18 votes

Are the Neocons really Communists?

I have read that people like Bill Kristol's father and others were believers in communism. Is this the case, and are they trying to make the U.S. into an international communist state?

Comment viewing options

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

No

Just wolves in sheep's clothing reading you faery tales before they eat you up alive.

It's a mix

The neocons are a mix of ex-Trotkyites/fascists.

Trotsky defined fascism in a letter to an English comrade, November 15, 1931, printed in The Militant, January 16, 1932:

What is fascism? The name originated in Italy. Were all the forms of counter-revolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (That is to say, prior to the advent of fascism in Italy)?

The former dictatorship in Spain of Primo de Rivera, 1923-30, is called a fascist dictatorship by the Comintern. Is this correct or not? We believe that it is incorrect.

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement (Tea Party?) in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers (Koch?). It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement.

Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high military and bureaucratic post and was chief governor of Catalonia. He accomplished his overthrow with the aid of state and military forces. The dictatorships of Spain and Italy are two totally different forms of dictatorship. It is necessary to distinguish between them. Mussolini had difficulty in reconciling many old military institutions with the fascist militia. This problem did not exist for Primo de Rivera.

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.

The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism....

It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new question that must be analyzed....

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

A problem left and right.

I start with the definition of neocon as neo-confidence man. A confidence man works for themselves. If there is a mutual benefit a group may run
The Sting

"Noble Lies for perpetual peace and Perpetual War” The Keynesian minded manager class sees war as consumption in their destruction/production model of the economy.

War is a Racket! To pretend it is not is a Lie lacking nobility.

The Keynesian model consumes lives and produces things to destroy.

Noble Lies And Perpetual War: Leo Strauss, The Neo-Cons {skip down to interview to read Shadia laying bare the political thought behind many of today's Cons.


Reclaiming the American Right:
The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement

Justin Raimondo’s captivating narrative is the story of how the non-interventionist Old Right—which included half-forgotten giants and prophets such as Sen. Robert A. Taft, Garet Garrett, and Col. Robert McCormick—was supplanted in influence by a Right that made its peace with bigger government at home and “perpetual war for perpetual peace” abroad.

Help someone believe that they are Nobel enough to lie, an most will be tempted. Left or right may have different means of control. The trick is to be in place to gather the booty.

Free includes debt-free!

Ron Paul July 10, 2003.

Neo-Conned - Congressman Ron Paul's speech on the House floor on July 10, 2003.
http://youtu.be/n7zwWqMPqkU

Not Communists

They are Fascists to their very core.

I don't think they are

I don't think they are Fascists if they were followers of Trotsky, who was a Marxist.

Well, these definitions are a bit murky to begin with.

You could perhaps make a case that Trotskyites are fascists, at least in some form. The inventor of Fascism, after all, WAS a socialist. The establishment Left, before WWII, used to laud Mussolini's program.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Yeah but it's so hard to

Yeah but it's so hard to identify today because they appeared to have blurred so much together. It seems that today people don't really know what Fascism is and think every tyrannical government is Fascist. It is a term used so loosely. What I've read is that Fascism is more about Nationalism, but the Neocons are more internationalists with their support of international treaties and a borderless country. That's Marxist.

True

And the establishment controllers of information try to control the definitions. If you ever read Wikipedia's, for example, it appears to be largely created out of whole cloth. . . . . Fascism isn't simply an epithet, it's a political philosophy. Clearly Obama is philosophically very close to fascist, as is Mitt. Retaining corporate ownership while subjecting the public central planning and unquestioned federal authority was the heart of Mussolini's philosophy.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

No.

Pretty sure they're not. They are fascists.

Have learnt a lot reading this thread but am still of the belief that Neo-conservatism is an essentially economic movement, a re-acceptance of fascism following the failure of the Keynesian socialism of the 'post-war consensus'. (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-1FKdImFdE)

Here's a potted history of the economics of the last 100 years, and how Ron Paul's movement fits into it:

1) Keynesianism (1933-1972)
Around the turn of the 20th Century John Maynard Keynes came up with the 'bottom up' idea of economics. Government would tax highly, then dispense these funds lavishly on work for the poor. That money would trickle up as they spent it on consumer and other products and the economy would be healthy. That would be accompanied by stringent regulations on capitalism. To regulate markets and also prevent people getting too rich because that would be bad overall for the economy. Nobody listened because the economy was great anyway and who cared.

Then came the great depression. Everything went tits up and the only untried idea was Keynes'. So both the US and Nazi Germany began using Keynsian economics to get them out of the depression. Massive Government projects provided work for the people. A Welfare state gave handouts to the needy and unfortunate. After WWII this theory became the paradigm. The welfare state was supreme and ruled everywhere.

