Christopher Hitchens on Francis Fukuyama part 1 of 6

[sacredsoma]

does anyone have an mp3 version of this

[lightandbeautiful]

Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.

A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.

Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.

[stew3128561]

@lightandbeautiful TROLLL

[azzy314159]

Certainly no intellectual giant. More like a pseudo intellectual.

[BelfastAtheist]

@azzy314159

I guess that was why he was named the worlds Fifth top public intellectual..

Pretty impressive for a psuedo intellectual I would have thought!

[pmkaka]

Christopher does waffle

he with his merry friends are part of the problem,

giving academics a free run & not accountable for the kaos mess greed & problems of our current situation??

Internationa; Inequlaity!! with religion and political greed allot to blame !!

[Provoker7]

Did they get Christopher Walken to do the introduction?

[sponsoredwalk1]

Wow, I read a bit of Derrida's criticism of Fukuyama, if this is good I'll actually finish Derrida!

[victor1eremita]

@sponsoredwalk1 why in the world would derrida's criticism from 'Spectres of Marx' hinge on Hitchen's talk? you've got it all backwards! Read derrida so you dont have to deal with hitchen's hung-over drunk blather.

[sponsoredwalk1]

@victor1eremita

The talk is about Francis Fukuyama who's claims of "the end of history" are deconstructed by Derrida (among others) & I was just pointing out that I'd finish reading it. It also was a way to let people know that there are other critique's of Fukuyama worth keeping an eye out for.

[Psychogenius018]

"Liberal democracy" is but a temporary oligarchical illusion created for the masses. The future belongs to overt scientific dictatorships by posthumans ruling over flocks of obsolete human slaves. If superman survives his technological adolescense, the end of history will see the utter elimination of the need of slavery and the merely human. Only then will true democracy come into existence.

[ssahmad]

where was he speaking?

[hexag1]

I don't know. It's old, from like 1992

[pookaman3]

@ssahmad Washington D.C.

[THEFRANKLINFILM]

Francis Fukuyama, otherwise known as the man who got it completely wrong on purpose.

[jez321]

didnt know christopher walken was working as an mc

[scythe747]

@jez321 haha, true.

[ssahmad]

"I got a fever and the only prescription is more cow bell"

[yamaha893]

thanks for posting btw. getting tired of listening to hitchens talk religion.

[yamaha893]

when was this boadcast? is there a video??

[Brantinger]

Even if he rejects the description "neoconservative", its exactly what he is: One day u wake up and think "hell, im a left-winger, but im only surrounded by crackpots here. What happened?" That is what I call the "Neocon Moment". I think he only rejects it because of his understanding of the notion "conservative", which maybe a lil bit inflexible. Its hard for him to get rid of his old ideologcal baggage if it isnt connected directly with concrete political issues.

[hexag1]

How is Hitchens a neoconservative? And how are the neocons 'conservative'. They aren't, except possibly with domist/social policies. But their geopolitics is quite radical.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

The first neocons, Trilling, Kristol, Hook, etc. were indeed radical. They used to call themselves "radicals for freedom." Hitchens certainly identifies with the original neoconservative position on foreign policy, though largely not domestic (which was religious in a Straussian way).

[asdfgasdfasdful]

"A contradiction must be faced by those of us who don't especially like the propaganda name "neoconservative" but who wish that there was a useful term for someone who favors a robust [militant] attitude toward totalitarian and aggressive states."

- Hitchens, recent Slate article

[Brantinger]

Neoconservatives are conservatives in my view becuz they regard a certain system of norms, a certain order or values as superior to alternatives and try to conserve it. Not nessecarily the current order, thats why they can be revolutionary and why Leo Strauss turned to the ancients for answers.

[kat1989]

By this definition of conservative, everyone is. Or have I somehow missed the Liberals non judgemental musings on murder, theft and rape. Just about everyone has a system of norms that they regard as superior, you need to define conservative in some other way

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Neoconservative foreign policy is centered on the prioritization of human rights over state sovereignty, specifically through the doctrine of humanitarian interventionism and promoting libertarian and democratic ideals via power hegemonies. See Hitchens quote above for why he considers himself a neocon.

