Trotskyites for Romney
Senior advisor to Romney inspired by Trotsky’s right-hand man
Back in the early 1990s, before Antiwar.com was founded, I was a regular at a roundtable discussion group sponsored by the late Bill Rusher, a founding editor of National Review: these seminars were organized by a young man associated with a prominent conservative educational organization. Bill lent us a room at the posh Union Club, at the top of San Francisco’s Nob Hill, where every month we would hear a speaker give an informal talk: we would then retire to the lounge, where refreshments and a lively discussion were enjoyed. I became friendly with the young organizer, and we had several interesting discussions about various matters: one day he confided to me how he had become involved conservative politics.
He had been attending a college somewhere in the Midwest, at which time his politics were vaguely conservative: one day he saw an advertisement for a lecture and meeting "in solidarity with Poland’s Solidarity" – the Polish anti-Soviet labor group that eventually overthrew the Communist party’s dictatorship – and decided to attend. Although he didn’t know it at the time, it was the beginning of his ideological hegira….
The group sponsoring the meeting was Social Democrats, USA, formerly known as the International Socialist League, a Trotskyist group founded and led by Max Shachtman. Shachtman had been Leon Trotsky’s chief intellectual advocate in the US until breaking with the Red Army commander in 1938 over the issue of the class nature of the Soviet Union. While insisting on retaining his socialist credentials, Shachtman gradually moved away from defending the Soviet Union – a favorite pastime of American commies and their numerous fellow travelers – and came to believe the Kremlin represented a far more deadly threat to socialist ideals than the West.
After breaking with the orthodox Trotskyists, Shachtman initially espoused the so-called Third Camp position, advancing the slogan "Neither Washington nor Moscow," and placing his hopes on an "independent" upsurge of socialist-minded workers. When that failed to materialize, and as the cold war got hotter, Shachtman slid further to the right: the ISL began emphasizing its opposition to "Stalinism," and issuing dire warnings about the alleged Soviet threat. When the Vietnam war broke out, Shachtman took the position that the US and its Vietnamese sock-puppets were preferable to the North Vietnamese Stalinists, and supported the war – a position that further decimated the ranks of his minuscule group, which had by that time dissolved itself into the Socialist Party of Norman Thomas.
Yet the Shachtmanites retained their internal cohesiveness, eventually reemerging as Social Democrats, USA, a group which still exists, albeit only in the formal sense. Shachtman, meanwhile, had other fish to fry: he had become an advisor to AFL-CIO chieftain George Meany, and a confidante of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the warlike Democratic Senator from Washington state whose foreign policy views often led his critics to describe him as "the Senator from Boeing." In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Shachtman’s followers became influential in the labor movement and in the budding civil rights movement: Bayard Rustin, the real organizer of Martin Luther King’s famous "March on Washington," was a Shachtmanite, although kept out of the limelight by his homosexuality.
It was at this point that a naïve Midwestern college student, motivated by his anti-Communist inclinations, attended a meeting in support of Poland’s Solidarity movement – and was introduced to the insular and highly obscure world of the Shachtmanites. After the lecture, he told me, he was invited to another SDUSA meeting, and found the group conducive to his hawkish anti-Communist views, and so he joined up. However, one thing puzzled him: at the end of the meeting, everyone rose and sang "The Internationale," the old commie anthem! A fine way for a supposedly anti-Communist group to operate!
Although he found this somewhat off-putting, to say the least, my young friend attributed this to the personal and ideological eccentricities of his new-found anti-Communist comrades. In any case, he became an active member of the group, and from there found his way into the conservative movement. And he wasn’t the only one: indeed, a whole generation of leftists-turned-rightists – known as the neoconservatives – were veterans of Shachtman’s circle: when Ronald Reagan came to Washington a whole government agency was turned over to these characters – the National Endowment for Democracy, the goal of which was to combat Communist ideological influence in the international sphere.
Weaseling their way into the US government, these "State Department socialists" began to become a real force in Washington. Shachtman’s cultivation of Senator Jackson paid off as several Shachtmanites found their way to his office and were hired as aides. Prominent neocons graduated from SDUSA and its youth group, the Young Peoples Socialist League (known as Yipsels), to become the War Party’s brain trust: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Carl Gershman, Max Kampelman, Penn Kimble, and Elliott Abrams, to name just a few. Irving Kristol, the neoconservative "godfather," wrote about his Trotksyist youth in this brief memoir.
While Shachtman’s tiny grouplet never had more than a few hundred members, they had influence way out of proportion to their numbers. Indeed, Shachtman’s reach extends even unto the present day, as we can clearly see from this recent op ed piece by Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior advisor to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Entitled "Why Mitt?", this Jerusalem Post article is subtitled: "My support for Mitt Romney has something to do with a ship called the Serpa Pinto and with an American Marxist revolutionary."
The ship is the one his family came in on, and the revolutionary Marxist is none other than Shachtman, whose group – then called the Workers Party – Schoenfeld’s father joined. Schoenfeld the younger tells us the Shachtmanites opposed entry into World War II, but then avers:
"My father sought to atone for his youthful political delusions all his life, becoming, by the time of his death in 1979, a fervent advocate of American principles and American power. My mother, instead of perishing in Hitler’s gas chambers, lived to die a peaceful death in Connecticut in 2009. Along the way, I learned some things from them, including some things that have me hard at work at Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters on this very day."
Shachtman, too, sought to atone for his anti-interventionist sins by turning his followers into cold warriors with a red-pink tinge, and inspiring neocons through the George W. Bush years right up to the present day. But why, one has to ask, must the rest of us pay for those "sins" with endless wars? One of the reasons is the enduring influence of those Trotskyites of the 1930s who went on to found the troublesome little sect known as the neoconservatives.
Schoenfeld is a former editor at Commentary magazine, the great-grandaddy of the neocon publishing empire, and went on to join the Hudson Institute, where he commingles with such neocon notables as Michael Ledeen. His most recent book, Necessary Secrets, makes the case for government censorship in the name of "national security": he infamously advocated prosecuting the New York Times for revealing the secret warrantless surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency. He has been vocal about the absolute necessity of jailing Julian Assange, and he’s testified before Congress as an "expert" on media-government relations – always, of course, in favor of stricter secrecy.
However, when Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top officials of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, were caught red-handed stealing government secrets gleaned from their mole in the Pentagon, Schoenfeld was outraged. If the AIPAC Two were convicted of handing this top secret intelligence over to Israel, he averred, then journalists and lobbyists just "doing their job" could be targeted.
If only Assange had turned those diplomatic cables over to Israel, instead of posting them on the Internet for all to see, he would presumably be a hero in Schoenfeld’s book – or, at the very least, a journalist just doing his job.
According to Schoenfeld, "the shadows of the 1930s fall all around us" – and the fact that we still have Shachtmanites harrying us to war underscores the truth of this contention, albeit not in the way Schoenfeld intended. To Shachtman, the cold war was a Manichean struggle against Evil Incarnate, and Schoenfeld employs the same apocalyptic mindset to the present day:
"The great conflagration that followed that decade continues to define the world in which I live. That world is now full of weapons that can kill as many people in an instant as Hitler managed to murder over a decade. In the Middle East, a state run by Islamic fanatics is racing to acquire such weapons.
"Under our noses, they are enriching uranium at a feverish pace and designing the implosion mechanisms for a nuclear warhead.
"Like Hitler, they openly threaten to annihilate the world’s largest collectivity of Jews, i.e., those living in the State of Israel."
In NeoconWorld, it’s always 1939. The Eternal Hitler is perpetually arising to threaten our very existence and – needless to say – the Jews are always standing on the brink of annihilation. Given this worldview, it’s no surprise to find Schoenfeld and his fellow neocons flocking to Romney’s banner. They know he will almost certainly take us to war with Iran.
I’d be very surprised to learn Max Shachtman isn’t smiling down – or, in his case, up – at the success of his latter-day fan club. The ideological bacillus he unleashed on the world has infected the American body politic far beyond his wildest dreams. History takes many strange byways, but I wonder if even old Max could have imagined "Trotskyites for Romney."
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
When I published my first book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, in 1991, one of the criticisms was that I made far too much of the alleged Shachtmanite influence on the neoconservatives. During the run up to the Iraq war, when the neoconservatives were in the spotlight, the neocons-are-just-Trotskyists-turned-inside-out theme gained some traction, much to their dismay. Their response was to deny there was any such creature as a neoconservative – Schoenfeld among them – and they scoffed at the Shachtmanite connection: the whole thing, they averred, was just a "conspiracy theory" with "anti-Semitic" overtones.
I’d like to thank Schoenfeld for confirming the thesis of my book, because I know it will just make his day.
P.S. You can follow me on Twitter here.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Up Against the FBI – May 23rd, 2013
- Antiwar.com vs. the FBI – May 21st, 2013
- Two Cheers for ‘Isolationism’ – May 19th, 2013
- Our Civil Liberties, RIP – May 16th, 2013
- Raping the World – May 14th, 2013





George
October 18th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
In his last debate with Obama, Romney was asked how he would differ from Bush if he was elected President. Romney's response was basically that he would do more domestic oil drilling and also that he would be tougher on China than Bush on issues such as trade and currency manipulation. So it definitely looks Romney will be bringing back all the neocon policies of the Bush era plus adding new tensions with China (and maybe even Russia given previous comments Romney has made) into the mix.
tim-o
October 18th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
The only reason you need an economist is in a centrally planned economy. Talk about being irrelevant.? Sig, F who thought his dick was so special, while on drugs, did his pyramid in three. Leftists are the bane of the world. Think they are smart but dumb as rocks.
Michele O: all that time but ignores her own children. Maybe Michele is too stupid to teach her own children to read and write. After reading her thesis, I suggest she try basket-weaving.
Articles for Another Friday » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog
October 19th, 2012 at 4:09 am
[...] Justin Raimondo: Trotskyites for Romney [...]
John V. Walsh
October 19th, 2012 at 6:21 am
What is it about the Trotskyites anyway?
They always seem to come down on the wrong side of things.
The late Christopher Hitchens, a Trotskyite, finally came out overtly as the warmonger he always seemed to be covertly. The late, great Alex Cockburn, often accused – unfairly – of being a Stalinist, remained true to his antiwar principles to the end.
What is it about the Trotskyites anyway?
MvGuy
October 19th, 2012 at 6:54 am
*************************** "Leftists are the bane of the world" …………………………………………
I fail to see how …amongst all the crooks in politics/governance, that the ones that want to take all the money they are able to get , steal, or extort, for themselves….. can be so largely preferable to those who, want to spread it around to the people. How are these exTrotskyites born again Neocons who have abandoned their egalitarian dreams for the quest of "Full Spectrum Dominance with Endless War for world wide hegemony and the "End of Evil" hallucinations….. any better than their Soviet soul mates……..??? Is this Neocon lunge forward to war after the 911 Reistag like event and Enabling Act like Partriot Act pustch…a rightest or leftist driven event? What would Scoop have said about the aforementioned..??