2) Monetarism (1973-2012)
Until, the late sixties, when everything started going wrong. For some reason the economies were grinding to a halt. The reason was stagflation - nobody had any incentive to work hard to innovate anymore. Milton Freedman, at the University of Chicago, came up with the ideas of monetarism - deregulation. Essentially, they would bin Keynsianism. They would slash regulation and allow 'casino capitalism', i.e. the idea that the richest should be able to speculate as much as they liked, with as crazy, ungrounded financial products as they could think of. This 'legal gambling' would produce stimulus. It was a kind of economic fascism. The economically strong would survive, the economically weak would go to the wall. The welfare state would be dismantled, and it would be a massive, unregulated fight. Crucial to this was that even monopolies were deemed to be good for the economy. So was fascist social policy. Who cared if people at the bottom were destroyed? The economy was all that mattered, and the legal gambling would take care of that. Debt and unrestricted credit were also now to be welcomed with open arms. Gone were the regulations on the 'gambling' aspects of economics, that had been brought in after the great depression to prevent it from ever happening again. It was now fine to borrow endlessly as recklessly as could be.

The first attempt at this was the South American Chilean fascist dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. That event basically signals the start of the Neo-Conservative era, as a socialist welfare statist was ousted in a military coup by a fascist dictator with monetarist economic policies. His top economists were trained by Freedman in Chicago. Chile's economic progress was watched keenly by Margaret Thatcher and elements that would dominate Ronald Reagan's administration. When they got into power, they immediately put Freedman's monetarism into practice. That is:

1) HIGH TAXES. (Still) - No change in the taxes, (i.e. no change towards a 'liberty' or legitimately 'free-market', competition-based economy. Just that those taxes would now be funnelled into the coffers of the few, not the many, to gamble with.

2) DEREGULATION - So that there would be no impediments on the gambling. The economic equivalent of 'no law' or a fascist, survival of the fittest arrangement.

3) INFINITE CREDIT - So that any amount of irresponsible and short term betting could take place. It didn't matter, the allowance of the betting in this monetarist environment would naturally allow the cream to rise to the top and the economy to be healthy.

So all was great, until, it wasn't.

By now, with a US debt of 15 trillion, it seems that monetarism (neo-conservatism, its political equivalent), is ALSO a dead duck. It was also a flawed idea, which just like its predecessor paradigm Keynsianism, has run its course and drastically been found to have failed. It looks like the gambling was NOT in itself, intrinsically a good and economically beneficial thing. In fact the good times may well have been as much a result of the high taxes borrowed in ever-increasing budget deficits and soaring credit, than any innovations resulting from deregulation. In other words the success of eighties and nineties economics was literally 'borrowed'. And now the bill is due. Neo-Conservatism and its monetarist system is about to come crashing down as a colossal and irresponsible failure and misadventure.

3) The Von Mises School

Leaving the way clear for a new paradigm, a genuine FREE MARKET. With the regulation and anti-monopoly aspects of Keynes (although absolutely minimal, to prevent fraud and 'corporate theft' e.g. Enron), but the enterprise and aggressive competition of Freedman.

And, most importantly of all, and different from both, LOW TAXES!!!

So each economic era of the last 100 years can be seen as having its political equivalent:

1) Keynesianism (High taxes, over-regulation, little private enterprise, state-controlled economy)= Socialism
2) Monetarism (High taxes, no regulation, everything on credit, corporation-controlled economy)= Fascism
3) Von Mises (LOW taxes, basic regulation, ALL private enterprise, UN-controlled economy!)= LIBERTY!

Hallelujah. And praise the Lord! : )

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Yes

Trotskyites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

Their ideology rests on the belief that an economic system has to be seen as a world system rather than a national one. All national economic development is affected by the laws of the world market. They call it perpetual revolution theory. We know it by it's true name, perpetual war.

bingo

Proletarian internationalism and democratic centralism. No wait that's the GOP. n/m

DISCLAIMER:
http://youtu.be/2n34eeXWjUQ

Fancy Shmancy Fine Print:
http://youtu.be/plIH98Kxu58

it sure is

And people wonder how the right has slid so far to the left. Unite behind some more "moderates" (Bush, McCain, Romney) why don't you? [looks at Republicans]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism

Democratic centralism is the name given to the principles of internal organization used by Leninist political parties, and the term is sometimes used as a synonym for any Leninist policy inside a political party. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision. This latter aspect represents the centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion, unity of action." [looks at The Granger]

What about when the party shuns the "discussion" part ala Ron Paul 2012 and 2008? Worse than Lenninist parties? [looks at Jack Hunter]

They're something far worse.

