Well, he doesn’t use the word “communist”—he calls himself a “trotskyist”. I admit that I’m not entirely clear on these kinds of fine distinctions between various forms of marxist/lenninist thought, in much the same way that I’m not clear on the fine distinctions between various branches of christianity—in my mind they’re all just filed under “nonsense”.
There’s a lot of variety even among Trotskyism, at least to a Trostskyist. But I like that sort of thing; I keep track of this (and also varieties of Christianity) as a hobby.
The only thing that you can count on is that Trotskyists have fewer atrocities to rationalise than other Leninists, although Leninists have more to rationalise than other Marxists.
Hitchens accepts the label ‘ex-Trotskyite’ here, so it may not really matter.
The only thing that you can count on is that Trotskyists have fewer atrocities to rationalise than other Leninists, although Leninists have more to rationalise than other Marxists.
Insofar as we can make any conterfactual historical observations, it’s a pretty safe bet that this is only because it was quickly squashed by rival factions. As dirty leftist scum, I observe that opponents of my ideology are absolutely right in calling Trotskyism the most extreme and totalitarian branch of Communism—more ruthless and with more grandiose goals than Stalinism.
Hitchens accepts the label ‘ex-Trotskyite’ here, so it may not really matter.
Sorry, I can’t find a cite, but I recall him saying, in the context of being asked if he’s still a ‘Socialist’, something to the effect of “I no longer identify as a Socialist, not because my beliefs have changed, but simply because there’s no longer any functioning international socialist movement to be a part of. But I still think the marxist analysis of history is valid”
Right, but I think he only used the word ‘Socialist’ in that context because that’s how the question was phrased, not because he’s abandoned Trotskyism for a more general form of Socialism—if that were the case, the Hitchensphere would have heard about it. I’m pretty sure that if you asked him, he’d tell you he’s still a Trotskyist at heart.
I’m pretty sure that if you asked him, he’d tell you he’s still a Trotskyist at heart.
I’m not sure what this means.
He still has high regard for Trotsky and the historical movement of socialism. (Here is evidence, dated 2005, and more, dated 2004.) So you can certainly hold that against him if you are so inclined.
I interpret his statement in Reason to mean that socialism (and so presumably Trotskyism) has outlived its utility. And not because the movement has died out (as I read it) but because society has progressed beyond anything that the ideology of socialism can address.
Do you know what he means by communism?
This is a real question, not a rhetorical move.
Well, he doesn’t use the word “communist”—he calls himself a “trotskyist”. I admit that I’m not entirely clear on these kinds of fine distinctions between various forms of marxist/lenninist thought, in much the same way that I’m not clear on the fine distinctions between various branches of christianity—in my mind they’re all just filed under “nonsense”.
There’s a lot of variety even among Trotskyism, at least to a Trostskyist. But I like that sort of thing; I keep track of this (and also varieties of Christianity) as a hobby.
The only thing that you can count on is that Trotskyists have fewer atrocities to rationalise than other Leninists, although Leninists have more to rationalise than other Marxists.
Hitchens accepts the label ‘ex-Trotskyite’ here, so it may not really matter.
Insofar as we can make any conterfactual historical observations, it’s a pretty safe bet that this is only because it was quickly squashed by rival factions. As dirty leftist scum, I observe that opponents of my ideology are absolutely right in calling Trotskyism the most extreme and totalitarian branch of Communism—more ruthless and with more grandiose goals than Stalinism.
(Feel free to downvote for politics.)
Ah, I don’t care about that.
Sorry, I can’t find a cite, but I recall him saying, in the context of being asked if he’s still a ‘Socialist’, something to the effect of “I no longer identify as a Socialist, not because my beliefs have changed, but simply because there’s no longer any functioning international socialist movement to be a part of. But I still think the marxist analysis of history is valid”
You may be thinking of this article in Reason. The relevant question is at the very bottom of page 1, with the answer on page 2.
But now we’ve switched from Trotskyism to socialism, which is a lot more general.
Right, but I think he only used the word ‘Socialist’ in that context because that’s how the question was phrased, not because he’s abandoned Trotskyism for a more general form of Socialism—if that were the case, the Hitchensphere would have heard about it. I’m pretty sure that if you asked him, he’d tell you he’s still a Trotskyist at heart.
I’m not sure what this means.
He still has high regard for Trotsky and the historical movement of socialism. (Here is evidence, dated 2005, and more, dated 2004.) So you can certainly hold that against him if you are so inclined.
I interpret his statement in Reason to mean that socialism (and so presumably Trotskyism) has outlived its utility. And not because the movement has died out (as I read it) but because society has progressed beyond anything that the ideology of socialism can address.
Edit: Added another reference.