I hate the hypocrisy of this. Trotsky and his ilk were responsible for the brutal killing of god knows how many people, yet Hitch is basically apologising for him. Meanwhile he singles out National Socialism as a great evil that kills people. Could you imagine someone casually defending Hitler and suggesting him as their "amazing life"? I'm not saying we SHOULD tolerate the people who would suggest Hitler, I'm saying we should be consistent about condemning people who sympathise with tyrants.
@Riiye Hitchens is not one to sympathize with tyrants. I think it's clear, especially at the end of this segment, that he was not prepared to, as the interviewer prompted, say why Trotsky was, "Wonderful, how marvelous his ideas were..." The failures of the man are inescapable, as you note. Hitch points out that the man was brilliant, was influential, and merely that his was a 'great' life that deserves far more than his contemporaries
@Rhydiculous34 I would go a bit further than calling what Trotsky was responsible for "failings". Hitch did idolise him in a way that really shouldn't be acceptable. It bothers me how forgetful we are of what the communists did. Look at it this way: wearing a Stalin tshirt would be an indie fashion statement; wearing a Hitler tshirt - rightly - is social suicide and a crime.
I think Hitchens answered the way he did to put into practice the point that Marxism isn't about, as he put it, being a votary for a charismatic leader. I guess the closest we get is Hitch saying that if the program of the Left Opposition, "which was generally thought to be led by Trotsky", had been adopted earlier things would have gone better. @bfoaliali brings up the point that Hitchens has a better answer in another interview. I think this is the one - /watch?v=r4v3y-zFW9A
This is the first instance I've come across where Hitchens lacks the knowledge, and thus argumental force, of his opponent. Albeit more of a chat than a debate.
I don't know why so many of you think that Hitchens avoided this question. Trotsky didn't care about being the only one with power (and that's maybe why he lost), and Stalin just wanted to eliminate the whole opposition - first Trotsky, then Kamenev and Zinoviev, and at the end even Bukharin: all men that weren't blindly dependent on him. If the bolsheviks fighted with non-bolsheviks, then Stalin basically killed every non-stalinist. Trotsky wasn't perfect but he wasn't a paranoid megalomaniac
The American Historical Review's verdict of the book was damning:
"A book that fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship."
"Service fails to examine in a serious way Trotsky's political ideas in his writings and speeches - nor does it appear that he has always bothered to familiarize himself with them."
"Service relies on cheap shots and slanderous asides to keep his readers convinced that Trotsky is a despicable man."
@TerrySleeper Robert Service has written biographies of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. I hoped they'd be intelligent books that avoided both the fawning hagiography of the left, and the cheap caricatures of the right. But no, he's a great disappointment - shallow on pscyhology, big on useless detail, and barely attempts to engage with political theory.
I came to this neutral, wanting to hear to hear just what Hitchens had to say about him, dare I say why he thought he was a great man. I still don't know. I'll have to listen again.
[continued from previous post] In particular -- and this is related closely to the "What would Trotsky have done if he had won the faction fight instead of Stalin" -- you have to understand the dilemma of revolutionary Marxists in a backward pre-capitalist country where the working class was a small minority. And then there is the Party Question .... if you have a basic knowledge of these things, then you can have an interesting debate on Trotsky. But only Hitchens really qualified here.
Maybe a "Great Life" which is NOT intimately connected to a great event like the Russian Revolution can be discussed in 45 minutes -- an artist or writer's, perhaps. But to understand Trotsky's life, you have to have at least a basic understanding of 20th Century history, plus an understanding of basic Marxist theory.
Problem with Hitchens is, he needs Trotsky as the only link to once his rather respectable past. In the occasion of the communist being in charge in the afterworld, he would always be able to say: but I remained faithful to the old man.
The American Historical Review, among the oldest and most prestigious academic journals in the United States, has condemned Service’s biography of Trotsky, saying that it "fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship". The review has explicitly endorsed the critique of Service's book by David North, the chairman of both the Socialist Equality Party in the United States and the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site.
I don't completely understand why Hitch chose to duck the question what he thinks Trotsky would have done differently were he in Stalin's place. The question seems quite fair and even essential to me. That seemed to have an abrupt ending and Hitch was kinda annoyed. Wish it ended differently.
