Trotsky Versus Stalin in America

Below is a letter to the editor to the Washington Post and a few links to some articles on neo-conservatism.

Based on these letters and links, our country is entering into a bizarre stage in which we might see ourselves watching ideological conflicts similar to those that went in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. On the one hand, we have the Troskyite neo-cons, who want to spread democratic revolution throughout the world. On the other hand, within the US itself, we have the anti-war movement being led by Stalinists, who do not want a world revolution right away, but they want to use the war and the protest against it to plunge the United States into a communist republic. Then, there are also signs of fascism emerging among the conservative materialists. In short, we have the three political ideologies that develop from materialisms, leading to an inner fight among themselves. Ironically, stalinism, trotskyism, and fascism, in the end, are all ideologies of the left!

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10734

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/national_socialism_and_national_greatness

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:

Dear Editor:

Your paper's coverage of the so-called "anti-Iraq protest movement"
seriously failed to identify both the groups involved in leading the
demonstration on March 17th, but also failed to identify its leaders
whose names either appeared in the WP or on their press releases and
websites.

Brian Becker, identified as "national coordinator for the Answer
Coalition" is not identified as a longtime member and leader of the
Stalinist "Workers World Party", perhaps the top communist party in the
US today. The same goes for other ANSWER spokespersons (over time)
including Richard Becker, Steve Hackwell, Leslie Feinberg, Monica
Moorehead, Sara Flounders, John Catalinotto, etc. Many of these
individuals were identified as members of the WWP as far back at April
1974 in the report "The Workers World Party and Its Front
Organizations", House Internal Security Committee (HISC) and in an
earlier hearing, "Revolutionary Activities Directed Toward the
Administration of Penal or Correctional Systems, Part 1", March/May,
1973. Thus WP writer Brigid Schulte's writing in "Veterans, Others
Denounce Marchers", March 18th, got the chant "Workers World traitors
must hang!" wrong. It was not "a reference to the Communist newspaper",
i.e. "Workers World." It was a reference to the WWP as the sponsoring
organization of the demonstration, along with a mixed Communist/Maoist
coalition.known as United for Peace & Justice, led by an old Communist
Party USA-connect activist, Leslie Cagan, and Revolutionary Communist
Party leader, the aging Carl Davidson.

A Thought on Politics

A student asked the question today, what is the best political system or the best party right now?

Here is my answer: In some ways, the Green Party gets it right, in ways that are similar to those who have been outcast from the Republic Party in the last 15 years. We should have a country that respects ecology. Ecology, though, includes human ecology or harmonizing society such that all humans benefit from all human advances, economic, science, cultural, educational, and technical. Society as a whole should think this through. We should oppose economic and military adventurism, that crushes the poorest and least fortunate, and that leads us to commit all kinds of injustices against our own citizens and others.

At the same time, the most stable kind of constitution over time is one that recognizes the executive, aristocratic, and democratic element in society, gives them a role in law-making and office sharing, and limits each of their roles. This is the value of the constitution of the United States.

However, the great danger is that the wealthy class take over. By insinuating itself into these institutions in an unjust way, the wealthy class tend to turn the society into an oligarchy, setting up the clash between oligarchy and democracy, the corruption of morals, and the destruction of the family. Once the family is destroyed, the children will look to comfortable lives (oligarchy), the military, or pleasure (democracy) as their options. This will lead to the overall degeneration of society, the rise of an Empire, or the rise of an authoritarian or totalitarian state.

In an odd way, the current favortie platforms of the Republicans and the democrats, and an unfortunate aspect of the Green Party, work well in the logic of Empire. The abortion and sexual revolutionary policies of the democrats tend to undermine the family. This makes the children less civilized and ultimately thirsting for military vengeance, a comfortable life, and some sort of order. The economic politics of the Republicans tend to weaken the family by forcing them to move around to keep the free market economy going. It also tends to rely on the military and foreign advernturism, which, over time, weakens the family under the false mask of promoting social order and security. Times of wars tend to introduce more sexual misbehavior and break up families. So, the sexual politics of the democrats and the Greens work "nicely" with the economic and foreign affairs of the neo-cons in the Republican Party for building an empire over time.

If we could adopt the constitutionalism, foreign and moral policies of the conservatives, with the "sense" of the common good of the democrats, and the "ecology" of the Greens, we would have perhaps, the formula for a "Catholic" party in the US.

Progressivism and the French Revolution

I have before me a book titled "The Progressive Revolution." I have not read it yet, but just the back cover tells us that the dichotomy that was set up during the french revolution persists in the US to this day. The book says that it want to examine the revolution known as progressivism. IT opposes itself to this revolution. The counterrevolution is a return to natural rights, limited government, separation of powers, and constitutionalism. The revolution is committed to progressivism, centralization, unlimited government, and direct democracy.

This mirrors the general positions leading up to and during the French Revolution. John Adams saw himself on the side of the Anglomanes, who advocated bicameralism and constitutional checks and balances. Jefferson saw himself more on the side of the Gallomanes, who advocated a national, unified, central legislature as the center of power.

These debates persist.

