| Springtime for 
            Trotskyby Daniel 
            McCarthy In most circles the word "fascist" is a generic pejorative, 
            an epithet that conveys a moral judgment rather than a description. 
            We Americans have perhaps become so accustomed to this use of the 
            word that we don't even think about it. We should, because "fascist" 
            in this sense was specifically coined by the Communist revolutionary 
            Leon Trotsky to identify all of his rivals, even Stalin, with Hitler 
            and Mussolini – and with "the right." Its use reveals the undying 
            influence of Trotsky. By calling Stalin a fascist, Trotsky and his followers could 
            claim that "real" socialism is not a murderous ideology. They could 
            further claim that all true threats to human dignity and freedom 
            really come from the right. Although Trotsky himself had a rather 
            fateful encounter with an icepick in 1940, Trotkyists today continue 
            his fight on behalf of international social democracy. These days 
            however Trotskyists prefer to call themselves 
            "neoconservatives." Over the past two months the word "Islamofascism" has gained 
            currency. The 
            term has appeared in National Review Online, The Weekly 
            Standard, and at Andrew 
            Sullivan's website, among other places. To a vigilant eye the 
            word "Islamofascism" looks suspiciously like a classic Trotskyist 
            coinage. You don't have to be a fan of either fascism or Islamic 
            terrorism to wonder if there's more than meets the eye to this 
            word. "Islamofascist" was coined or at least popularized by Stephen 
            Schwartz in his recent Spectator article "Ground 
            Zero and the Saudi Connection." Note that within the article 
            Schwartz singles out Stalin and Bolshevism for criticism, rather 
            than Communism in general. Schwartz, who now 
            writes from National Review Online, is a hardly abashed 
            Trotskyist. Here's how a one-time fellow 
            traveler of Schwartz's describes him: Schwartz's parents had been members of the pro-Moscow 
            Communist Party U.S.A. In reaction against the Stalinist milieu he'd 
            grown up in, he'd become a Trotskyist in his teens and eventually 
            gravitated towards the left communism of the FOR [Fomento Obrero 
            Revolucionario]. Schwartz and I agreed that all forms of Leninism 
            were counter-revolutionary. This didn't stop Schwartz from intensely 
            identifying with Leon Trotsky and blaming anything that peeved him, 
            from bad weather to poor table service, on the machinations of 
            "Stalinists".  By attaching himself to the FOR, Schwartz could gain 
            notice among Trotskyists as the author of the most extreme left 
            English language publication close to the Trotskyist spectrum, and 
            guarantee himself a place in the future as a wax mannequin in the 
            ludicrous icepickhead pantheon that was so dear to his 
            heart. And here is 
            Schwartz in his own words, referring to information he gleaned from 
            reseraching the Venona transcripts: Dismissing questions about the guilt of Alger Hiss, 
            Lauchlin Currie, and Harry Dexter White, Schwartz writes: "I am much 
            less interested in the fates of these three bourgeois careerists 
            than I am in those of such dissident revolutionists as Ignacy 
            Porecki-Reiss, Andreu Nin and Leon Trotsky." "I have never 
            understood the moral compass of certain U.S. intellectuals who 
            consider the sufferings of White and Hiss, or of the heirs of 
            Currie, to be more compellingly tragic than the assassination of 
            Reiss, the death by torture of Nin or the smashing of Trotsky's 
            brain by an ice ax" by Soviet agents, writes 
Schwartz. For Schwartz, Stalinist assassinations are something of an 
            obsession. He 
            wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard earlier this year 
            hypothesizing that Stalin murdered Frankfurt School theorist Walter 
            Benjamin. From this article and his quote above it's hard not to 
            conclude that Schwartz feels a great deal of continuing sympathy for 
            Trotsky and the Trotskyists, and not just for the grisly ways they 
            met their deaths. Was Trotsky's assassination really "tragic," as 
            Schwartz says? The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the 
            original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish: "I 
            regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a 
            single bitter memory." Nor is there any doubt about the influence – 
            one might almost say hegemony – of "former Communists" on the 
            post-war conservative movement. Just read 
            the words of one neocon, Seymour Martin Lipset: From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives – 
            including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol – 
            the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an 
            injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the 
            knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and 
            magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, 
            William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of 
            Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, 
            National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family 
            and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, 
            such as Burnham and Chambers. It played a major role in creating the 
            Goldwaterite and Reaganite New Right and in stimulating an 
            anti-Soviet foreign policy. Worthy of note is that while ex-Stalinists tended to denounce 
            their Communist roots vehemently, neoconservatives like Kristol and 
            Schwartz remain at least wistfully fond of Trotsky. It's also worth 
            noting that the neoconservative preoccupation with exporting social 
            democracy abroad through war and mercantilism reflects the original 
            split between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky 
            argued that there could not be "socialism in one country" but rather 
            that the revolution had to be truly international. And so the 
            neoconservatives push for "human rights" and social democratic 
            governments to be imposed on Serbia, for example, by force of 
            arms. And so fifty-six years after the death of Hitler we're still 
            fighting a war against "fascism" in one form or another. We're still 
            fighting to make the world safe for (social) democracy. Somewhere in 
            the bowels of hell Leon Trotsky must be smiling. Postscript: I'm indebted to Paul Gottfried, whose lectures at 
            the Mises Institute's History of Liberty conference inspired and 
            informed much of this article. November 6, 2001 Daniel McCarthy 
            [send him mail] is a 
            graduate student in classics at Washington University in St. 
            Louis. Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com Daniel McCarthy 
            Archives The Truth Needs Your 
            SupportPlease make a 
            donation to help us tell it,
 no matter what nefarious plans 
            Leviathan has.
 |