People are fucking stupid! Trotsky almost outlined everything that would happen predicted it all, but due to egos, none listened. So far he is one of the few theoreticians who has not been proven wrong by events, but actually vilified
the length of this programme doesnt lend itself to hitchens manner of discussion. If it were not so condensed with a battery of questions and ran for an hour there would have been a better result
There is a fundemental principle, the Non-Aggression Principle. You can not coerce(especially based on lies) people to doing something you want them to, no matter what the issue. There is no dictatorship on earth, or has ever been, based on a more false premise than that. If you are opposed to Kim Jong-Il, Raul Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc, go fund and fight the opposition yourself. Hitchens is a coercive, rotund, Trotskyite tool, whom does not understand this.
First time I've heards Hitchen's on the ropes and his argument taking a hiding. Not hard when it comes to someone trying to defend Marxist ideology as it is in practise. This was a great discussion. Was great to get an insight into why Hitchens was a Trotskyist.
@Solaris152 I don't think Hitch avoided the question, I just think he refused to answer because the question was odd. It wasn't simply a matter of picking between Stalin and Trotsky back then, so Hitch did the honorable thing rather than just giving a silly answer.
@ickythumpy I think people assume that had Trotsky taken over he would have been a total dictator like Stalin and that wouldn't have happened. Hitch was right in bringing up the Left Opposition
@ickythumpy I disagree. In a differnt interview -- alongside Robert Service--, which is on youtube, the same question is posed. He manages to offer this as a response: less anti-semetism. I think he gives a few more answers, but I dont think he avoided the question out of honour, since he answers it in a differnt interview.
@Solaris152 I didn't detect Hitch being evasive, he sounded to me as though he couldn't provide a proper answer without a sufficient preface. I have a feeling that if the moderator would have let him finish that Hitch might have answered the question to his satisfaction, long winded as it may have been.
@RAMSEY1987 so do I. Hitch seems strangely unable to employ his rhetorical flourish in defending the man whose ideas under the influence of whose ideas he spent decades.
@vikramkrishnan he occasionally gives glib answers, and they always make me laugh. Like when he responded to the question "where does evil come from" asked by some christian who's name escapes me at the moment, and he responded "religion" a one word answer that said more than the fool he was arguing with could have said in a paragraph...
actually that was in the Hitchens vs. Turek debate at VCU, VA. I highly recommend it.
oh - snap -
''we're done - i've got to be somewhere at 1.00"
RexisAZero 2 days ago
I hate the hypocrisy of this. Trotsky and his ilk were responsible for the brutal killing of god knows how many people, yet Hitch is basically apologising for him. Meanwhile he singles out National Socialism as a great evil that kills people. Could you imagine someone casually defending Hitler and suggesting him as their "amazing life"? I'm not saying we SHOULD tolerate the people who would suggest Hitler, I'm saying we should be consistent about condemning people who sympathise with tyrants.
Riiye 2 weeks ago
@Riiye Hitchens is not one to sympathize with tyrants. I think it's clear, especially at the end of this segment, that he was not prepared to, as the interviewer prompted, say why Trotsky was, "Wonderful, how marvelous his ideas were..." The failures of the man are inescapable, as you note. Hitch points out that the man was brilliant, was influential, and merely that his was a 'great' life that deserves far more than his contemporaries
Rhydiculous34 5 days ago
@Rhydiculous34 I would go a bit further than calling what Trotsky was responsible for "failings". Hitch did idolise him in a way that really shouldn't be acceptable. It bothers me how forgetful we are of what the communists did. Look at it this way: wearing a Stalin tshirt would be an indie fashion statement; wearing a Hitler tshirt - rightly - is social suicide and a crime.
Riiye 4 days ago
@Riiye You can idolize anyone's positive qualities. I'm not sure what's wrong with that, but I would argue that Trotsky was NOT a Stalin or a Hitler.
