6 votes

Neoconservatives are Socialists? Did we just figure this out?

I have been a supporter of Ron Paul since 2007. At the time I didn't know a whole lot about the issues, except economic ones, which lead me to Ron Paul. I always disagreed with the war in Iraq, but I hadn't put two and two together until after learning about Paul's positions. Back then we called everyone neoconservative who advocated for foreign policy largess. After reading about Neoconservative history, however, I learned that the Neoconservatives were originally marxist/socialist/trotskyites. It seems to me that lately a lot of people are beginning to learn the same things about the neocons, and are accurately calling them out for what they really are.

My question is this: Are we just starting to understand what neoconservatives are, in contrast to at one time everyone being a neoconservative who didn't support Ron Paul? I am not making a dig. I am trying to gauge whether support for Ron Paul correlates to our accurate knowledge of neoconservative philosophy. It seems to me that the better we define what neoconservatism is, the better we are able to inform others, and argue against neoconservative philosophy. The fact that they are actually socialists could go a long way in arguing against them.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How about

political mafia? I think that sorts both sides out just fine.

No, they literally are....

Watch the Power of Nightmares, a BBC documentary, available on onedollardvdproject.com (ironically for $2).

It outlines the history of the development of the neoconservative movement.

They are, philosophically, and some people quite literally socialists, communists and ex-communists who became disillusioned with the Democrat party because they could not move their Marxist platform fast enough inside of it.

David Horowitz, the great "conservative" writer and speaker, is LITERALLY an ex-card carrying member of the US communist party. Leo Strauss, a Marxist who some quite prominent "conservatives" you know today studied under.

You need the facts and need to know the history to effectively counter the arguments because, no different than Marx, whether the person making the argument knows or not, their arguments are based on certain philisophical principles which are easily countered if you can recognize their roots.

The harder part is getting real conservatives to realize they've been so profoundly duped. That's the cognitive dissonance chasm they find hard to cross because its so vast.

Calling a group socialist or

Calling a political group (such as the neocons) socialist or fascist has become meaningless these days, because these labels could basically mean anything and everything.

The whole left vs. right paradigm is just flawed. On the right, we supposedly have the fascists, and on the left, we have the socialists/communists. So does that mean freedom is in the middle? Wait a minute... that doesn't make any sense...

The real paradigm is freedom vs. tyranny, or individualism vs. collectivism.

F. A. Hayek talked much about this in his book, "A Road to Serfdom", in the 1940's. Ayn Rand deeply discussed this in all of her fiction and non-fiction work. In fact, she is probably the best source to read about this stuff.

After awhile, you realize these labels are completely meaningless, because the more extreme you go "left" or "right", you end up at the same point - tyranny and collectivism. No matter which way you go, you never get to freedom. There is "different sides" of the spectrum on this scale at all.

Point taken.

The paradigms that you point out may be more accurate and we do well to promote them. However, there is a real history to what certain political labels mean, and it serves us to understand them as well. Even if these labels change and become meaningless. To many/most Americans, these labels mean something, and generally we understand what they mean according to popular use, even if these labels are not accurate. So we do ourselves, the campaign, and everyone else a favor by getting to know what they mean, both in popular context and in reality. If we understand these labels better, we can better use them to our advantage.

So that's why I got voted

So that's why I got voted down?

Not by me.

.

If you ask the average

If you ask the average American what fascism is, you'll get 20 different answers. Even in our own movement, you'll get different answers from the Ayn Rand institute than you would if you asked Lew Rockwell.

The same goes for socialism too. Some people think socialism == communism, while others don't see a whole lot of connection.

I had one person tell me he was a "libertarian socialist", and he supported the welfare state, income tax, universal healthcare, and all of the other non-sense.

Truly, these labels are junk in practice. I gave up trying to understand what people mean.

But to answer an aspect to your question, yes, the neocons are a brand of "left-wing" politics that has secretly masqueraded as far "right-wing"

Well,

I've known it for a helluva long time, and have been posting here on DP about it for the 4 years that I have been here, including links to documentation of it.

So, if somebody here doesn't know it, it isn't my fault.

Just in case there is some confusion about what their goals were/are, Irving Kristol stated outright in his article defining neoconservatism in The Weekly Standard that the purpose of neoconservatism is to take over the Republican Party and Conservatism in general, against their respective wishes, and replace them with a philosophy consistent with governing a modern DEMOCRACY.