The Soul of Adams

A number of references in Peter Shaw, The Character of John Adams, give us insight into the soul of Adams. Many of these insights are taken from Adams's diary or letters, in which we can see a lot of introspection into his soul.

As a young man, he read an essay by Jonathan Mayhew that Adams's claimed, took possession of his soul. Adamas idolized certain elements of English culture. At the same time, he grew up in a period during whcih there was a “gradual erosion of parental authority.” “A universal drift away from seventeenth-century Puritanism” (11).

As a young man, he tended to Enlightenment religious ideas, God as a creator who has a plan of operation of the universe. He was struck by the Seven Years’ War. He freely discussed universal sufferage, Arianism, Deism, and Atheism (“that all Religion was a cheat, a cunning invention of Priests and Politicians”) (16).

“For the secularized Adams as for the religious Puritan the scrutiny of the self-examiner proved to be more severe than that of any putative future judge” (23).

“Passion remained the hallmark of his spirit. It led him to youthful revolt against his father, his tutors, his best friends’ advice that he become a minister, and the constrictions of a provincial society; later in life it led him to revolution…in the characteristic …of assuming rather than rejecting responsibilities.” (38-39). Throughout, Adams thought that he was called to suppress his passionate spirit (38).

The Puritans, in the mind of Adams, were the inheritors of the Ancient desire for freedom and thirst for knowledge. They had brought that desire with them in laying the foundation for the United States (56).

Stoking Revolution, in France, in Iran

I know that this is almost a re-statement of a previous entry, but I have re-worked the paragraphs. The story that is told here might be very relevant for our own times, as we face a potential US attack on Iran. If we understand the current Iran to be analogous to France in 1787, the current US to be analogous to England in 1787, and current Europe as analogous to the US in 1787, we can perhaps sympathize with Jefferson's position. In addition, we can take pause when considering our own situation. Our country might be doing things in the international sphere so as to radicalize Iran, making her look to be the kind of country we should fight. Whereas, if we were to leaver her alone or engage her diplomatically, many of the democratic changes that we claim to hope for, might happen anyway (as they were happening in France).

And so due to the French political situation, it seems to be the case that Jefferson, during the summer of 1787, remained silent about the book translation project, and while he probably did not block the project, he probably did not fight to get the book translated and published either. One aspect of the problem had to do with the political situation of France and how Jefferson saw the French experiment in relation to the ideal as compared to the English Constitution in relation to that ideal. The second aspect of the problem had to do with what Jefferson saw to be the larger political situation in Europe, and where Britain and the soon-to-be United States of America stood in relation to that larger situation.

As Jefferson wrote to Adams in the summer and Fall of 1787, he described mobs gathering in the streets of Paris. They hissed at the nobles. The King was perceived as being aloof, as he was drinking wine rather than addressing the problems of the nation. While Jefferson did not make direct attacks on Adams’s book, his letters to Adams indicate that he was aware of the ideas in Adams’s book, and that he was, perhaps, trying to draw attention to what he saw to be a more refined view of the problem of Constitutions and society. Jefferson thought that a revolution had already taken place in France, a revolution that outstripped any revolution in England: “I think that in the course of three months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the nation gained, as much ground, by a revolution of public opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under the Stuarts” (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). Jefferson did not think that the ground gained by the nation would ever be lost.

Jefferson continued this theme in a second letter sent in September in which He explained to Adams the principles of good government: “the first principle of good government is certainly a distribution of it’s powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches.” He admitted that the English constitution was better than previous constitutions, but that it was only better in relation to this standard (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

As Jefferson pondered the progress made in constitution-building, he also was aware of the difficulty of building an advanced constitution, given a complex political situation. And so, he discussed the Constitution of France and England in the light of events in Europe. In August he indicated that at the same time that France was undergoing her revolution, Jefferson feared that London and Berlin might have been pining for a war against France.

France did not want such a war, and France would look for ways to change Europe rather than submit to the aggression of the English and the Prussians. France, he predicted, would change all of Europe, making it conform to her laws, rather than submit to the yoke of England (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). In his second letter, Jefferson indicated that the French clearly saw England as her enemy, and was making diplomatic efforts to unite Russia and Austria against England (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

Jefferson then commented on the situation in Holland, which he thought showed that it was better to never have hereditary offices. Overall, Jefferson hoped that the nations of Europe would be able to chasten England, if only a little. He feared that a conflict was coming with England, and that the nations of Europe were hesitating before confronting her. Jefferson hoped that, in this coming conflict, America would be able to remain neutral. He feared that the English, or rather the King, would force America to take the side of the English. Jefferson thought that common sense would lead the English to leave America neutral, and so she would not.

In this letter of Jefferson to Adams, we can see the beginning of what would come to be divergent views between Jefferson and Adams over the emphases necessary to keep America closest to the ideal constitution, given the coming war in Europe. Jefferson and Adams agreed on the desirability of revolution for France. They also agreed that the best kind of Constitution involved a balancing of three powers. Their disagreements were more matters of emphasis than principle. Jefferson, from his letter to Adams, thought that the popular branch should keep a legislative power.