Most prominent neocons are disciples of a guy by the name of Leo Strauss, a professor at the University of Chicago. Strauss was himself a student of neo-Kantianism, a revival of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. You may know the name from his magnum opus, The Critique of Pure Reason. It's as stupid an idea as it sounds.

Strauss was also a believer in the idea of the noble lie; in other words, creating myths to unite individuals, who, of their own volition, could not be trusted. Some of our more religious crowd here at the Daily Paul may not like to hear it, but Strauss believed there were two noble lies that were required for national unity: The belief in God and the belief in the Nation-State. People who studied under Strauss, (Bill and Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, among others,) inspired by his theories, put them into action by mobilizing evangelicals through morally-charged social issues, while simultaneously fostering fear in an invented enemy; at first, the former Soviet Union (which was rotting from within) and later the nebulous threat of "terrorism".

Watch if you dare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat
www.cerebralindustrialcomplex.com

actually I think they

are fascist. State controlled capitalism. However the origin of the NeoConservative movement was the liberal wing of the democratic party...with the exception of the agressive position on foreign policy and pre-emptive intervention.

Yes they are

"First of all, we have to understand what communism is. I mean, to me, real communism, the Soviet communism, is basically a mask for Bolshevism, which is a mask for Judaism". - Bobby Fischer

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Laughable, Ive read the Bible

Laughable, Ive read the Bible and Ive studied Soviet history as well as read the Communist Manifesto. Not similar, in fact almist exact opposites. Stalin actually hated Israel because he saw it as a western ploy and purged Russian-Jewish Communists who showed support for it

Ventura 2012

JBS

The John Birch Society has been trying to educate the American people for over 50 years as to the reality of communism. Communism claims to be a movement of the masses where all the assets are owned by all and the wealth generated shared equally. The reality is that communism was originally funded by the same core players who today control the political process in the USA, the international bankers. Communism is about enslavement of the masses for the benefit of the Rothschilds and Goldman Sachs of the world.

Do yourself a favor and visit the John Birch Society's website.

Note also that international

Note also that international bankers were responsible for funding the rise of the Nazi Party and Hitler - per James Loftus' new book "America's Nazi Secret".

This book appears to be entirely from declassified US Government archives, and shows the literal funding of the Nazi party during the 1930s by Wall Street and London, the treason committed by industrialists and bankers who stayed behind in Germany during the war to to run industry that aided the Reich, the abetting of treason after-the-fact by preventing the prosecution of these traitors, and also the treason of Allen Dulles who - from Switzerland - continued to direct large flows of cash and industrial supplies to the Reich after the US entered the war.

"None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen lays out the thesis of world government in the 20th century: Anglo-American oligarchs setting up Communism and Fascism as purported opposing totalitarian systems (thesis and antithesis) to further the cause of a world totalitarian government (synthesis). Loftus does not come to this conclusion; he believes that the Fascists were funded all for "corporate greed". But he concedes that he did not study the Communist side; in fact he readily admits that his ultra high level access to US classified and top secret archives was conditioned on him not "going behind the Iron curtain". So perhaps he can be forgiven for taking the easy way out in his conclusions on motive.

But in verifying the facts that Gary Allen suggests from the Fascist perspective, along with other works that verify Allen's thesis from the Communist angle, the facts that Loftus exposes leaves only one rational conclusion: the bankers are not driven primarily by greed. Their intent is exactly as Allen suggests. To create chaos and war on the world stage, and to ensure its actors have the desire, the means and the fanaticism to see it done. They themselves are the authors of the worst crimes against humanity ever conceived, and so far these crimes have been entirely unaccounted for.

I would recommend:

"None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen
"America's Nazi Secret" by James Loftus
"Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" by Antony C Sutton

and perhaps any other titles that expose the Wall Street - London connection behind Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

I don't think this is

I don't think this is entirely true. There are rummers that Henry Ford supported and funded Hitler, but I read other sources that Hitler pissed the bankers off. He had his own banker Schatt. The international Jewish bankers supported the Soviets, British, French, and Americans.

Also to your first point - I

Also to your first point - I don't recall the extent to which Henry Ford supported Hitler. I do recall, however, that Ford built and financed the Gorky manufacturing plant in the Soviet Union. This plant was used to build military (and civilian) equipment up through and including the Vietnam war - that was sent by the Soviets to North Vietnam. US Pilots during the Vietnam war reported seeing trucks that looked like Ford trucks in N Vietnam. They were right; the trucks came from the Soviets and were built at the Gorky Ford plant.