[CarloTheGambino]

Are you honestly trying to tell us that Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney care about the average Joe and Mary in Baghdad? Are you nuts? America doesn't give a fuck about poor brown people, jesus dude, you're on another planet.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

"America" is an aggregation of 300 million different human beings, millions among them "brown people" and others who care about "poor brown people" (US has vastly the highest private donation to Africa, eg) and yes Bush et al clearly cared about the average Iraqi... though I disagree with most of their strategic decisions I have no reason to doubt their humanity... and neither do you.

Neoconservatism does not equal "Bush" he had some neocon influences, but had many more realists in his cabinet.

[CarloTheGambino]

I doubt those private donations are coming from white Americans though, don't you?

And dude please explain because this is totally wild, in what way did Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney ever show that they cared for the Iraqi people? They wanted to control the oil, therefore they had to install a regime that they could manipulate - imperialism, plain and simple, it's colonialism via the back door. I can't see what you could possibly gain from denying that reality.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Uhh no I'm not a racist so I don't apply racist stereotypes about "whites" or "blacks" or anyone else... and, statistically speaking, the majority of those private donations are coming from white religious Americans. Consult the statistics.

I suggest you read Hitchens on the "war for oil" hypothesis in The Long Short War. It is largely fallacious conspiracy theory. I can't see what you could possibly gain from attempting such tired and false cliches.

[CarloTheGambino]

Question - why do you call black folk African-Americans, and you call mexicano folk or Spanish folk, you call them Latin-American, but theres no such prefix for white Americans? You don't call them Anglo-Americans, or German-Americans..........is it that white America feels that white people are the "real" Americans, and everyone else isn't as American?

Ive always wondered that. I mean it's not like black folks have only just arrived, so whats the dealio?

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Uh "African-American" and "Latin-American" are considered respectful and more formal terms.. and yes whites are called "Irish-Americans" and "Jewish-Americans" and so forth too... but mostly people just refer to "whites," "blacks," "latinos," etc. And no, it has nothing to do with anyone not being "real" Americans. Seriously, what the hell does this have to do with the topic?

[Gerkinstock]

Well, the majority of Latinos in the United States also happen to be white. And Anglo-Americans include all citizens of Anglo-American countries, including the United States, Canada, Jamaica, etc.

It was people like Jesse Jackson who pushed for the term African American to be used to describe any and all U.S. citizens of sub-Saharan African descent. Perhaps your question would be best directed at him?

[CarloTheGambino]

i just think its weird - surely the thing about america, the beautiful thing, is that the minute you get off the boat, the second you're an american citizen, then thats you, youre as american as apple pie - youre all as american as eachother, there is no american race, youre a mixed race country by definition, so you shouldnt have these prefizes - youre all just americans.

[tomthefunky]

It's not that simple, CarlotheGambino. An immigrant straight off the boat is not "as American as apple pie". There is a world of difference between that person and someone whose family has been here for generations. That immigrant has to assimilate into the culture and it usually takes their children to be fully assimilated. It's a long process but it's crucial they do assimilate or we become a country of squabbling ethnic groups with no common bond. That's dangerous.

[ashleylovesdaddy]

It's a good question. I don't know why you're getting thumbs downs. I'm sure the answer to your question has to do with who conquered who. It'll change with time. Hopefully not much time.

[CarloTheGambino]

well done for actually thinking about my comment, respect.

[Brantinger]

Yep u missed the whole multicultural hype of the progressive movement. People who argue for sharia-courts for muslims in western democracies etc.

And not everybody is con. by this definition becuz progressive ideologies emphasize rather natures and ways of changing an order than the character it should have. The dichotomy of liberalism-socialism equals evolution-revolution and not necessarily the resulting order, which they both only define very vague (universal freedom and equality).

[iSAW7]

@hexag1 He is a neoconservative because he feels the United States should topple dictatorships around the world and spread Democracy in our image. Hitchens has said himself that he does not consider himself a conservative except maybe a neo-conservative

[shallbeagain]

@iSAW7 Except when it suits the US to support both economically and militarily some of the worst tyrannical dictatorships on the planet e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

Weird isn't it, eh!

[ladros]

@hexag1 (1/2) My professor of late-modern philosophy described it like this: there were two waves of neo-conservatism. The first was pessimistic and included people like William Kristol, Allan Bloom and Norman Podhoretz who felt that America was doomed because it had abandoned its older theological principles unto its own destruction (and to whom Hitchens was always a critic in print). The second wave was wildly optimistic, and felt that America would be the source of a global revolution...

