'.
Probably the first video from the Hoover institute which I liked.
@TennisAnnalyst Your wrong in all cases but slightly less wrong at the end. Trotsky took on Lennin's idea of vanguardism or as trotskyist/lennists call it 'democratic centralism' which is based precisely on the idea that without strong leaders workers wouldn't be able to form socialism, unlike marx who said that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class themselves". You don't go far enough when you say Marx stood for a week state, he stood for its abolition!
I don't care what you "think", those are the definitions, period. You mean you think there's an undertone of innuendo in it, well I can assure you, this man knows his English, if there's something he wanted to say, he would have said it. He's not afraid of having dissenting views.
If you can find where Hitchens ever endorsed the man's views or actions where it wasn't properly ethical, then I'd be glad to hear your case.
@Javier40194 wouldnt anarchy by definition imply no powerstructure? I think you are moere looking at Tribalism or primitivism
What?
For Hitler to match Trotsky, he would have to be very, very much more impressive and immense in his character and actions, and his ideology would have to resonate with intelligent radicals long after his death.
It would be easier to instead raise Trotsky's set character and achievements to Hitler's body count in murder. To do this, Trotsky would have had to subject millions of people to campaigns of systematic genocide instead of just the much lesser war crimes he committed.
Socialism/marxism always equal governmental bullying & always the socio-psychopath takes over in all marxist governments & the last 100 years proves this & thenext 100 years will be the same! Marxism is governmental bullying to control the people 100% always & forever !!!!!!
We're in big trouble.@@RonSafreed
@@derp8575 the American colonists had their backs up against a wall 250 years ago with the English bullying & coming after them & that is what started that 8 year war for independence!! Canada now needs a war for independence against socialism & tyranny, nothing else will do for Canada now!!
I have seen Zeitgeist and read some of the SPGB, Zeitgeist itself is riddled with falsehoods, but I can accept "soft" socialism, insofar it has no planned economies (as one cannot hope to know what needs to be produced).
Regarding the ultimate goal, it is hard to argue against the idyllic state communism, as Marx meant it. However I see grave problems in reaching the point of this idyllic state, and I also see a problem given that it requires very few people to be bad to ruin the system.
What's your point? Was he fighting for Trotsky, and Trotsky's belief system, or was he fighting for Spanish freedom from autoratic dictatorship?
@apacheslim
Well actually, if you read about the background of most top revolutionaries in Russia and Western Europe, many of them came from wealthy families. Marx himself was very well to do. Trotsky is by no means an exception.
No ones saying Hitchens would fit into socialism, your comment has nothing to do with he discussion, which on the back of this Hitchens video is a debate about the definition/merits of communism. The question isn't whether socialism/communism is in the interests of Hitchens but whether it is for the vast majority of us aka the working class. For the record I don't consider Hitchens to have ever been a marxist, trotskyism is vanguardist, marxism is based on workers self leadership.
I think what Creationists misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) about Science is not that it should decide Morals. but Science as one of the faculties of Man can explain many things. Morals, is up to Man's other Faculties: Reason, Compassion, Ethics. None of this, says Humanism, requires a Prime Mover, a Deus Ex Machina. It is not Hubris, but Humility, instead of abdication to a Prime Mover, to acknowledge Humanism and the wonders of the Universe in its own right.
I’m a huge supporter of Leon Trotsky
Fuck communism
@@scurbag You'll never have half the balls Trotsky had.
While I’m not a communist, I admire Trotsky as a statesman. He believed in orthodox Marxism and workers liberation more than Stalin.
@@scurbag Communism will win
You can't spell Christopher without Christ. Watch how noticeably the professor in the beige jacket becomes at 0:12 when this is said, "There's something in this 👌 man you admire, something in his writings to which you adhere"
A historically documented Freemasonic hand symbol. Often used by politicians such as Trump and a enormous amount of celebrities. Too much to be a coincidence. Though I'm certain normies will pick the first Google search result and regurgitate what they read from WIKI, Fox or dot gov websites. Meanwhile, people like us are called conspiracy theorists, despite having read the official Masonic literature.
...needless to say, the goals of the 8th congress of the CPSU were removed by Kruschev who then liberalised the markets of the USSR instead of beginning to introduce proletarians to the management of the their surplus and get rid of capitalism like Stalin already had succeeded in the collective farms. Since capital was liberalised after 1954 instead of taking steps towards socialism, the USSR is called "State Capitalist" by marxists.
@freddiemercerful "Orthodoxly"? Really? Do you speak English?
@INatalkaI Marx lived in poverty. Perhaps it is Engels you are referring to?
What I meant to say was
"Never is Marx's alternative future given clear shape or offered up for examination. Marxism has been described as a secular religion. A creed complete with prophet,sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political sytems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on." from The Economist "Marx after communism" Are you willing to read it and question faith?
@danielmalpollitt I too am an Atheist and agree with some of Hitchens' views, though love him or hate him he's kind of hard to ignore.
Mosquitoes are the most prolific mass murderers of all time.
Its so unfortunate that Hitchens became a bit of a reactionary towards the end of his life. Smart guy.
Nothing "unfortunate" about it, wider perspective leads to reorientation and course correction. Perhaps you should be so fortunate.
A bit of a reactionary is a bit of an exaggeration. He supported turning Iraq into a barely functioning warzone, driving it into poverty and causing people to be unable to support their most basic needs. He also supported the same outcome in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the bombing of Yugoslavia which left Serbia with the highest cancer rate to this day as a result. The amount of misery and death those policies caused is probably incalculable.
@@puddintame6310 I think they were speaking specifically about him becoming reactionary (which I strongly disagree with), not about having a wider perspective in and of itself.
cyranothe2nd
What do you mean by 'reactionary'? Are you referring to his defense of the Iraq war? Don't be deceived: Saddam Hussein's ideology was a Middle Eastern variant of fascism.
We all know NOW that some clique within the American government cooked up the justification for war. But I can't blame Hitchens when I myself was deceived. So was Tony Blair, who was more my cup of tea ideologically at THAT time. Within a year or so of the invasion it became clear to me that the project was fundamentally dishonest, and my opinion of the USA began to plummet.
I do not need to judge Hitchens as a reviler of God and of Christ. His own statements condemned him. They indicated a LACK of intelligence.
A smartypants may still be a fool.
'The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." '
How can any serious intellectual wax poetic about Communism? Lenin and Trotsky were killers, just like Stalin.
@@jesusislordsavior6343 Towards the end he stated that he "had to give it up", meaning socialism.
uff adamın sesi çok iyi düştüm
Erm, yeah, I'm not really changing the subject because you weren't originally addressing me, were you? I'm not supporting Marxism, and no where have I stated that I am, I'm just wondering why you keep recycling the same claims that have already been pointed out to you to be false.
You're a bit slow, aren't you?
You should support Marxism.
It appears that you are claiming on the one hand that Trotskyism is a noble 'ism', but that if one had not rejected it then it would be fair to call him a disgrace. It seems as though your line of argument is primarily that it is possible to split the positive and negative aspects of Trotsky, follow the positives, and celebrate the man. Mine is that this is a very murky area and that it's not possible to do so, and I threw the obvious example of Hitler into the mix to justify that point of view.
Wonderful stuff from Hitchens, far better than his tabloid TV appearances where he tends to come off as a super smug Oxbridge brat.
(cont)
I mean, if he remained stubborn and never ended his membership to Trotskyism, then I would see it fit that one would call it a disgrace. Also, being a Trotskyist is nothing like saying you're a Hitlerist.
BTW Hitchens also dropped his socialism. I view it as a good thing, though it would have been better if he was never raised as such a darn 'radical'. Say he was a Hitlerist [again, fascism not popular], and it took him this long to repudiate it, then I wouldn't be such a big fan of his.
@TheAttackRat Yes, you are correct to say that anarchy will form a power structure. But it is a non-hierarchical, highly organized power structure. That is to say it must be a non-hierarchical, highly organized power structure if anarchy is to successful and long-lasting. There is nothing wrong with power as long as it's used with others rather than over others.
trotsky was clever enough to realize the red army needed professional(in that case czarist trained)officers to be effective. stalin's insistence on having left wing zealots as commanding officers helped german advances in both wars.(while germany forbad it's army officers any political membership) .same stupidity in iran, when mullahs replaced all the shah's imperial officers with islamists resulting in a looming defeat by saddam. iran saved itself in reinstating many imperial trained officers
Except that Iran didn't lose and neither did Russia.