My History Professor taught

My History Professor taught me that there was belief that he did support Hitler. He was a huge Anti-Semite, and Henry Ford was given a medal from Hitler barring the German Eagle and Swastika. You can look it up online.

Hitler did indeed piss off

Hitler did indeed piss off some industrialists when he nationalized German businesses and industry in ... I believe 1933 (that's right - Hitler and the Nazi party were first and foremost socialists!). To my understanding this had minimal effect on the bankers, however, as they owned much of the stock of the German banks. Financing was funneled through Swiss banks and other "neutral" countries to German banks both before and during the war - thereby financing a significant part of the third Reich. According to Loftus, this is how Allen Dulles managed to maintain capital and equipment flows to Germany during the war - through Swiss banks.

Union Banking Corporation and Prescott Bush were indicted under the trading with the enemy act, along with some other individuals, for continuing funding of the Reich after war had been declared. Prescott Bush was a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman, which at the time was controlled by the Harrimans and - if I remember correctly - the Baruch family.

If you have doubts - read Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, again by Antony Sutton - or watch this interview of Sutton on YouTube for an overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1YeFE-Cr8k

Sutton's works are extraordinarily well documented and present a compelling - perhaps irrefutable - case. Wall Street and London were key financiers of the Third Reich. Just as importantly, United States manufacturing provided key technological assistance both to Germany and the Soviet Union in the 30s and 40s, and then to the Soviet Union at least up through the mid 1960s. Again, Sutton's works document this irrefutably: see Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development the tri-part series, 1917 - 1930; 1930-1945; 1945 - 1965.

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Technology-Soviet-Economic-Dev...

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Technology-Soviet-Economic-Dev...

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Technology-Economic-Developmen...

(I was able to find an ebook for all 3 online).

It's not clear exactly to what extent Wall Street and London financed the Soviets and the Reich - but it is clear that they did finance them, did provide industrial and military equipment, and also provided key manufacturing technology, and that the provisions were anything but inconsequential.

They are simply one of the

They are simply one of the many flavors of authoritarian tyrants. Whether communist, fascist, or whatever--they're all enemies of liberty.

Does splitting hairs on labels achieve anything?

Isn't it more important to get the less engaged thinking more in terms of what those w/ power do with that power-the better for them to see that those w/ power are working the same agenda under two different labels?

Labels only obfuscate and distract from the reason why we* are all really here; we do not like what we are getting from those PEOPLE that have the POWER to determine what we are getting.

The distraction/obfuscation from what is truly important that labels create is why there is so much label talk/labeling done in the BIG MEGAPHONE media-the media that is not the friend of LIBERTY, the media that is controlled by those that have us under their control.

When you look at the historical result from the various "labels" do they not overwhelmingly result in the same thing: the few controlling the many for the benefit of the few? Labels are just different marketing SIZZLE to pull the wool over the eyes of the future victims of concentrated POWER Steak.

*WE only includes those here for the clearly implied purpose of this forum. We does not include those here(MANY) that are here to subvert, impede, destroy the effort/movement of the WE that are working the clearly implied purpose of this forum.

P.S. What most people do not get when they try to describe the differences in the various labels is that the creators of the labels are ALL about the same thing-acquiring POWER for themselves-the only differentiation is what is in the minds of the victims-what sizzle appealed to them-what they anticipated they would be getting.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

Its good to identify and

Its good to identify and become educated in order to sort out the endless sea of confusion which is how they get away with what they do. Its like sorting out your laundry before washing it. The education is really handy when interpreting the news or understanding a new agenda.

Neocons, who often portray themselves as Christians and Jews, use their demented philosophy to round up well intended people to push their agenda. They make the novice voter or political activist believe that endless war is good and youre a bad socialist hippy isolationist if you believe anything otherwise.

The neocons, AIPAC, are in control of both parties. Many people like myself was once swept up in their demented propaganda. People can start to right the wrong once they become educated. Ron Paul identified the truth and now people are righting the wrong. You are right in the long term (post starter sounds new to the game). Labels are pointless once you become educated. Its about philosophy.

Collectivists really.

At the end of the day they're just another flavor of collectivist really.

++ Absolutely

Please see my comment above-agree/disagree?

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

No

The Neocons are Religious Right who put Israel above the USA. They are moe facsists than communists, is Fascists have God as part of the plan, communists do not, religion is not tolerated by communists. Both Communists and Fascists is very simular in they like Military IOndustrial Complex, see the world as perpetual war and have come to see "war is peace".

There are many valid points Neocons make about those who oppose them, and the are unwilling to back down, much of the reason is religious based. There motto could be, "We are the good guys and the bad guys attack us through ignorance, indifference and intolerance", so if affect, they make their own reality.