Paul Gottfried: The End of the Old Right
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 дек 2021
- The Human Action Podcast wraps up the year with none other than the venerable Professor Paul Gottfried!
This is our final show focused on the Old Right, the early 20th century political tradition which animated later libertarian figures like Murray Rothbard. How was this great legacy of peace and freedom on the Right-the Old Republic-lost to Cold Warriors and neoconservatives? Nobody is a better sociologist of American conservatism than Dr. Gottfried, and nobody is more compelling and erudite when it comes explaining how the Right went so horribly wrong (hint: former Commies). Lots of great names discussed, from Rothbard and Nock to Kirk, Strauss, Jaffa, Buckley, Meyer, and even Gore Vidal.
Don't miss this show!
Read Professor Gottfried's work on Conservatism: Mises.org/Gottfried-Book
A very crisp and intelligent conversation with Paul Gottfried. A great way to close out the year.
Long live paul gottfried s legacy
Great Episode.
The deification of mlk jr has been devastating for the right. On top of which, his traditional portrayal is completely dishonest.
"his traditional portrayal is completely dishonest"
That's actually kinda fitting, given what MLK jr was really like.
Amen 💥
I wouldn't call the neoconservatives "anti-communists," but anti-Stalinists, and anti-Soviet Socialists. Kristol's lot were Trotskyists, thus, they were Marxists. They accused Stalin of being "nationalistic," and the support of Stalin and the Soviets on the left was why they fled D Party. Buckley acquired himself some very strange bedfellows, but Buckley was British, and they had a liking for socialism as well.
One has to remember that under Ike came the "Eisenhower Policy," which pretty much led the US to spread "liberal democracy" around the world at the end of a gun barrel. They kept that policy paper under wraps for years before it was released. The Old Right would have not stood for those actions.
Nixon was Ike's VP, and I have always called him the first Neoconservative president. He was surrounded by Kristol's lot, and many bad policy decisions were made under him.
I don't think Kristol and later neo-consevatives are any version of Marxist. Rather, they are seeking a version of globalism that will bring in a Pax Americana for the world so that each nation can be brought into a world capitalist economy. They want to facilitate each nation developing economically, which they see as cultivating peace and a better life for everyone on earth. So, they are American imperialists. They want the U.S. to take up this mantle of world leadership to usher in a new world order of peace and prosperity based in American power used for the good of the world. Hence, we have American Exceptionalism.
I don't see Nixon as having this vision, but it's close. Instead, Nixon was sort of a realist who saw the U.S. as being an arbiter to balance the various competing nations off against one another in order to stabilize national competitions for power. Nixon was not as idealistic nor as moralistic as latter-day neo-conservatives.
The early neo-cons were not like this. Rather, they were social conservatives in many ways except on race. Even on race, they opposed Affirmative Action. They were more into social science as a way to limit the New Left's social agenda as well as preventing the government from moving too far to the left on economic issues. Reagan and Buckley picked them up in their quest to destroy the Soviets. The early neo-cons were opposed to the far left on any front. They combined a respect for human rights with a brutal realism that allowed them to compromise on some of their adherence to the New Deal and other moderate left economic policy in order to make common cause with Reagan in destroying Communism. They did not go as far as their children in having a vision of a world-wide American empire. Notice the differences between someone like Jean Kirkpatrick and Bill Kristol in foreign interventions if there is no threat to America or its allies.
Well, the main emphasis of the Left has become cultural, which descends from Herbert Marcuse's version of Neo-Marxism.
Why this focus on the worst of the Frankfurt school (Marcuse) rather than the post modernists such as Foucault and Lyotard?
@@11NEWSTART While there are differences between the early Neo-Marxists and the Postmodernists on such issues as popular culture, the political orientation of most Postmodernists reflect the Neo-Marxist political orientation of de-constructing traditional mores of the West for egalitarian purposes. There is a somewhat different provenance of these cultural Leftist views, but they are very much in concert with Marcuse's embrace of racial minorities, radical women and sexual deviants.