[ladros]

@hexag1 (2/2) of classical liberal democracy and universal recognition. Of this camp, one would have to include Fukuyama and, though he was only a critical friend of Leo Strauss, Alexander Kojev. The split between these camps and their ideologies has been obscured due to some tendencies on the left to demonize the Straussians, which accidentally makes them seem like a much more cohesive family than they really are. Like other political philosophies, it evolved to fit the day to day problems.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@Brantinger The only crackpots are those that consider the medievalist reactionary forces of jihadism, and the Hussein crime family to be progressive or radical. Those "progressives" that support and endorse fascism.

[BelfastAtheist]

@Brantinger

>I've never studied politics in my life, but to seem smart I pretend to hold an opinion on it.

You are the height of disingenuity sir. You are among the most politically illiterate I've ever had the misfortune to come across. You show a profound ignorance of Neoconservatism, Conservatism itself and the political opinions of Mr. Hitchens.

Please, just stop posting. It's embarrasing to read your tripe.

[BelfastAtheist]

@Brantinger

You appear to think Neoconservatism and Convervatism are pretty much the same ideaology, they are not. They couldn't be more different. Just because something has the word 'Conservatism' in, doesn't make it Conservative. Please, take a politics class before you spread this bullshit.

[Brantinger]

@BelfastAtheist Irving Kristol on the meaning of neoconservatism: "It refers to a constellation of

opinions and views that is not traditionally Conservative but is Conservative and is certainly not liberal." Well I guess that means I would have to take that politics class with Mr. Kristol together, if he was still alive. Thanks for sharing ur wisdom with us!

[BelfastAtheist]

@Brantinger

Ah, quoting someone else when asked about *your* opinions. I expected as much.

I know Kristol is sometimes lauded as one of the kingpins of Neoconversatism, however the fact that you couldn't even explain 'your' own opinions when prompted, only makes you look increasingly disingenuous.

Neoconversatism is actually quite a complex ideaology, which favours the free market, varioust tenats of Neoliberalism and very few tenats of Conversatism. Good day.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

People don't seem to believe me.. so here's the actual quote from his interview with Reason:

"Marxs original insight about capitalism was that it was the most revolutionary and creative force ever to appear in human history. .. That is actually what the Manifesto is all about... no better summary of the beauty of capital has ever been written.

...

There is no longer a general socialist critique of capitalism - certainly not the sort of critique that proposes an alternative or a replacement."

[frea35g]

Yes but that he is not a socialist means that he no longer identifies with the socialist movement and claims that it has ceased to exist in any meaningful way.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it also does not mean that he has renounced the views put forth in this video.

Marxism does not equal Communism or Socialism. Marxism is an intellectual movement, while Communism and Socialism might be called that, but are also political movements. Your Hitchens quote really says it all...

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Well, Hitchens has specifically stated that he has renounced socialism *now* ... whether he would apply that retroactively to what he was saying here is not certain, but he has renounced many of his specific positions. He's essentially the modern Sidney Hook in that respect.

Marxism is an intellectual framework, from which has sprung a mountain of violence and emotionalism and dogmatism... and few bright spots of positive contribution.

Hitchens is what I would call a Marx-informed capitalist.

[nyomythus]

And with just a little shuffle to the Right. Liberal Capitalism. Not a bad place to be.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Hah, indeed, though it might be somewhat of a stretch to call going from the camaraderie of communists, Marxists, Vidal, Chomsky, and The Nation to that of neoconservatives, Straussians, Kristol, Buckley, and the Hoover Institute a "little shuffle."

Nevertheless, I see much consistency in the principles espoused by Hitchens, if not the policy. I think he put it most eloquently in his article from 1989 in Grand Street - nic truths that are at once undeniable and unrealizable.

[frea35g]

"Marxism is an intellectual framework, from which has sprung a mountain of violence and emotionalism and dogmatism... and few bright spots of positive contribution."

It's funny you say that because the movements derived from Marxism have produced that same mountain from liberal capitalists.

In any case, I'm really interested in what produced the world view shift by Hitchens. Of course I know the superficial reasons, but does anyone know of a book or interview where he thoroughly explains that?

[nyomythus]

Oh there is a thin and critical sliver of light between Classical Liberalism and Neoconservatism.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Perhaps, though Hitchens recently referred to himself as the latter in a Slate article re: Iran.