Rhydiculous34 4 days ago
Anyone know what self described "cliche" Hitch is referencing at 2:04 when he mentions what sounds like "a cassandro"?
i3u7n5 1 month ago
@i3u7n5 Cassandra, the woman who was gifted to have perfect foresight but cursed that no one would believe her warnings.
iamFegor 4 weeks ago
@iamFegor Ohhhhhh DUH. Sigh....I'm going to go sit in the corner and think about what I've done. (thanks)
i3u7n5 4 weeks ago
Just once I'd like to hear Hitchens actually defend capitalism.
eggory 1 month ago
I think Hitchens answered the way he did to put into practice the point that Marxism isn't about, as he put it, being a votary for a charismatic leader. I guess the closest we get is Hitch saying that if the program of the Left Opposition, "which was generally thought to be led by Trotsky", had been adopted earlier things would have gone better. @bfoaliali brings up the point that Hitchens has a better answer in another interview. I think this is the one - /watch?v=r4v3y-zFW9A
ascetica0 3 months ago
the fact that hitchens admires an anti freedom, pro collectivist figure like trotsky erases all respect i would have for him
CellphoneProfitInc 3 months ago
@CellphoneProfitInc you'd be naive person then, take your youtube education for granite do you?
Donsknotts 1 month ago
This is the first instance I've come across where Hitchens lacks the knowledge, and thus argumental force, of his opponent. Albeit more of a chat than a debate.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago 3
I don't know why so many of you think that Hitchens avoided this question. Trotsky didn't care about being the only one with power (and that's maybe why he lost), and Stalin just wanted to eliminate the whole opposition - first Trotsky, then Kamenev and Zinoviev, and at the end even Bukharin: all men that weren't blindly dependent on him. If the bolsheviks fighted with non-bolsheviks, then Stalin basically killed every non-stalinist. Trotsky wasn't perfect but he wasn't a paranoid megalomaniac
Manya1759 4 months ago
Service's book on LT is awful.
The American Historical Review's verdict of the book was damning:
"A book that fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship."
"Service fails to examine in a serious way Trotsky's political ideas in his writings and speeches - nor does it appear that he has always bothered to familiarize himself with them."
"Service relies on cheap shots and slanderous asides to keep his readers convinced that Trotsky is a despicable man."
'Nuff said?
TerrySleeper 4 months ago 5
@TerrySleeper Robert Service has written biographies of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. I hoped they'd be intelligent books that avoided both the fawning hagiography of the left, and the cheap caricatures of the right. But no, he's a great disappointment - shallow on pscyhology, big on useless detail, and barely attempts to engage with political theory.
KapStuf 3 months ago
I came to this neutral, wanting to hear to hear just what Hitchens had to say about him, dare I say why he thought he was a great man. I still don't know. I'll have to listen again.
nikku13 4 months ago
"Trotskyists, by the way."
shmuelposin 5 months ago
Hitchens becomes sarcastic, changes the subject, degrades the interviewer then threatens to leave when challenged. Interesting.
thethoughtsofme 5 months ago 2
Haha damn, why'd it have to end? It was just getting good..
CMan721 6 months ago
Hitchens is the man!!!!
They desperately wanted him to defend Trotsky, ... and he didn't give those Right-wing assholes the satisfaction. AWESOME!
treid100182 6 months ago 2
[continued from previous post] In particular -- and this is related closely to the "What would Trotsky have done if he had won the faction fight instead of Stalin" -- you have to understand the dilemma of revolutionary Marxists in a backward pre-capitalist country where the working class was a small minority. And then there is the Party Question .... if you have a basic knowledge of these things, then you can have an interesting debate on Trotsky. But only Hitchens really qualified here.
Doug1943 7 months ago
Maybe a "Great Life" which is NOT intimately connected to a great event like the Russian Revolution can be discussed in 45 minutes -- an artist or writer's, perhaps. But to understand Trotsky's life, you have to have at least a basic understanding of 20th Century history, plus an understanding of basic Marxist theory.
Doug1943 7 months ago
Problem with Hitchens is, he needs Trotsky as the only link to once his rather respectable past. In the occasion of the communist being in charge in the afterworld, he would always be able to say: but I remained faithful to the old man.
kamranii 8 months ago
The American Historical Review, among the oldest and most prestigious academic journals in the United States, has condemned Service’s biography of Trotsky, saying that it "fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship". The review has explicitly endorsed the critique of Service's book by David North, the chairman of both the Socialist Equality Party in the United States and the international editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site.
robharris38 8 months ago
I don't completely understand why Hitch chose to duck the question what he thinks Trotsky would have done differently were he in Stalin's place. The question seems quite fair and even essential to me. That seemed to have an abrupt ending and Hitch was kinda annoyed. Wish it ended differently.