Were the constitution and Bill of Rights some leftest apostasy or rightest….. It must be bliss to see the world in such monochrome……. But is it intelligent…???
Kolya_Krassotkin
October 19th, 2012 at 7:33 am
The Trotskyites, like all leftists since The French Revolution, believed that if you only tried hard enough you can create heaven on earth. This same facile belief the neocons cling to, and it alone is sufficient to prove that they're really leftists.
palehorse
October 19th, 2012 at 7:55 am
Centuries of incestuous inbreeding is what is wrong with these neocons. The Great Wall of China was built over 1000 years in a battle to keep these barbarians out. Something in the DNA was compromised through too much incest. Incest was necessary for survival of the genepool when men are constantly at war. This group has managed to morph itself over the centuries, but were always wired for war.
Outsider
October 19th, 2012 at 9:00 am
Mr. Raimondo, thanks for the tutorial on the origins of the neocons. Many think that they are on the far right, which has given conservatives a bad name in general. How could Romney be considered a conservative in any historic sense? On foreign policy Obama is far more conservative. Few known writers, outside of Pat Buchanan and yourself, are hammering away at this issue, which our controlled lamestreet media totally ignores – at the nation's peril!
johnc
October 19th, 2012 at 9:09 am
secular millenialism and arrogance. I was going to say sloppy thinking, but I'm not sure thinking has much to do with it. It's more about selling one's soul to be in the vanguard.
Trotskyites for Romney | Conservative Heritage Times
October 19th, 2012 at 9:15 am
[...] Raimondo of AntiWar.com has just published a remarkable piece that reenforces that argument. Despite apparent differences, both Neocons and civil rights [...]
Old Rebel
October 19th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Great piece.
No wonder Neocons venerate Martin Luther King – he's the mascot of the Great Liberating Empire.
MvGuy
October 19th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Look at the foreign affairs advisers to Rommy……… It's the Who's Who of Neocons and 911 connected "fingers on the buttons" crew… Michael (The dog who didn't Bark) Hayden… "He was Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999 to 2005." SO… He was the in the TOP job at NSA , America's signet intelligence agency (EARS) prior to and ON 911…….. but they, he…heard NOTHING or didn't KNOW that they had heard anything to thwart 911… Is he fired or demoted………..??? OOOOOOOO …..No… He is PROMOTED to the top intelligence job by Bush.. as Director of the CIA…. Can you think of any reason WHY he would get a promotion after NSA did NOT do it's job prior to being MIA on 911…??? I can…!!! & it ain't pretty…..
Next: Michael Chertoff…….. He has more 911 baggage than Wringling Brothers Barnum and Baily Circus!!! Assistant Attorney General on 9-11; freed over 100 Israeli spies in the US after 9-11; and HE Must have signed off on sending the "Dancing" (cheering & high fiven)) back to their mother ship. Promoted to head Homeland Security; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; likely Mossad In operation Diamondback a FBI sting in New Jersery of suspected terrorists )one of whom predicted that "Those Buildings are coming Down!!
This interview highlights the work of investigator, social worker and ex-cop Allan Duncan and publisher/author Sander Hicks. Setting forth the story of counter-terror sting “Operation Diamondback,” the program presents the stunning forecast of the 9/11 attacks recorded by the FBI in 1999. Apparent Pakistani intelligence agent R.G. Abbas (while attempting to procure weaponry for Al Qaeda and the Taliban) disclosed that the World Trade Center towers were “coming down.” Stingman Randy Glass was “wearing a wire” and Abbas’ statement was recorded! Nonetheless, few news media have reported this. After reviewing information about Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff and his connections to Bin Laden collaborator Dr. Magdy El-Amir, the program presents Randy Glass’ assertion that Abbas and his associates Diaa Moshen and Mohamed (Mike) Malik were interested in procuring nuclear weaponry for Al Qaeda. Glass reported his information about the impending attack on the World Trade Center to Florida Senator Robert Graham in July of 2001. When Glass relayed his information to the State Department in the summer of 2001, a top aide to Colin Powell disclosed that it was known that a plan was afoot to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, but that Glass couldn’t discuss it. See: http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-500-co…
YES!!!!!! The Rommy camp has a Foreign Policy shop, and it's a Who's Who of Neocons and nest of false flag friends of Quick Buck Patriotism…!!
MvGuy
October 19th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Special Advisers
Cofer Black
Vice President of Blackbird Technologies; Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (1999-2002); United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (2002-2004)
Christopher Burnham
Vice Chairman of Deutsche Bank Asset Management; United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Management (2005-2006); United States Under Secretary of State for Management (2001-2005)
Michael Chertoff
Chairman of the Chertoff Group; United States Secretary of Homeland Security (2005-2009); Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2003-2005)
Eliot Cohen
Director of the Strategic Studies Program at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Counselor of the United States Department of State (2007-2009); Defense Policy Advisory Board Member (2001-2007)
Norm Coleman
Chairman of the Board, American Action Network; Senior Governmental Advisor, Hogan Lovells US LLP; Adviser to the Republican Jewish Coalition; United States Senator (R-MN) (2003-2009); Member, Committee on Foreign Relations
John Danilovich
Member of the Trilantic European Advisory Council; CEO of Millennium Challenge Corporation (2005-2009); Ambassador to Brazil (2004-2005); Ambassador to Costa Rica (2001-2004)
Paula J. Dobriansky
Senior Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs (2001-2009); President's Special Envoy to Northern Ireland (2007-2009)
Eric Edelman
Hertog Distinguished Practitioner in Residence at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (2005-2009); Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs (2001-2003)
Michael Hayden
Principal of the Chertoff Group; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2006-2009); Director of the National Security Agency (1999-2005)
Kerry Healey
President, Friends of the Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan; Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007); Trustee, American University of Afghanistan
Kim Holmes
Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation; Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (2001-2005)
Robert Joseph
Senior Scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy; Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (2005-2007)
Robert Kagan
Syndicated Columnist; Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in the Center on United States and Europe; Board Member of the Foreign Policy Initiative
John Lehman
Chairman and Founding Partner, J. F. Lehman & Co.; National Security Advisory Counsel for the Center for Security Policy; Secretary of the Navy (1981-1987); Member of the 9/11 Commission
Andrew Natsios
Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University; The President’s Special Envoy to Sudan (2006-2007); Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (2001-2006); Author of two books, with a third on Sudan to be released in February 2012; Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute
Meghan O’Sullivan
Lecturer at Kennedy School of Government; Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan (2004-2007)
Walid Phares
Co-Secretary General, Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism; Professor of Middle East Studies and Author; Task Force for Future Terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security (2006-2007)
Pierre Prosper
Partner at Arent Fox; United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues (2001-2005); Special Counsel and Policy Adviser to the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues (1999-2001)
Mitchell Reiss
President of Washington College; Director of Policy Planning at State Department (2001-2005); Special Envoy for Northern Ireland (2005-2007)
Dan Senor
Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Foreign Policy Advisor, Romney for President Campaign (2007-2008); Senior Advisor & Chief Spokesman, Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq (2003-2004); Co-Founder, Foreign Policy Initiative; Co-Author, "Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle"
Jim Talent
Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation; United States Senator (R-MO) (2002-2007)
Vin Weber
Managing Partner, Clark & Weinstock; Member of the United States House of Representatives (R-MN) (1981-1993)
Richard Williamson
Partner in Salisbury Strategies LLP and Visiting Scholar at Northwestern University; The President's Special Envoy to Sudan (2007-2009); Ambassador to the United Nations Security Council (2001-2003); Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (1987-1989); Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (1983-1985); Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs (1981-1983)
Dov Zakheim
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (2001-2004); Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Planning and Resources (1985-1987)
HHLongview
October 19th, 2012 at 11:07 am
Thank you for another right-into-it, spot on article.
Thank you for blowing the covers. I knew some of these people in Berkeley … weaseling mask-changers; hard-core fanaticism fed by deep personal problems, and able to manage as much compassion as mushrooms.
Rich
October 19th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
To say that Obama is conservative in any way is just plain wrong. Are there American troops in Iraq, yes, in Afghanistan, yes, did we send troops to Libya, yes, are we now involved in Syria, yes. Are we waging war in Pakistan, yes. Even now Obama has sent the navy, in force, to the Persian Gulf. I don't know if Romney will be worse, I don't know how he can be, but Obama is as eager, if not more eager than George W to expand the empire. I hold out a small hope that Romney, in being fiscally conservative, will realize the folly of empire and begin reducing our overseas commitments. We have four years of Obama's expansionism to know he won't.
@undefined
October 19th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Great article, Justin. Reminded me of this piece on the Leading Light website:
http://llco.org/who-and-what-are-trotsky-cons/
Also, I highly recommend Alan M. Wald's "The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline of the Anti-Stalinist Left From the 1930s to the 1980s." It is the best book on the subject. To quote him:
"What are conclusions one might draw from the experiences described in the preceding chapters? This book argues that the collective history of the group that began as the anti-Stalinist left and was transformed into the New York intellectuals embodies many lessons for those interested in combining cultural, artistic, literary, and scholarly activity with a socialist political practice. Yet, even though the group was free of the political positions formally associated with official Soviet-type Communism, the anti-Stalinist left never reached in practice the potential ascribed to it in theory.
In this book I have tried to demonstrate that the obscured and often misrepresented switch from Marxist anti-Communism (authentic anti-Stalinism) to liberal anticommunism (bogus anti-Stalinism) was a crucial ideological factor in this failure. As Hannah Arendt observed in a public lecture in the late 1940s, "anti-Stalinism," a term that originated in the interior struggles of the Bolshevik Party, eventually became a catchall slogan in the United States to rally together diverse elements against radical social change. In this context, anti-Stalinism implies no reasoned approach to politically philosophy. Pure and simple anti-Stalinists can, in fact, favor totalitarianism of other types; this contrasts dramatically with the political perspective of the nonconformist wing of the communist movement, which tended to be dominated by Trotskyism (and which was expressed in the 1930s by such intellectuals in the United States as Eastman, Hook, and Corey). Divorced from the context of a general anticapitalist and anti-imperialist outlook, anti-Stalinism can lead one to oppose something as basic as struggles by workers for higher wages if those struggles happen to be led by Communist-influenced unions. As this book argues, the logic of pure and simple anti-Stalinism is to move its adherents toward an anticommunism that views the imperialist practices of the United States as a lesser evil in a world conflict of two "camps."'
philadelphialawyer
October 19th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Who cares whether the neocons and interve
philadelphialawyer
October 19th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Who cares whether the neocons and interventionists, or their biological or ideological antecedents, used to be trotskyites? What difference does that make? They are wrong and dangerous about intervention because……well, because they are wrong and dangerous. Whether they are or used to be trotskyites, Stalinists, socialists, social democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, fascists, Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, anarchists, or whatever else you can think of really has nothing to do with the price of eggs.