So, parsing that out, we find that they are infiltrating and taking over the Repbulican Party(which they have done) and Conservatives(which they have pretty much done) in a stealth manner which wasn't even recognized, and fulfulled their goal of ruining the Republican Party and Conservatism.

It was a plan with a goal, and inside operatives, and was a successful infiltration and take-over.

This is why you always hear people say that nothing ever changes. Both parties now consist of the same doctrines.

Thank you.

Very well articulated. Keep posting!

Look at Marx's pillars of Communism

Then look at what Bush signed.

War Socialist. As if needless

War Socialist.

As if needless over-seas spending and perpetual war is a reason to redistribute wealth.. so long as it's called defense.

Ron Paul Speech to Congress on July 12th. 2003

Ron Paul Speech to Congress on July 12th. 2003. Dr. Ron Paul tells all about the Neoconservatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=G0N...

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Might I suggest reading

Neoconservatism and the New American Century by Maria Ryan. The history is illuminating of the history behind neoconservatism, which supports Ron Paul's speech.

And read Leo Strauss.

Cyril's picture

I sure can understand your question's concern, but...

even disregarding temporarily the fact that I am, for one, very not interested in the technicalities of ideological classifications, labels, etc, in politics, I am afraid you're going to have a real hard time with this part :

"[...] It seems to me that the better we define what neoconservatism is, the better we are able to inform others, and argue against neoconservative philosophy."

Because I will argue, speaking from my own experience when chatting occasionally here and there about so-called "neo-conservatism", that the neo-conservatists themselves have great difficulties to define clearly what, EXACTLY, it is about with their throwing of a "neo" prefix in front of "conservatism"!

I've had hard times (still have) to see where, how, and why they had to differentiate themselves from the plain, simple "conservatism" (v1), i.e., that prior one they refer to sometimes, and they don't name with a "neo" prefix!

Where is it that conservatism had to upgrade to a v2 to begin with? You need to call a cat "a cat" at some point and/or have people agree on the same dictionary.

(Just a rhetorical point here, I don't mean it literally)

I believe it would be legit for me to start with asking the naive, but relevant question, I hope :

Wait, neo-guys... Isn't conservatism about "a disposition in politics to preserve what is established"?

So, then put differently : "neo-" (v2) would preserve better than the former v1 flavor? Or what?

Every time I heard speeches where they'd try to throw things which are "neo" vs. non-neo, I really had the feeling that it was pretty superfluous and wasn't justifying coining up yet another political jargon.

Ron Paul makes things so much simpler for simple people like himself and us, who aren't living in the ivory towers of semantics, feet on ground instead :

real conservatist no doubt he is, but even better, he also seems to have no issue with using "constitutionalism" interchangeably with "conservatism" (v1), as being two synonyms in regard to the respect to the constitution.

Which, if one asks me, DOES make sense, and is therefore merely anecdotical, at the end of the day.

No? Or maybe I totally missed something.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I am not exactly sure what you are saying/asking.

"Neconservative" is a very specific brand of Socialism that advocates for military largess world wide. They are not actually "conservatives". They have a very specific history, which grew out of specific global concerns. First they were anti-communist socialists, and when the iron curtain fell, and to preserve their relevancy, they began advocating for world wide military supremacy. "policing the world" is the phrase that people often use.

What I am suggesting is something that occurred to me when I wrote a paper on compulsory health insurance in the US prior to World War I. Compulsory health insurance was all about ready to pass in the United States in the months just preceding WW1. When the health insurance debate just entered the US, the premises of health insurance advocates were taken for granted, they had not been pinned down for attack. But once the opponents of health insurance began to take on the premises of the advocates, the debate began to shift in favor of the opponents.

What I am suggesting is that if we get to know what neoconservatism is really, instead of just lumping all por-war republicans into a single group, then we will have a better foothold in our arguments against them. Neoconservatism is a specific brand of republican that if we could oust from the republican party would make our jobs a lot easier. Most republicans actually come from a non-interventionist background, even if they are hawkish on military. If we could beat back the strangle hold that neoconservatives have on our party, we will be more successful. But in order to do that, we have to know what neoconservatism is really, so we know who to target. Just calling all pro-war republicans neocons makes it more difficult to separate out our republican allies from our neocon opposition.

Cyril's picture

Are you sure about what you're saying here?

I'm going to assume that you are and that I DID miss a lot from former debates wrt to their own defense of ideas and argumentation.

But then, in all sincerity, this is REALLY confusing (to me, at least) now.

Quoting :

"Neconservative" is a very specific brand of Socialism that advocates for military largess world wide. They are not actually "conservatives".

Again, I'll go for you being right and me vastly ignorant as far as they are concerned. But well, in my defense, it's not that I was very interested in them either, granted... given the dominating shallowness of what I heard, it's never been super appealing to learn more, to say the least.

Actually, correction : calling oneself "neo-conservatism" while not being "actually conservatism" at minima, is pretty deceptive, from a semantic standpoint. Or am I the only one to feel that way?

I speak for myself but I can't help imagining the similar types of confusion, and its scale, in the minds of many other Americans trying to figure what the hell is going on / what it's all about with this neo-conservatism vs. conservatism, when forming their opinions.

I DO know that names/nouns don't have to convey, by form, all of the meaning of the concepts they denote, but a reasonable gap between nouns' locality and concepts' would seem to me a fair and common sensical way of dealing with things, there, whenever possible.

Unless the goal would be to confuse or deceive the inattentive, precisely.

Thanks for the insights, though. Finally!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

It's complicated why they are called Neoconservatives.

It's misleading, and to good effect, since you have expressed your own confusion.

Originally it was used as an insult against socialists-who were-not-as-far-left by socialists-who-were-farther-to-the-left.

So say we are both conservatives, but I am more liberal than you. So you call me neo-socialist, to suggest that I am not actually a conservative, but a socialist.

Cyril's picture

Thanks again

Actually, it just helped me to connect some dots of what I can recall now as strange topics heard, for me at that time, when wrongly making the assumption neoconservative would be conservative by implication...

Then I am definitely NOT interested in it for good after reading what that Wikipedia page has to say about its proponents.

I already knew them all to well but I didn't really know to which extent!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Yes, the US imported 10,000 german scientists after WW2

There's some ties to nazis in germany. Cruise over to libertyforlife.com. Great links.

Socialists and Fascists

Are both pigs that drink from the same trough.

p.s. Ironically this is considered a virture in some lands :O

donvino

I don't see socialists, I see fascists.

Socialists are the democrats and the NEOCONS ARE FASCISTS.

Yup!

You got that right! Good-on-ya!

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
- President John F. Kennedy

It may be better to stick to the socialist label.

In our society, the term socialist is actually more of an insult than fascist. A majority of conservatives don't see fascism in the United States (correctly or incorrectly. I am not arguing for or against). Those who don't see fascism are likely to think that the label "fascist" is over the top. However, if we say they are socialists, then this will invoke the negative feelings that conservatives associate with socialism.

Fascism...

is a form of socialism where the industries, commerce and private social institutions that matter to the State merge with the State (corporatism).

Fascism is a more efficient form of socialism in that it doesn't try to battle and tear down the existing structures but merges with them by offering promises of shared power...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Corporatist or Crony Capitalist

Fascist is literally the correct term for neo-cons, but the word contains so many pre-judged notions for most folks that it may be best to hit them with a less-loaded term like Crony Capitalist. The reaction may be, "hmmm, that's a new phrase... I wonder what it means?"

It is funny to hear the other Republican candidates echoing Ron Paul's denunciations of Crony Capitalism since they are all profiting from it (except Ron Paul).

This is where Paul can nail them. He is the only uncorrupted candidate running.

Well, they may be facists too.

Socialism and Fascism are not mutually exclusive doctrines. But the neoconservatives were originally anti-communist troskyites from the 60's (its a rather complicated history). I ask that you listen to what I am trying to say here. Lumping everyone into one single label makes it easier for the opposition to argue against us. What I am suggesting is that if we actually pin point the neconservative label, then it will be an easier target.

"Neoconservatism was developed by former liberals, who in the late 1960s began to oppose many of the policies and principles associated with President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"neoconservative" does indeed have a meaning

Thanks for highlighting this. It's easy to get lazy and just call all the pro-war Repubs neocons, but that's not accurate.

Most Republicans are not neocons, but they did get neoconned.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.