In recent years, globalist corporate capitalism has adopted cultural nihilism as they become even more exploitive in their business practices than any "Robber Baron" of the past. Most colleges follow this same paradoxical trend of embracing egalitarian social philosophy rooted in Neo-Marxism as they also embrace the managerial state with its crude exploitation of workers--in the case of colleges this includes stripping the faculty of any job security, reasonable pay, and academic freedom
This is what Gottfried is referring to: is neo Marxism the same as anti Marxism, which was Foucault's self understanding?
Christopher Graves. It is clear there are major overlap between the two movements, but the question remains whether it makes any sense to call for example Foucault a neo Marxist. For me it just makes clear analysis more difficult. Much as Gottfried dislikes Jaffa, Jaffa locates much of the loss of principle political science to figures such as Calhoun, before Marx's work appeared on the scene. Moreover Marx spent much of his spleen on his socialist competitors, attempting to identify Marxism as scientific socialism. And then we call anybody who is egalitarian and relativistic a Marxist?
1. Paul Gottfried studied with Marcuse for his PhD, I'm pretty sure he's more familiar with Marcuse and critical theory more generally than you are.
2. Postmodernism and critical theory are similar, both being(at least initially) skeptical of reason and both being largely developed within a sort of existentialist backdrop, but they are not at all the same thing. Derrida didn't really have a coherent politics, nor is he taken seriously. Foucault did and is taken seriously, but his politics are not Marxist at all, they have far more in common with Kant, Locke and classical liberalism than they do Marx. The Frankfurt school, especially Marcuse, were genuine Marxists, but eventually ended up liberalizing, except Marcuse & particularly Horkheimer. Habermas is, roughly speaking, on the same playing field as Rawls, and largely disdains Foucault for not giving a comprehensive account of reason. None of these people are Marxists, they are, at best, social democrats.
After all these years McCarthy was vindicated.
If by this you mean his idea of trying to criminalize wrong-thought you're correct. It's called today's woke Left. They're strictly out of McCarthy's playbook and why he was a disastrous spokesperson for anti-communism. He's why it failed, giving us the woke-sters of today.
@@dantean May I suggest you familiarize yourself with a biography of McCarthy, Blacklisted By History : The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy, written by retired MSM journalist M. Stanton Evans ? After considerable research, the author states that McCarthy's controversial image is inaccurate and wrong. Personally, I was not surprised. Despite the continual flow of unjust criticisms and hate-filled, biased treatment towards McCarthy, there are still many Americans who revere his name and know that he is a hero. The decline of America over the last century certainly vindicates McCarthy's warnings that still reverberates today.
@Ricky Moore Ricky, I cannot disagree with you there. Sadly, there is a lot of truth in your statements.
@Ricky Moore However, Ricky, I would like to point out that the CW changed American policies tremendously. The CW virtually turned America, and the Constitution, on its head. (And I am not talking about the eradication of slavery, which was the convenient excuse for the victors horrible destruction upon the South. ) Also, by the early 19th century, there were subtle changes from powerful groups in Europe and America that were soon to undermine both cultures. Plus, the early communists and their movement were already in America even in the nineteenth century, which erupted by the late 19th century with some violence and turmoil and was already more advanced in Europe.
@Ricky Moore OK. Now, I want to ask you a question, please. Wasn't the main objective of some or many elites on both continents an ultimate totalitarian world government ? To generate a continual state of wars and conflicts over many decades and longer so that people would eventually grow weary of this never-ending instability and loss of life and wealth that they would agree to anything to stop the continual warfare.
It’s funny what they said about California considering the audio that was just released lol. Guess he was right. Older Hispanics have more common sense than younger generation ones. All of the ones on the recording were close to 50 and older.
JBS wasn't excommunicated from "Society" until the Vietnam war, and not before... #noted
I’m not a cop, but did you get the rights to use that Megadeth sample? Would love to know whether I could get away with something similar for my podcast 😂
you don't need to. YT automatically detects the sample and directs ad revenue to the owners
@@radiozelaza That’s wild! Good to know, thanks
@LeakBit 👮♂️👮♂️👮♂️
You're seeing red, I'm seeing race.
Def both
Pretty much every single presidents since Groover Cleveland were just awful. Reassessing the Presidency brings a lot under the light. Buckley did ruin the right and so did the Southern theocrats.
Southern theocrats?
Long live communism and eugenics
Heroic National Community o/
Wtf?