Common Core Trotskyites

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

"Leon Trotsky: father of neoconservatism" (Source)

Leon Trot­sky: father of neo­con­ser­vatism” (Source)

Who is Trot­sky and Who are His Followers?
And what do they have to do with education?

Why do I refer to Trot­skyites (oth­er­wise known as “Trot­sky­ists”) on this blog? The term is inter­change­able with the word “Neo­con­ser­v­a­tive,” or “Neo­con” for short. These indi­vid­u­als are active in Amer­i­ca, work­ing on the so-called “Con­ser­v­a­tive” agen­da in Wash­ing­ton, and hav­ing great influ­ence as the estab­lish­ment Pow­er Elite.

Take a look at an arti­cle by Paul Mul­shine, used to write for the Newark, New Jer­sey Star-Ledger titled “Good piece on the Trot­skyite roots of the Nation­al Review and ‘neo’ con­ser­vatism,” April 11, 2012. In this arti­cle, Mul­shine refers to a arti­cle, “Spring­time for Trot­sky,” by Daniel McCarthy, which spells out the details:

By call­ing Stal­in a fas­cist, Trot­sky and his fol­low­ers could claim that “real” social­ism is not a mur­der­ous ide­ol­o­gy. They could fur­ther claim that all true threats to human dig­ni­ty and free­dom real­ly come from the right. Although Trot­sky him­self had a rather fate­ful encounter with an icepick in 1940, Trotky­ists today con­tin­ue his fight on behalf of inter­na­tion­al social democ­ra­cy. These days how­ev­er, Trot­sky­ists pre­fer to call them­selves “neo­con­ser­v­a­tives.”

The Trot­sky­ist pedi­gree of neo­con­ser­vatism is no secret; the orig­i­nal neo­con, Irv­ing Kris­tol, acknowl­edges it with rel­ish: “I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a sin­gle bit­ter mem­o­ry.” Nor is there any doubt about the influ­ence — one might almost say hege­mo­ny — of “for­mer Com­mu­nists” on the post-war con­ser­v­a­tive move­ment. Just read the words of one neo­con, Sey­mour Mar­tin Lipset:

From the anti-Stal­in­ists who became con­ser­v­a­tives — includ­ing James Burn­ham, Whit­tak­er Cham­bers, and Irv­ing Kris­tol — the Right gained a polit­i­cal edu­ca­tion and, in some cas­es, an injec­tion of pas­sion. The ex-rad­i­cals brought with them the knowl­edge that ide­o­log­i­cal move­ments must have jour­nals and mag­a­zines to artic­u­late their per­spec­tives. In 1955, for exam­ple, William F. Buck­ley, Jr., launched Nation­al Review at the urg­ing of Willi Schlamm, a for­mer Ger­man Com­mu­nist. In its ear­ly years, Nation­al Review was large­ly writ­ten and edit­ed by the Buck­ley fam­i­ly and a hand­ful of for­mer Com­mu­nists, Trot­sky­ists, and social­ists, such as Burn­ham and Cham­bers. It played a major role in cre­at­ing the Gold­wa­terite and Rea­gan­ite New Right and in stim­u­lat­ing an anti-Sovi­et for­eign policy.

Wor­thy of note is that while ex-Stal­in­ists tend­ed to denounce their Com­mu­nist roots vehe­ment­ly, neo­con­ser­v­a­tives like Kris­tol and Schwartz remain at least wist­ful­ly fond of Trot­sky. It’s also worth not­ing that the neo­con­ser­v­a­tive pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with export­ing social democ­ra­cy abroad through war and mer­can­til­ism reflects the orig­i­nal split between Trot­sky and Stal­in. Trot­sky argued that there could not be “social­ism in one coun­try” but rather that the rev­o­lu­tion had to be tru­ly inter­na­tion­al. And so the neo­con­ser­v­a­tives push for “human rights” and social demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ments to be imposed on Ser­bia, for exam­ple, by force of arms.… [links removed, emphases added]

Leon Trotsky, 1921

Leon Trot­sky, 1921

Be informed! Become his­tor­i­cal­ly lit­er­ate! Read the entire arti­cle HERE. Also read this def­i­n­i­tion of Trot­sky­ism HERE, where it explains:

Trot­sky agreed that a new social­ist state and econ­o­my in a coun­try like Rus­sia would not be able to hold out against the pres­sures of a hos­tile cap­i­tal­ist world, as well as the inter­nal pres­sures of its back­ward econ­o­my. The rev­o­lu­tion, Trot­sky argued, must quick­ly spread to cap­i­tal­ist coun­tries, bring­ing about a social­ist rev­o­lu­tion which must spread world­wide. In this way the rev­o­lu­tion is “per­ma­nent”, mov­ing out of neces­si­ty first, from the bour­geois rev­o­lu­tion to the work­ers’ rev­o­lu­tion, and from there unin­ter­rupt­ed­ly to Euro­pean and world­wide rev­o­lu­tions. [bold added] 

We includ­ed a super arti­cle by Paul Mul­shine (ref­er­enced above) in my book the delib­er­ate dumb­ing down of amer­i­ca titled “COMING SOON TO A SCHOOL NEAR YOU: FORCED LABOR” pub­lished in the Novem­ber 29, 1998 issue of the Star-Ledger. Mul­shine under­stood that the School-to-Work agen­da in New Jer­sey was con­nect­ed with the “old Sovi­et Union” and Com­mu­nist Chi­na agen­da for “com­pli­ant work­ers trained to behave” in a “life­long deci­sion” made by the gov­ern­ment that deter­mined their career:

Imag­ine a state that uses its school sys­tem not to pro­duce inde­pen­dent-mind­ed, broad­ly edu­cat­ed cit­i­zens, but com­pli­ant work­ers trained to behave. A state where, in their ear­ly teens, chil­dren are forced to make a life­long deci­sion from gov­ern­ment-sanc­tioned career pos­si­bil­i­ties with such depress­ing titles as “waste man­age­ment,” “admin­is­tra­tive ser­vices” and “man­u­fac­tur­ing, instal­la­tion and repair.” A state where stu­dents in the gov­ern­ment schools are forced to spend one day a week toil­ing in menial labor.

The old Sovi­et Union? China?

Nope. New Jersey.

I wish I were mak­ing this up. But I’m not. This is a fair summation—minus the jargon—of the School-to-Work pro­gram that the state is plan­ning to impose on us next year.…