[UniweriaZekt]

When was this haxga1?

[hexag1]

I don't know the date. I'm guessing 1992 ish, since thats when Fukuyama published his book....

[Melvin6566842]

I'd like to have a transcript of this... anyone can help out?

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Thanks for the upload.

This is Hitchens back when he was a socialist. He denounced the socialist position in 2002 and called capitalism "beautiful" and "revolutionary." Nevertheless, interesting stuff.

[nyomythus]

He said socialism had ceased to be a force for positive change, as opposed to capitalism which is the only force for positive revolutionary change in the world.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Indeed, and he also stated that he was no longer a socialist, and that socialism did not and could not offer an alternative or replacement for capitalism. He supposed that the positive values of socialists could only be achieved in a non-socialist society, while denouncing the anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movements. He has repeated these things many times since. If anyone does not believe this rather common knowledge, look it up.

[DaveyH123]

He may have said that, but in no way did he 'renounce' it. He merely stated that he had fallen foul of others he felt shared the same libertarian sensibillities in the name of socialism, and could no longer band himself together with people of such wish-washy moral standing. The big fall out was over Rushdie, and that instigated his apparent change in political allegiances, he has never gone back on his true principles.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

No, there has been much much more fallout since the Rushdie affair. And yes he explicitly did renounce the anti-capitalist anti-globalization movement. Read the interview.

[hexag1]

Hitchens' real break with the left was over Bosnia. The 'Anti-Imperial' left was opposed tooth an nail to the intervention in Bosnia. The war was clearly designed to stop a genocide and the following Kosovo toppled a fascist dictator. The 'anti-imperial' left (Chomsky, Cockburn etc) thought it was an excuse for empire.

Here is where Hitchens broke with the left.

[hexag1]

As for socialism, he has basically said that there is no longer a general socialist critique of capitalism. Capitalism has effectively rebutted almost all of the criticisms one could make of it. Where it hasn't, those criticisms also apply to all other systems of economic thought.

[asdfgasdfasdful]

Prettymuch, yeah.

[Arondeus]

Hitchens is not anti-Socialist at all. In recent interviews he has said that he still refers to himself as a Marxist, for crying out loud.

Here is a quote from an interview he gave to PBS:

[Arondeus]

"It's impossible, I think, however much I'd become disillusioned politically or evolve into a post-political person, I don't think I'd ever change my view that socialism is the best political moment humans have ever come up with. So a lot of credit belongs to the socialist movement for being able to see that far and imagine that much, and to risk and dare as much as they did and we would still be living in a better world in other words if the socialists forces had won that year."

C. Hitchens

[BelfastAtheist]

@Arondeus

Uh..

Sorry to break it to you. You don't appear to have read any of Mr. Hitchens' books, so I'll just inform you. He no longer classifies himself as a Marxist, Communist or Socialist. He classified himself as a Marxist in the 80s, however he states, quite explicity that he no longer believes Marxism to be a viable Economic solution.

[Krazyeyeskilla]

@BelfastAtheist

I believe that he does see himself as a Marxist, just not a socialist. In other words, he does not believe in the working class's inevitable triumph or historical mission nor does he believe in the Party. But, he still does see think (according to him) like a historical materialist. I seen an interview with him (recent as he is bald from his chemo) where he says this.

Personally, i think he sucks balls

[patient0Studios]

@BelfastAtheist He calls himself a post-Trotskyist and a Marxist. He has dropped the "socialist" label. It is you who hasn't paid enough attention to the Hitch's own words and writings

[BelfastAtheist]

@patient0Studios

''He calls himself a post-Trotskyist''

Wrong on two counts. He never added ''Post'' to the title, nor does he believe that Socialism has anything to contribute to the Global Economy in its modern form.

''And a Marxist''

Also wrong.

I've seen him call himself a Liberal more times in the last 10 years (once) than I've seen him call himself a Marxist. Which of his works are you getting this from? His early 90s stuff? His late 80s stuff..?

[drmayne]

How old is this? His voice sounds a lot younger. Great add, thanks for it.

[aoganesian]

Yes and his views are much more to the left than they have been since 9/11. This is the old Hitch.

[hexag1]

not sure how old. since "The End of History" is from 1992, I would guess its from soon after.

[hexag1]

Please leave some comments!!!