Facebook Twitter Google+ Shout YouTube SoundCloud RSS

Neo-cons are Trotskyites – How the System Perpetuates Faux Democracy (Video)

picJay Dyer
21st Century Wire

The general conception of U.S. politics is that Hillary represents “liberalism,” while someone like Bush or Buckley represented “conservatism.”  However, the “conservatism” of the University of Chicago, known as neoconservatism, is anything but.  

Propagated by a Rockefeller-founded university and former followers of Leon Trotsky, neocons were behind the Rand Corporation and its designer, marketed and manufactured conflicts, including the Cold War.  As for general policies, both foreign and domestic, it seems irrelevant whether Obama or Bush are in office, the neoconservative approach dominates.

READ MORE SHADOW GOVERNMENT NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Shadow Government Files

To hear Jay’s full podcasts, see more information and learn how you can become a subscriber to JaysAnalysis.

Jay Dyer is the author of the forthcoming title, Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film from Trine Day.  Focusing on film, philosophy, geopolitics and all things esoteric, JaysAnalysis and his podcast, “Esoteric Hollywood,” investigates the deeper meanings between the headlines, exploring the hidden aspects of our sinister synthetic mass media matrix.

Jay Dyer
Author of Esoteric Hollywood and Owner at JaysAnalysis.com, focusing on film, philosophy, history, geopolitics, and esoterica.

  • Atlanta Bill

    This is the favorite propaganda meme of the movement created by anti-communist, anti-union furniture magnate William S Volker and which we know today as the “Libertarian Movement”.
    Why would the meme serve the anti-communist purposes of the founder?, you may ask. Well, it’s because those who espouse Trotskyism make up the largest number of authentic Marxists in the world today. A consistent comparison of the tenets of other political tendencies with just The Communist Manifesto alone will bear this out. Discrediting Trotskyism, therefore, would go a long way to discrediting Marxism.

    The meme was manufactured as a perversion of the sad but true story of a man who went from being a leading intellectual of an organization founded by one of the three unchallenged leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution, Leon Trotsky. Unchallenged, that is, prior to the triumph of the leader of the counterrevolution, a minor Party functionary named Josef Stalin, whose faction in the Marxist movement (broadly defined) later hounded and vilified the great revolutionary who had chaired the revolutionary Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies and had founded the Red Army, until one of its agents finally put an ice pick through his skull in 1940 in his study in Coyoacán, Mexico. The story of how the counterrevolution succeeded to this point is told by George Orwell in his Animal Farm. George Orwell (real name, Eric Blair) fought against fascism and for a democratic concept of socialism (“Communism needs democracy like the body needs air,” said Trotsky) all his life to his dying day, and he did so on the battlefield in Catalonia in Spain in 1937, in a regiment of the joint organization of Trotskyists and Anarchists called “The P.O.U.M.” Orwell tells about this in his biographical work Homage to Catalonia.

    James Burnham, on the other hand, went on to renounce Marxism shortly after Trotsky’s death, which alone ceases to make him any longer a Trotskyist (“Trotskyite” is a Stalinist slander). Within a few years he had found his way to fascism, working for the anti-communist section of the U.S. State Department and founding The National Review along with cryto-fascist William F Buckley (that’s what Gore Vidal once called him on-air). A sad story, but true.

    But, on his way to fascism, James Burnham plagiarized a theory of one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) named Bruno Rizzi. Rizzi, who had left the PCI and fled fascist Italy for France in 1921, introduced the idea of a “third way” (neither capitalism nor socialism) into discussions that were going on in France in the 1930s regarding the nature of the Soviet Union, at which Leon Trotsky, James Burnham, and other Marxist intellectuals were present. Rizzi had produced a book, La Bureaucratisation du Monde (The Bureaucratization of the World), supporting the thesis that later came to be known as “The Theory of Bureaucratic Collectivism”. James Burnham himself, in his book The Managerial Revolution, took Rizzi’s theory as his own, and it was under the influence of Burnham that George Orwell, whose friends included many Trotskyists, came to support the theory. Most of the Marxists in Trotsky and the Russian Opposition’s Fourth International, founded in 1938 just outside Paris, rejected Bureaucratic Collectivism and all other examples of a “third way”.

