[lbo-talk] Reading Arendt in Caracus

[Carrol Cox]

I would agree with Chuck Grimes on Arendt's marxism -- though as we all
know the kinds of politics that can be covered by that term range rather
widely. Her marxism (like that of many others) could not let her see the
importance of the Black movement of the '60s, and her failure to
understand the student movement is derivative from that more basic
failure. That said, it was the Human Condition and On Revolution (which
I read in 1963/64) that were basic to my turn a few years later to
Marxism.

But, as Chuck also points out, the "real" Arendt is irrelevant to the
uses of her work, of which "Reading Arendt in Caracas" is typical.

On another of Chuck's concerns, however, I think I disagree profoundly.
(The "I think" is a weakener here -- it means I'm not really sure.)
Chuck puts _way_ too much emphasis on "Neoconservatism" -- and my scare
quotes indicate my scepticism that "Neoconservatism" really exists. It
is simply wrong to twist the latest twist in capitalist politics into an
ISM. The only ISM is Liberalism, of which the so-called
"Neoconservatism" (now rapidly dissolving) is only one more temporary
embodiment. The assumption that "Neoconservatism" represents a definable
and distinct political theory cannot, for one thing, explain why so much
of the "neoconservative" program has been enthusiastically supported by
liberals -- or as in the case of deregulation and elimination of
welfare, initiated by liberals.

Neoconsevatism is a scarecrow to frighten radicals back into the loving
arms of the DP.

Carrol