Would they be any less wrong and dangerous if they weren't former trotskyites? Indeed, aren't plenty of interventionists entirley free of trotskyite hertiages? Are they any better (or worse, for that matter) than their former trotskyite fellow interventionists?
philadelphialawyer
October 19th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Is this just about retaining some sort of "cred" with conservatives? "See," you seem to be saying, "interventionists are leftists, or former leftists, which amounts to the same thing." But we both knew that is not even close to being entirely true. SOME interventionists are former leftists, some aren't. And some former and current leftists are anti interventionists (as you yourself have acknowledged in the part), while many former and current conservatives (as measured by any widely accepted definition of the term) are interventionists. Give it a rest and stick with what matters.
An interventionist is dangerous and wrong, whatever his former and current political viewpoint.
An interventionists is morally correct, at least on the issue of intervention, whatever his former and current political viewpoint.
philadelphialawyer
October 19th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Also, it is not a per se bad thing to change your mind or your political stripes. A person who had been a trotskyite but is now a supporter of democratic republican government, it seems to me, is a person whose political views have changed for the better, not the worse. The problem with neocons is not that they used to be trotskites, it is that they are now neocons. To focus on the former blunts the impact of the latter.
RockyRococo
October 19th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
More recent generations of Trotskyites comtinue to end up trailing down the neocon path. Notable example, Hitchens, more currently Richard Seymour, who writes as "Lenin" at Lenin's Tomb blog relentlessly pushes for US/NATO military intervention hither and yon, Libya, Syria, etc etc etc, and is of course bitterly hostile to Assange and heaps endless helpings of scorn on Assange's supporters and defenders. In retrospect I'm quite happy that in my brief, youthful participation in the 70s Trotskyite ISO was the occasion of being told repeatedly that I was a person of anarchist and syndicalist "deviations" from Leninism and Trotskyism. As it turned out, the ISOers who told me that were entirely accurate, and I am in fact grateful to them in helping me find my true personal ideological course, one in which there is no tradition of any significant adoption of great-power militarism so characteristic of generations of Trots.
andor
October 19th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
"In NeoconWorld, it’s always 1939. The Eternal Hitler is perpetually arising to threaten our very existence …"
Stalin about the Trotskyites, "They invented utopian scheme of permanent revolution… Eventually the idea was used as a weapon in the struggle against Leninism…".
For Trotsky himself the idea of the Communism in a single country (USSR) was totally unacceptable. Only the World revolution with the " Proletarian dictatura" would satisfy those blood-thirsty ideologists of the permanent struggle, revolution, war.. .
abe
October 19th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Neocons have money from israel which has OUR money we gave them, 6 billion a year so israel/neocons can destroy America! Neocons hate America because we are a CHRISTIAN nation. Just watch the neocon filth curse Christmas, watch the vile Hollywod movies against Jesus Christ!
Oh boy they got a lot of KARMA coming their way and knowing 2500 years of history; it is going to be very ugly and very painful for THEM!
james
October 19th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Is that the Israeli security cabinet or the US presidential candidate's advisor list?
Trotskyites for Romney | FavStocks
October 20th, 2012 at 12:23 am
[...] Justin Raimondo writes: Back in the early 1990s, before Antiwar.com was founded, I was a regular at a roundtable discussion group sponsored by the late Bill Rusher, a founding editor of National Review: these seminars were organized by a young man associated with a prominent conservative educational organization. Bill lent us a room at the posh Union Club, at the top of San Francisco’s Nob Hill, where every month we would hear a speaker give an informal talk: we would then retire to the lounge, where refreshments and a lively discussion were enjoyed. I became friendly with the young organizer, and we had several interesting discussions about various matters: one day he confided to me how he had become involved conservative politics. He had been attending a college somewhere in the Midwest, at which time his politics were vaguely conservative: one day he saw an advertisement for a lecture and meeting “in solidarity with Poland’s Solidarity” – the Polish anti-Soviet labor group that eventually overthrew the Communist party’s dictatorship – and decided to attend. Although he didn’t know it at the time, it was the beginning of his ideological hegira…. The group sponsoring the meeting was Social Democrats, USA, formerly known as the International Socialist League, a Trotskyist group founded and led by Max Shachtman. Shachtman had been Leon Trotsky’s chief intellectual advocate in the US until breakingwith the Red Army commander in 1938 over the issue of the class nature of the Soviet Union. While insisting on retaining his socialist credentials, Shachtman gradually moved away from defending the Soviet Union – a favorite pastime of American commies and their numerous fellow travelers – and came to believe the Kremlin represented a far more deadly threat to socialist ideals than the West. After breaking with the orthodox Trotskyists, Shachtman initially espoused the so-called Third Camp position, advancing the slogan “Neither Washington nor Moscow,” and placing his hopes on an “independent” upsurge of socialist-minded workers. When that failed to materialize, and as the cold war got hotter, Shachtman slid further to the right: the ISL began emphasizing its opposition to “Stalinism,” and issuing dire warnings about the alleged Soviet threat. When the Vietnam war broke out, Shachtman took the position that the US and its Vietnamese sock-puppets were preferable to the North Vietnamese Stalinists, and supported the war – a position that further decimated the ranks of his minuscule group, which had by that time dissolved itself into the Socialist Party of Norman Thomas. Yet the Shachtmanites retained their internal cohesiveness, eventually reemerging as Social Democrats, USA, a group which still exists, albeit only in the formal sense. Shachtman, meanwhile, had other fish to fry: he had become an advisor to AFL-CIO chieftain George Meany, and a confidante of Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the warlike Democratic Senator from Washington state whose foreign policy views often led his