RaggedM88 10 months ago
People are fucking stupid! Trotsky almost outlined everything that would happen predicted it all, but due to egos, none listened. So far he is one of the few theoreticians who has not been proven wrong by events, but actually vilified
nietzscheprime 1 year ago 5
the length of this programme doesnt lend itself to hitchens manner of discussion. If it were not so condensed with a battery of questions and ran for an hour there would have been a better result
p1nkAcid 1 year ago
There is a fundemental principle, the Non-Aggression Principle. You can not coerce(especially based on lies) people to doing something you want them to, no matter what the issue. There is no dictatorship on earth, or has ever been, based on a more false premise than that. If you are opposed to Kim Jong-Il, Raul Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc, go fund and fight the opposition yourself. Hitchens is a coercive, rotund, Trotskyite tool, whom does not understand this.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
First time I've heards Hitchen's on the ropes and his argument taking a hiding. Not hard when it comes to someone trying to defend Marxist ideology as it is in practise. This was a great discussion. Was great to get an insight into why Hitchens was a Trotskyist.
Underground906 1 year ago
1:01
was that hitchens' stomach? Oo
Azatoten 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this Icky. Much appreciated mate.
ijustwannawatchshite 1 year ago 3
I think the host was fair to ask what Trotsky would have done different. I don't know why Hitchens avoided the question like that.
Solaris152 1 year ago 8
@Solaris152 I don't think Hitch avoided the question, I just think he refused to answer because the question was odd. It wasn't simply a matter of picking between Stalin and Trotsky back then, so Hitch did the honorable thing rather than just giving a silly answer.
ickythumpy 1 year ago 18
@ickythumpy I think people assume that had Trotsky taken over he would have been a total dictator like Stalin and that wouldn't have happened. Hitch was right in bringing up the Left Opposition
Drac39 1 year ago
@ickythumpy I disagree. In a differnt interview -- alongside Robert Service--, which is on youtube, the same question is posed. He manages to offer this as a response: less anti-semetism. I think he gives a few more answers, but I dont think he avoided the question out of honour, since he answers it in a differnt interview.
bfoaliali 6 months ago
@ickythumpy Hitch was being petulant because he didn't like the way the question was phrased - as was his wont.
noctalla 2 weeks ago
@Solaris152 I didn't detect Hitch being evasive, he sounded to me as though he couldn't provide a proper answer without a sufficient preface. I have a feeling that if the moderator would have let him finish that Hitch might have answered the question to his satisfaction, long winded as it may have been.
i3u7n5 1 month ago
look the host asked a fair question if you ask me
RAMSEY1987 1 year ago
@RAMSEY1987 so do I. Hitch seems strangely unable to employ his rhetorical flourish in defending the man whose ideas under the influence of whose ideas he spent decades.
vikramkrishnan 1 year ago
@vikramkrishnan he occasionally gives glib answers, and they always make me laugh. Like when he responded to the question "where does evil come from" asked by some christian who's name escapes me at the moment, and he responded "religion" a one word answer that said more than the fool he was arguing with could have said in a paragraph...
actually that was in the Hitchens vs. Turek debate at VCU, VA. I highly recommend it.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 1 year ago
dont fuck with hitch.
stitcha123 1 year ago
Christopher was on the verge of walking out I reckon
LeBigMacDaddy 1 year ago
Yea I was wondering why the host was making stupid comments throughout this. Thanks for clarifying that Hitchens!
frea35g 1 year ago
Great parting shot from Christopher.
"I know why people are Tories alright, but it doesn't take 45 minutes and it isn't interesting."
fubintien 1 year ago 43
@fubintien I got downright giddy at that line!
CrowningCheapment 1 year ago
@fubintien Hitch is certainly an asshole at times, a brilliant asshole though
Drac39 1 year ago
@fubintien Funny, but somewhat petulant.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago