[lbo-talk] Reading Arendt in Caracus

Robert Wrubel bobwrubel at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 20 10:04:50 PDT 2007


--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote: "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"

Absolutely, Carrol! As further proof of that, not a single Democrat has disavowed a single sentence of the PNAC, particularly the ones about "preemptive war" and America brooking no rival or potential rival to its global power.

BobW


> 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
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list