Adams thought it should keep a diplomatic power. Jefferson admitted that the British Constitution was better than most Constitutions, but it was very imperfect in relation to the ideal. If the French were to change their constitution, they should look to change it with respect to the ideal, not with respect to the British Constitution. The English Constitution was a compromise, given the historical circumstances, with respect to this standard. France might have already outstripped England in achieving rights to bring about this standard. By implication, it would be foolish to propose the British model for a society which was on the verge of better adhering to the ideal standard than the British compromise. A book like Adams’s, if widely distributed, might confuse the French population as to real gains that had been made in France in 1787.

In addition, Jefferson thought that to extol the English government too much might be dangerous with respect to foreign policy, and how foreign policy could affect the internal order of the soon to be United States. The English seemed to be on the verge of a war against France and come combination of other European states. To extol England at a time such as this might lead Americans to think that they were allies of the British, and to drag Americans into the war alongside the British against the other nations of Europe. This policy, Jefferson thought, would be potentially harmful to the young democracy in the US. It could also lead the US to see Britain as the standard of government, rather than the ideal that was currently being established, one of a balance of powers between the three branches of government, with the principle of representation being popular sovereignty.

This strain would only be exacerbated by the coming of the French Revolution. And, in a way, England’s bellicosity from even before the Revolution might have been partly responsible for the radical turn taken by the Revolutionaries during the revolution. Jefferson thought a great war was about to take place in Europe, and that the United States should stay out of the war. He was convinced that the end result of the war will be progress in the art of free government, furthering the advances made in the British and American revolutions, as well as the revolution in public opinion that was happening in France. In a European war, England would attempt to draw the United States into a conflict to defend aristocratic constitutions, which Jefferson, overall, did not think upheld the standard of free governments.

Adams, it seems, did not respond to the statements of Jefferson about balance of powers between the three branches. He was, overall, ambiguous about America’s relationship with England. He was ambiguous about the question of whether the United States should commit to helping England or not in the upcoming conflict. Instead, he admitted that only “Force, Power, and Strength” would restrain some nations. He thought that not England, but that Europe would try to draw America into its conflicts, and he hoped that the United States would come out richer for it, in the end (Adams to Jefferson, Grovenor Square, October 9, 1787).

Rivers of Blood

Reflecting on the French Revolution, and the disagreements between Adams and Jefferson during the 1790s, Jefferson indicates that at the heart of a disagreement was whether, in that time, the popular branch needed strengthening or whether the aristocratic and executive branch needed strengthening. Adams sided with the aristocrats, Jefferson with the popular branch. This is a conflict that has occurred throughout history.

Jefferson indicates that both are committed to free government, and that, in the end rivers of blood will flow before free government will be brought about.

Adams, in the end, says that he contemplates the rivers of blood with melancholy, impliciitly admitting he sees no other way.

This is worth thinking about. Is it really necessary that rivers of blood must flow to bring about just and free societies? Why were Adams and Jefferson unable to see another possibility? In the end, their political philosophies were both too materialistic to admit the possibility of union, republicanism, and freedom coming about any other way than by rivers of blood. They lacked a robust and prinicpled moral system. Adams at least knew that such a system was necessary, but he himself failed to articulate it.

This is all the more significant now, as the US is ready to make rivers of blood flow in the Middle East, and the most that the opponents of such activity can do is look on in melancholy.

Adams, Jefferson, and Revolution

After dealing with Pius VI, I am turning to the figures that my book will deal with before Pius VI, specifically, John Adams, Mary Wollstonecraft, Immanuel Kant, and Edmund Burke. The French Revolution had a great impact not only on the presidency of John Adams, but also on his literary career and his friendships. Perhaps more than any other, the friendship between Adams and Jefferson was most affected by the ideas, events, and effects of the French Revolution.

In 1812, John Adams sent a letter to Thomas Jefferson, along with some homespun, in the hopes of rekindling a correspondence that the two men broke off due to events surrounding the election of 1800. A mutual friend suggested to Adams that he try to renew the friendship. Adams began the correspondence partly to lure Jefferson into a dialogue about the history of their relationship. At the very least, he hoped that he and Jefferson could explain themselves to each other.

Adams wanted to discover why their intellectual relationship and friendship soured over the years. Adams and Jefferson were friends and among the more radical members of the group that signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Despite this fact, by 1800 they found themselves on opposite sides of the political debates plaguing the country. The presidential campaign, Adams’ loss to Jefferson, and much else broke all communication between the two great founders and led to Adams’ retreat from public life.

Among the topics that Adams sensed were potential causes for their break-up, was each man’s reaction to and interpretation of the events and aftermath of the French Revolution. This led to disagreement over what the French Revolution and its philosophy meant for the United States, and what was the purpose in general of revolution for a culture and society. Adams was critical of the French Revolution before, during, and after it happened. That is to say, before the French Revolution he was critical of the political theorists that he thought were behind it. During the French Revolution, he was immersed in political efforts to prevent the United States from becoming another revolutionary France. After the French Revolution, he feared revolutionary philosophy and practices influencing the United States and ruining its government.