critics to describe him as “the Senator from Boeing.” In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Shachtman’s followers became influential in the labor movement and in the budding civil rights movement: Bayard Rustin, the real organizer of Martin Luther King’s famous “March on Washington,” was a Shachtmanite, although kept out of the limelight by his homosexuality. It was at this point that a naïve Midwestern college student, motivated by his anti-Communist inclinations, attended a meeting in support of Poland’s Solidarity movement – and was introduced to the insular and highly obscure world of the Shachtmanites. After the lecture, he told me, he was invited to another SDUSA meeting, and found the group conducive to his hawkish anti-Communist views, and so he joined up. However, one thing puzzled him: at the end of the meeting, everyone rose and sang “The Internationale,” the old commie anthem! A fine way for a supposedly anti-Communist group to operate! Although he found this somewhat off-putting, to say the least, my young friend attributed this to the personal and ideological eccentricities of his new-found anti-Communist comrades. In any case, he became an active member of the group, and from there found his way into the conservative movement. And he wasn’t the only one: indeed, a whole generation of leftists-turned-rightists – known as the neoconservatives – were veterans of Shachtman’s circle: when Ronald Reagan came to Washington a whole government agency was turned over to these characters – the National Endowment for Democracy, the goal of which was to combat Communist ideological influence in the international sphere. Weaseling their way into the US government, these “State Department socialists” began to become a real force in Washington. Shachtman’s cultivation of Senator Jackson paid off as several Shachtmanites found their way to his office and were hired as aides. Prominent neocons graduated from SDUSA and its youth group, the Young Peoples Socialist League (known as Yipsels), to become the War Party’s brain trust: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Carl Gershman, Max Kampelman, Penn Kimble, and Elliott Abrams, to name just a few. Irving Kristol, the neoconservative “godfather,” wrote about his Trotksyist youth in this brief memoir. While Shachtman’s tiny grouplet never had more than a few hundred members, they had influence way out of proportion to their numbers. Indeed, Shachtman’s reach extends even unto the present day, as we can clearly see from this recent op ed piece by Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior advisor to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Entitled “Why Mitt?”, this Jerusalem Postarticle is subtitled: “My support for Mitt Romney has something to do with a ship called the Serpa Pinto and with an American Marxist revolutionary.” The ship is the one his family came in on, and the revolutionary Marxist is none other than Shachtman, whose group – then called the Workers Party – Schoenfeld’s father joined. Schoenfeld the younger tells us the Shachtmanites opposed entry into World War II, but then avers: “My father sought to atone for his youthful political delusions all his life, becoming, by the time of his death in 1979, a fervent advocate of American principles and American power. My mother, instead of perishing in Hitler’s gas chambers, lived to die a peaceful death in Connecticut in 2009. Along the way, I learned some things from them, including some things that have me hard at work at Mitt Romney’s campaign headquarters on this very day.” Shachtman, too, sought to atone for his anti-interventionist sins by turning his followers into cold warriors with a red-pink tinge, and inspiring neocons through the George W. Bush years right up to the present day. But why, one has to ask, must the rest of us pay for those “sins” with endless wars? One of the reasons is the enduring influence of those Trotskyites of the 1930s who went on to found the troublesomelittle sect known as the neoconservatives. Schoenfeld is a former editor at Commentarymagazine, the great-grandaddy of the neocon publishing empire, and went on to join the Hudson Institute, where he commingles with such neocon notables as Michael Ledeen. His most recent book, Necessary Secrets, makes the case for government censorship in the name of “national security”: he infamously advocated prosecuting the New York Timesfor revealing the secret warrantless surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency. He has been vocal about the absolute necessity of jailing Julian Assange, and he’s testified before Congress as an “expert” on media-government relations – always, of course, in favor of stricter secrecy. However, when Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top officials of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, were caught red-handed stealing government secrets gleaned from their mole in the Pentagon, Schoenfeld was outraged. If the AIPAC Two were convicted of handing this top secret intelligence over to Israel, he averred, then journalists and lobbyists just “doing their job” could be targeted. If only Assange had turned those diplomatic cables over to Israel, instead of posting them on the Internet for all to see, he would presumably be a hero in Schoenfeld’s book – or, at the very least, a journalist just doing his job. According to Schoenfeld, “the shadows of the 1930s fall all around us” – and the fact that we still have Shachtmanites harrying us to war underscores the truth of this contention, albeit not in the way Schoenfeld intended. To Shachtman, the cold war was a Manichean struggle against Evil Incarnate, and Schoenfeld employs the same apocalyptic mindset to the present day: “The great conflagration that followed that decade continues to define the world in which I live. That world is now full of weapons that can kill as many people in an instant as Hitler managed to murder over a decade. In the Middle East, a state run by Islamic fanatics is racing to acquire such weapons. [...]
Oswaldwasalefty
October 20th, 2012 at 1:52 am
Perhaps we're mislabeling the beast by calling these people "ex-Trotskyists" and "neo-conservatives". Because such labeling presumes they have a principled commit to a cause. Here I'm reminded of what Norman Finkelstein has had to say about American Jewry's relationship to Israel before and after 1967. His point is that the so-called "Zionists" who have emerged after 1967, like Dershowitz, are not Zionists because they have no principled commitments, beyond their commitments to themselves. They're interested in power and privilege, and it just so happens that being "pro-Israel" post 1967 is way for American Jews to demonstrate their loyalty to the U.S. Prior to 1967 any support of Israel was grounds for the charge of dual loyalty. By the 1970's expressing your support for Israel was a way to burnish your "pro-U.S." credentials, while any criticism of Israel got smeared as "Antisemitism".
Chomsky has commented often on the move of many on the left both domestically and internationally over to the pro-Washington Consensus neo-liberialism. Just like with the born again "Zionists" post 1967, we've seen many a born again "pro-U.S. capitalist" emerge over the past few decades. As Soviet power declined and it became clear that it wasn't going to provide an alternative to U.S. power, the Horowitz's of the world have gradually found new career opportunities as "ex-leftists" turned "conservatives". It became much easier to do this after 1989. So Horowitz was a little ahead of his time in transforming himself into a vulgar right winger before it became cool to do so by the 1990's. It was a good career move for him.
The same thing happened internally in the former USSR, as the communist parties of those nations turned themselves into born again capitalists over night.
Raimondo on “Trotskyites for Romney” | Tarot & Liberation Raimondo on “Trotskyites for Romney” | Beauty and Political Beasts
October 20th, 2012 at 3:27 am
[...] No joke. [...]
philadelphialawyer
October 20th, 2012 at 6:16 am
Should have been "An anti interventionist" not "An interventionists" in the last sentence.
philadelphialawyer
October 20th, 2012 at 6:24 am
In other words, you yourself are a "former trotskyite" who is now an anti interventionist. Isn't the latter what is important, not the former?
On this website, and elsewhere, paleo cons and libertarians have been pushing the "neo cons used to be trotskyites" meme for years, but it gets no traction. People, especially Americans (with their tradition of self re invention), tend to judge people based on what they are, not what they used to be. And the pre occupation with what neo cons, or anyone else, used to be smacks of a paranoid, conspiracy theory witchhunt. It detracts from the anti interventionist argument.
HHLongview
October 20th, 2012 at 6:53 am
The ones I knew looked to Trotsky for their ideological guidelines, as opposed to Stalin. That's why I would call them Trotskyites and ex-Trotskyites. That they were not really capable of principled behavior I would not argue with.
Justin Raimondo: Trotskyites for Romney | Counter-Revolutionary Traditionalism
October 20th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
[...] H/T Antiwar.com [...]
El Tonno
October 20th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Ruthlessness, instrumentalization and psychopathy.
Trotsky was a good organizer and upped Lenin's army with admirable ruthlessness so that it could stand up to Poland's in 1920, as it didn't exactly shine at first in exporting the revolution by force of arms to Berlin and Rome. Don't know what his view on Jews was like, because people in the extensive war zone that were of Jewish origin were horribly tortured and massacred both by the Combined Red Army for "siding with the bourgeoisie" and by the Polish ragtags for being vaguely associated with Soviet Leaders and Intellectuals.
More on this in http://www.amazon.com/Warsaw-1920-Lenins-Failed-C…
Trotskyites for Romney « Attack the System
October 20th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
[...] By Justin Raimondo [...]
Senior advisor to Romney inspired by Trotsky’s right-hand man | My Catbird Seat
October 20th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
[...] by Justin Raimondo [...]
@undefined
October 20th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Excellent Justin–I wondered where all these for war "conservatives" came from. I seemed to be the only small gov. anti-war of all my right leaning friends.
HHLongview
October 20th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
From your response I think we've read two different articles. I didn't find any "used to be trotskyites" being "pushed" in the article I read, "Trotskyites for Romney". Simply a description of a progression, and also didn't find a "paranoid, conspiracy theory witchhunt." I have no idea where you got all of this.
tim
October 20th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Solidarity in Poland was helped and funded by the US, don't forget the CIA. How is a union labor group anti-Soviet? It was also helped by US Unions. One "labor" group or the other. Now get in line for your job and wages and don't forget your ration card.
tim
October 20th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Left-Libertarians? Really Justin. I thought you would be smarter than that. You either are or you are not. It is a high ideal and difficult to live up to, to be a Libertarian. Because of the Libertarian rigorous devotion to a non-force society, which even that could be construed./used as force, I do not call myself one, which is why I am a republican.
tim
October 20th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
"Noam Chomsky has described libertarianism, as it is understood in the United states, as, "extreme advocation of total tyranny" and "the extreme opposite of what's been called libertarian in every other part of the world since the Enlightenment." [27]" Wikipedia
See what I mean. The man is a straight up American hating leftist. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Josh
October 20th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
The World Socialist Website dispelled all these rehashed conceptions nine years ago. http://wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/shac-m23.sh…
Josh
October 20th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
The real Trotskyist alternative in this election is the SEP http://www.socialequality.com
tim
October 20th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
"Noam Chomsky has described libertarianism, as it is understood in the United states, as, "extreme advocation of total tyranny" and "the extreme opposite of what's been called libertarian in every other part of the world since the Enlightenment." [27]" Wikipedia
SEIU, then look up Rawanda
tim
October 20th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
What is social equality? You base your ideas on your ideal for where you live. But who gets to decide what the ideal is? You? What is social equality? Too Rich, Too poor. what? These are too poor and those are too rich. Make us all equal you say. Sometimes it is you who do not see others as having worth. You don't see a strong arm because it is dirty. You don't see a wise man because he doesn't look like you. Maybe when you learn to accept others no matter how rich or poor, and see them as equals not just to each other but to you, then you will find social equality.
mickperry
October 21st, 2012 at 1:30 am
While recently revisiting Michael Herr's 'Despatches'; a war correspondent's account of his tours of duty in Vietnam, I was amused to be reminded of how forty years ago there existed a world which was divided into 'heads' and 'straights'. Funny how you forget these things, but as Herr points out elsewhere in the book, “Those who remember the past are condemned to repeat it too.”
There are signs today though that the terms 'left' and 'right' are becoming as archaic and irrelevant, not to say ridiculous as 'heads' and 'straights', particularly among those younger people conscious of the need for urgent systemic change.
As an Englishman though I can confirm that Chomsky is entirely correct when he says that libertarianism in the European sense means something entirely different to what it seems to have come to mean in the US.
