I've seen a lot of people here insult Trotskyists by calling them neocons, so I was wondering if anyone could give a quick explanation of why that is? Like maybe give a brief rundown, or at least recommend some reading materials, on the genealogy of modern Neoconservatism and how it relates to Trotsky?
Question about Trotskyism
Other urls found in this thread:
Some notable trots became Neocons. David Horowitz is an example of this I believe.
people here insult Trotskyists for all kinds of made-up bullshit reasons
mental gymnastics knows no boundaries
Trots hate communism, they believe all western propaganda, that's why trots are just utopians, they don't care about socialism, they just like to larp about it because it makes them feel special to be in a snowflake club of autists who calls themselves something even though they grab every opportunity they can to criticize it
Trotskyism is retarded, they hate bureacracy yet advocate for a vanguard party, the most important thing trots have done is a newspaper
A lot of neocons are legit former trotskyists or what were called red diaper babies. Children that were raised by communist parents. A lot of them are also jews.
As you can tell the far right that actually is aware of those things despises them.
And when you think about it, there isnt anything really conservative about the neocons, the only difference between them and neolibs is that they have more of a blood lust for war and hard on for Israel.
Pat Buchanan calls neoconservatism "a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology." The paleoconservatives argue that the "neocons" are illegitimate interlopers in the conservative movement. In 1986, historian Stephen Tonsor, who rejects the label paleoconservative, said:
It has always struck me as odd, even perverse, that former Marxists have been permitted, yes invited, to play such a leading role in the Conservative movement of the twentieth century. It is splendid when the town whore gets religion and joins the church. Now and then she makes a good choir director, but when she begins to tell the minister what he ought to say in his Sunday sermons, matters have been carried too far.
where is the "telling the minister what he ought to say" part?
I should clarify I meant "where in reality"
The neocon meme is an American thing. Trots do have a reputation for being corrosive. Muh ruthless critique and so on. Also it seems to me that trots are a bit paranoid about other leftists, claiming they are just helping capitalism somehow. This might not always be true
The neocons of course have ruined their rep because of bush. The wars, the crashed economy. They dont like trump, they dont like nationalism, they dont like the old right.
A lot of rightwingers are aware that it was free market, open borders, globalist, consumerist, neocons that have led us down this road.
This is why during 2016 you saw a full on rebellion of the neocon elite doing everything in their power to try and stop trump "the never trump movement".
I would hope that the neocons end up in the dustbin of history.
Trotskyist parties in the west just happen to breed a lot of future reactionaries, many of which went on to join the neo-conservative movement. The first generation, which Trotsky met and corresponded with, were the likes of Max Eastman and James Burnham, both of which later became conservatives with the William F. Buckley crowd, but the trend continued until the end of the cold war (and even then you still had the occasional "I was a trot in college too!" idiot like Hitchens or Blair) and was not unique to the US.
Why that trend existed is completely your guess. Some people have conspiracy theories about it, and it's confirmed that the CIA supported some Trotskyists financially, often without their knowledge, because they wanted to spread an anti-Soviet consensus on the Left, so you hear accusations of Trot parties being run by agents every now and then, but I think we'd have seen some confirmation by now.
My own theory is that, as brilliant as Trotsky was, his main appeal to people is that his name gives them an opportunity to call themselves revolutionaries of a lost cause, with no compromise to any current political entity, so you can be an clean, educated, sophisticated socialist and not risk losing face whenever the Soviet Union, or Cuba does something embarrassing, and there's also the fact pro-Soviet communists were persecuted while anti-Soviet communists could have nice academic careers. So it just happens to be in their DNA to be coward little shits and intellectual crowd-followers never really had faith in their own ideas and were just finding a safe way to do something that every now and then becomes fashionable again (being a radical).
the neocons have pretty much had a death grip on the GOP from Reagan years all the way up to their death by trump.
The parasite had been cast from the body, it searches for a new host.
It sees the democrats.
Once the new host is infected they have an unending need for SLAVIC BLOOD
KILLLLLL RUYSSSSSSSIA THEY HACKED THE ELEXTION, WAR RUSSSIA REEEEEE
hell yeah dude i love them what's your favorite album?
you mean when neoliberal economics became a thing? yeah no, Hayek is no Trotskyist.
Why do people criticise Trots for these qualities but not ardent Leftcoms? Bordigists are like that but times a thousand but people are usually cool with them. Not really a Trot myself more of a general Libsoc but the Trot hate seems kinda arbitrary when you have tankies and armchairs on the same forum.
Critics have argued that since the founders of neo-conservatism included ex-Trotskyites, that therefore Trotskyist traits continue to characterize neo-conservative ideologies and practices. During the Reagan Administration, the charge was made that the foreign policy of the Reagan administration was being managed by ex-Trotskyists. This claim was called a "myth" by Lipset (1988, p. 34): This "Trotskyist" charge was repeated and widened by journalist Michael Lind during 2003 to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists; Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of 'the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement' [in Lind's words]" was criticized during 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald, who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of "the New York intellectuals". 
The charge that neoconservativism is related to Leninism has been made, also. Francis Fukuyama identified neoconservatism with Leninism during 2006. He wrote that neoconservatives:
…believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
Hitchens was a trot kek
Damn it feels good to be a Trot
If Trotskyists are neocons then what are Leninists?
Trots and Stalinists both share the main assumptions of Lenin dork, they are Leninists
Keep telling yourself that.
No, I hate you because Trotsky was a crypto fasc who had right wing economics. In soviet economy in danger he reproduces Hayeks informational argument against central planning, hell, Hayek literally QUOTES trotsky in the road to serfdom. Theres a reason so many rightists are former trots
change that to 8ch.pl
During the factional struggles of the late 20's Trotsky was on the Left advocating planning while Stalin sided with Bukharin's "get rich!" liberalism and argued for the NEP, you moron. He only criticized the Soviet centralism in the context that he considered Stalin to be making too wide jumps too soon, which he obviously fucking did because of what happened.
Don't even bother.
Tankies who hate Trotsky simply can't be reasoned with. He insulted their father figure and for that he is unforgivable.
I find Trotsky's works fascinating. I wish Stalin hadn't killed him so we could've had Trotsky's WWII books
when are we gonna reunite the splits and reform the 4th international? CWI here