It's claptrap when Hitchens says that Trotsky helped Breton writing the Surrealist Manifesto. Not true.
Trotsky's analyses of European interbellum politics are often fascinating indeed, but he was very often wrong too.
where's the scotch?!
He was asked about his take on Trotsky's accomplishments, not to give a biography. Trotsky was a remarkable man, now if you wish to ignore than and pretend like all he really did was mass murder all the time, then go ahead. It's a quite stupid way of looking at him, he encompassed a lot more. This is what you need to understand: Mass murder isn't the reason that Trotsky leaves such a big impression on any intellectual who *actually cares to study him in depth*.
1. Re-read this until you understand it man:
"This is what you need to understand: Mass murder isn't the reason that Trotsky leaves such a big impression on any intellectual who *actually cares to study him in depth*."
2. Name me one of these savage dictators that has a record as big as Trotsky.
3. Hitler subjected his people to campaigns of mass genocide, does this then mean he was not a great strategist? No. It's a non sequitur to say so, and the same application is employed for Trotsky.
3. is actually yes, bc putting your own people thru genocide clearly is an strategic failure, but we must remember the class character of the russian civil war, and that it wasn't genocide, which is targeted ethnic murder, but executions of enemy combatants, warfare and famine what the would be USSR had to go thru. A much better comparison would be to say that losing doesn't mean you are not a good general, like Napoleon eventually lost in Waterloo but he was still a smart strategic mind, although when armies get big enough there is only so much room for genius. Trotsky was smart, but he got outdone by comrade Stalin, Trotsky had to split from the party, which still discredits him in the eyes of many of us, it would have been smarter to work within the party instead of infighting. Arch Getty writes on this, there was too much factionalism, that was a strategic mistake. Trotsky lost there, but still, yes, he was a smart guy with useful ideas and criticism, but his damned split and his cold war followers have caused more harm than good to the socialist cause. Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara would agree with me on this.
@bapyou Isn't anarchy a form of nihilism. So as to say that there is no structure? Why and how could we use anarchy to build or advance society? I don't see that being a possibility.
@CarlosMarti123 Deuteronomy 20:10-14 "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. (...) put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
Slavery or Death.
Unfortunately, as is often the case with Hitchens, his facts are all wrong. Orwell did not join a Trotskyist faction in Spain but the anarchists. And, Trotsky was known as the butcher of Kronstadt, in ordering the assault and the massacre ofthe 'independent' sailors' enclave who wanted to hold Lenin and his one-time Menshevik nemesis to the promises of 'Soviet' power which was practised to the letter on the island.
You've already been told that the USSR is not real representation of Communism. It was Stalinism. Are unable to argue against what people actually say, so you just recite the bilge you learnt at some republican rally you attended?
The interviewer has no idea what C.H. is talking about.
@CharlesDickens99 Millions die in wars. It happens. But now you have me intrigued. I have never heard of Trotsky being involved in atrocities. I have heard of Stalin repeatedly trying to pin any screw-ups on Trotsky while trying to take credit for any successes.
@danielmalpollitt Boy thanks for sharing.
@mbu17
Actually, the most famous classic blunder.
Thomas Paine
Cont.............
(2) When the time comes for harvesting the hay, Napoleon (Stalin), sends the other pigs (including Snowball) to lead the other animals in doing the work. Quote, ""The pigs did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others"".
(3) Meetings are established among the animals in which resolutions are put forward to be voted on regarding future policy on the farm. Quote, ""It was always the pigs who put forward the resolutions"".
Cont.........
This is a test. This is only a test. If this was an actual nuclear war, I'd be out breaking into our local gourmet foods store.
I'm not sure you agree at all with the comment you were posting to, nor do I agree in any way that a moneyless, stateless and classless system would work, and is clearly a communist ideal rather than, as JGO advocates, a mix of a socialistic and capitalistic system.
@UnOxonien Neologisms are pretty common when trying to make a point.
Although, one must point out, criticizing someone's grammar is a cowardly way of sidestepping the issue at hand.
He's not, anymore anyway. Watch the c-span interview.