The European tradition emanates from the political writings of people such as Bakunin and Kropotkin, who rejected authoritarian Marxist socialist philosophy.
It is worth noting that Lenin and later Trotsky were widely regarded by the Marxists of their time as right wing deviationists, and it comes as no surprise therefore to learn that many of today's neo-con politicians in the US have their roots in Trotskyism, in fact the same phenomena exists here in the UK too.
Karl Hess throws some light on the US and European libertarian paradox: “When I read Emma Goldman it was as though everything I had hoped the Republican Party would stand for suddenly came out crystallised in this magnificently clear statement.… reading Emma Goldman you immediately see that.. she is the source of the best in Ayn Rand. She has the essential points that the Ayn Rand philosophy backs, but without the crazy solipsism that Ayn Rand is so fond of; the notion that people accomplish everything in isolation.”
The early libertarians in Europe were fighting the tyranny of monarchical imperialism, whereas today the fight is against the tyranny of unchecked corporate imperialism; the parasite that is now clearly destroying its host: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/18/greg_palas…
I have not read Chomsky sufficiently to claim any authority, but surely he would laugh at the very concept of 'anti-Americanism' Tim. He is a leading critic of US foreign policy but so far as I'm able to discern, he is merely saying that the US should join the rest of the world instead of fearing it and fighting it.
JJJihad
October 21st, 2012 at 4:53 am
The only "intellectual" heritage at work in the Commentariat party is Zionism. Under neocon influence, Zionism has displaced any and all other concepts and practices of political governance as the fundamental value.
@undefined
October 21st, 2012 at 7:00 am
Thomas Jefferson's theory of necessary bloodletting and Trotsky's endless war are cut out of the same cloth. Jefferson of course opposed the Hamiltonian National Bank as oppressive to the people, all the while he set up a bestial slave manufacturing system. Hamilton warned Washington that the anarchist French Revolution would lead to tyranny and he was 100% correct. (The original British literati supporters of the sans cullotes like Wordsworth became reactionaries on cue centuries before the neo-cons.) These neo-cons are nothing but cats-paws for geopolitics of the City of London's great game. Anyone in power who would attempt to break out from the financial oligarchy's control and end their scenario of endless wars is a marked man. The reason that JFK was assassinated was that he recognized Kissinger as a madman and was listening to MacArthur's warning against the war in Vietnam.
abe
October 21st, 2012 at 9:32 am
Why does SATAN have to rule the world from Jerusalem?
Would Romney Pursue a Neocon War Agenda?
October 22nd, 2012 at 5:48 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/18/trotskyites-for-romney/ [...]
philadelphialawyer
October 23rd, 2012 at 9:49 am
What is that "progression" if not from a Trotskyite position to a neocon one? Schactman himself, the main subject of the article, went from being a Trotskyite to a cold warrior ("After breaking with the orthodox Trotskyists…") As did Kristol, also mentioned in the article ("Irving Kristol, the neoconservative 'godfather,' wrote about his Trotksyist youth…") . The whole premise of the article, and the meme that it is a part of, is that former (ie "used to be" ) trotskyites have become neo cons. Sometimes the "progression" is a direct one, although, as time goes on, it is becoming more and more of a case of a neo con's father or mentor ("godfather") having been a trotkyite.
.
philadelphialawyer
October 23rd, 2012 at 9:49 am
As for the paranoia, the whole notion is that somehow a group of former communists have hijacked US foreign policy. Look under a neo con bed, and find a trotskyite. My point is that while that it true of some neo cons, it is hardly true of all of them. And, to repeat, as time goes on, it is less and less true of the current crop of prominent neo con interventionists. The neo con/interventionist agenda should be confronted in its own right. An interventionist foreign policy is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional and bad policy. That's what should be the focus, not whether a particular neo con "used to be" a trotskyite. Or his father. Or his "godfather."
Again, Raimondo et al have been pushing this meme for years. But nobody in the wider world cares. Because most people are much more interested in evaluating a policy on the basis of whether it is good or bad in the here and now than on the basis of evaluating the former politics of its proponents. Kristol is wrong because the policies he endorses are illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and lead to disasters. Not because he "used to be" a trotskyite
US Presidential Debate Summary: Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel | My Catbird Seat
October 23rd, 2012 at 7:52 pm
[...] Original source: Antiwar.com [...]
The mess Mitt made: He should have listened to Ron Paul on foreign policy - Rise of the Right
October 24th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
[...] Then you have a lot to learn.Here’s where to start: [...]
Israel: The End of the Dream | My Catbird Seat
October 27th, 2012 at 4:25 am
[...] Trotskyites for Romney – October 18th, 2012 [...]
The Fall Guy | My Catbird Seat
October 31st, 2012 at 5:03 am
[...] Trotskyites for Romney – October 18th, 2012 Tweet (function() { var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0]; s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; s.src = 'http://widgets.digg.com/buttons.js'; s1.parentNode.insertBefore(s, s1); })(); [...]
Romney’s Neocons « The Ugly Truth
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:18 am
[...] then there’s always this guy. Yes, I have in my hands a list! However, let’s brush aside Zakheim’s disingenuous denial as [...]
Romney’s Neocons, Hiding in plain sight | My Catbird Seat
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
[...] then there’s always this guy. Yes, I have in my hands a list! However, let’s brush aside Zakheim’s disingenuous [...]
Romney’s Neocons « Attack the System
November 5th, 2012 at 6:23 am
[...] then there’s always this guy. Yes, I have in my hands a list! However, let’s brush aside Zakheim’s disingenuous denial as [...]