    Orwell plays a prominent part in this story because, never a member of any party, either Trotskyist, Stalinist, or Fabian, he nevertheless had the most influence in popularizing Burnham’s (Rizzi’s) theory in the fictional form of “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” in his dark 1948 utopia 1984. The editors of its Wikipedia(c) page do a fair job of describing the theory as it appears in Orwell’s book, here:

    Most Trotskyists today, following Leon Trotsky and those close to him, take a dim view of the theory and, especially, of Orwell’s prediction for the future of humanity, although they all recognize the brilliance of Orwell’s fictional characterization of Stalinism. In fact, Orwell’s popular influence in portraying the nature of Stalinism has been so great that its ham-handed exaggerations have thrown up a stumbling block to a more thoughtful and social-scientific examination. Understanding how Stalinism was able to triumph in the Russian workers’ state (even today enjoying a popularity throughout Eastern and, to a small degree, Western Europe) and then pave the way for the restoration of capitalism is still a topic of discussion within Trotskyist circles. It’s my own contention that the Fourth International never developed an adequate theory of fascism, which leaves open its confusion with Stalinism. It’s very tempting to regard Stalinism as a kind of “Red Fascism”, but to do so is to fail to do justice to either. Orwell’s 1984 succeeds in warning the world to the dangers of the two historical tendencies; but it fails in that it confuses the one with the other, to the detriment of a very much needed, fruitful analysis.

    Finally, to return to why the meme is a distortion of the sad story of James Burnham’s road to fascism. The identification is not an exaggeration, because Burnham’s 1943 book The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom gives the biographies of a number of 20th century economists and philosophers who have been linked directly to fascism. Burnham was perhaps the first, with this book, to us the term ‘freedom’ as a euphemism for fascism. He did this more blatantly than Ayn Rand because he shared none of Rand’s anarchism and her contempt for what both would call ‘statism’. But Burnham became a “statist” for U.S. capitalism, using the rationale that, while both Stalinism and U.S. capitalism were equally giving way to “bureaucratic collectivism”, Stalinism was the younger, and therefore the more vibrant, tendency in that direction. Burnham’s ideas were to have an influence within U.S. conservative circles and within circles in general that shared Burnham’s preference for the philosophical methodologies of Empiricism, which in the U.S. (and notably at Harvard University where Burnham studied) is known as ‘Pragmatism’. Empiricism began as an attack on the more-advanced notions of Materialism (returning to the earlier Rank Materialism) and on the Dialectical Methodology of Hegel (returning to the less-developed Formalism of Aristotle). Empiricism is the unofficial standard philosophy of the pro-capitalist reaction to Marxism and dialectical thinking in general. Empiricism, as its alternative name ‘Pragmatism’ implies, seeks not to understand how the world works, but how an adequate understanding can offer the means to advance predetermined goals. In this, it’s closer to Idealism than to Materialism because it puts forth imagined ideals as of prior importance to a thorough understanding of reality. It asks, “How are the internal contradictions of capitalism to be overcome so that it can survive as a system?” rather than, “What are the internal contradictions of capitalism and how might the contradictions burst the bounds of the system and give rise to something better?” The thorough analysis serves as a weapon in the hands of the advanced elements of the class who need to know why the demise of the old system is inevitable and why its demise will mean their emancipation, just as the contradictions within feudalism brought about its doom and freed the peasants from landed servitude.

    It was the first question, the question Niccolò Machiavelli might have asked, that those who founded the Neo-Conservative (or Neoconservative) political philosophy asked. For them, fascism isn’t the mark of a failure in the system, but only another means by which what is for them an ideal system can be preserved. The fact that such an approach was attractive to the founders of Neo-Conservatism (Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and the others) can easily be seen to be compatible with the thinking of James Burnham. The dismissal of Marxism, embrace of Empiricism (Pragmatism), and unquestioning loyalty to capitalism as an ideal system are all paths on the road that Burnham took as an intellectual. It’s no accident at all that the circle known as “The New York Intellectuals”, who owed so much to James Burnham and his fellow-travellers among the faction of his one-time fellow-Trotskyist Max Schachtman, could take the same path, giving their loyalty to a dying system. Would anyone smear those who signed the Declaration of Independence with the taint of Benedict Arnold, at one time lauded as the one of the foremost American revolutionaries? There was a finer rationale behind Burnham and the New York Intellectuals who gave rise to Neo-Conservatism, but the betrayal of the one was as much a betrayal of human decency as that of the other.