Comments on: Quote for the day

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:18:35 +0000

You expect foreign policies to differ from domestic policies when different elites are in charge of the different efforts. This was, and probably still is, a problem when a ‘progressive monarch’ wants to modernize a nation with a strong landed nobility. It was a problem for the U.S. when manufacturing wanted tariffs and the gold standard and agriculture wanted free trade and free silver. With apologies to scott martens, I was pointing out that the different elites in the Confederacy had different needs and goals, and this resulted in a fatal lack of coherence in their policy. And, after all, it’s not like Trotskyism is a success we somehow need to explain.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:55:57 +0000

mfb: Often, desires of the people in charge reflect abstract principles. George W. Bush is a good example of this. He sees the world and shapes his policies, both domestic and foreign, from a Christian perspective. Example: his stances on the U.N. Population Fund and stem cell research. The Middle East is a battleground between forces of good and evil. Homosexuality is a sin.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:01:35 +0000

I’m not sure that Trotsky’s assertion can be of much value in analyzing contemporary politics. Certainly, Bush’s detractors are likely to disapprove of his foreign policies as well as his domestic ones, and will draw negative links between them, while Bush’s supporters will generally approve of both his foreign and domestic policies and will draw positive connections between them. Ditto as to Clinton and, if he wins, Kerry. Perhaps a better formulation would be “Commentary on foreign policy is everywhere and always a continuation of commentary on domestic policy, for it is conducted by…” More generally as to Trotsky’s statement, though: When would one ever expect a nation to pursue foreign policies that run counter to its domestic policies? Certainly, one may disagree as to whether a particular regime’s policies are truly in the national interest or have been corrupted somehow, but why would one ever expect those policies to differ in different arenas?

By: MFB

MFB — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:01:38 +0000

The important point is that state policy is driven by the desires of the people in charge, rather than by abstract principles (e.g. “military humanism”). It is, admittedly, obvious when you think about it, but understandably the elites bullshit as much as possible to conceal the facts, because you and I might well not want to send our boys off to war so that some domestic corporation can make a higher profit—and yet the leadership may need that corporation’s contributions for their next election. Of course this doesn’t automatically apply always—say, when countries are attacked—but then, in crisis, there’s always a possibility that governments might choose altruism.

By: et alia

et alia — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:04:24 +0000

Dunno . . . Trotsky’s dictum seems like the Clauswitz chestnut that war is politics by other means rotated 180 degrees around the X-axis. Not that that’s a bad thing, mind you . . .

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:26:54 +0000

Nope. Trotsky didn’t say that the ruling class wasn’t a bunch of incompetent inbreeds. The Confederate leadreship still pursued the same goals abroad as at home. Their intent at all times and places was to sustain the south’s three tier caste system. Keep the large plantation owners and pseudo-nobility on top, black folk in chains on the planatation, and the buckrah too happy at not being black to realise that their fellow whites were screwing them over. Not being any good at it is whole different matter. That was way too easy. You have to understand, the idea that if something happens it must be rational is an element of rational choice theory, not socialism.

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:08:34 +0000

The quoted speciman of Trotsky is wishful thinking, not an observation. At every level foreign policy has almost always been different from, and often at odds with, domestic policy. This has been true so often that you might almost write a book about the rare cases when it is not. Trotsky tries an end-run on the truth by claiming that the goals of an elite must be congruent. With this he can always zig-zag on you by claiming that you just don’t undertand the TRUE goals of the elite because you have been baffled by bullshit. Case study- at a time when the troops of the Confederacy needed weapons, munitions, and British diplomatic support, the leaders of the Confederacy embargoed the export of cotton, forcing the British to find alternate sources. Now, that was just too d—n easy!

By: General Glut

General Glut — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:40:26 +0000

The point seems to be that foreign policy is a function of domestic class relations, not of international anarchy as per realism. Gramsci: “Do international relations precede or follow (logically) fundamental social relations? There can be no doubt that they follow.”

By: Tracy

Tracy — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:27:25 +0000

Isn’t what Trotsky said a tautology? How many governments would intentionally pursue a foreign policy at odds with what they want to accomplish at home? Of course, modern democracies are set up in order that one person cannot implement whatever they want without regard for the opinions of some others, so often coalitions are constructed which lead to inconsistencies across policy areas as everyone in the coalition wins on at least one matter that is dear to their heart. So we cannot expect foreign policy to be always consistent with domestic policy, but then we cannot expect domestic policy to be always consistent between different domestic policy areas. But, laying those political difficulties aside, would you ever expect foreign policy to be disconnected from domestic policy, and if so would that be a good thing?

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:21:18 +0000

For alternative and independent perspectives on the fractious politics of the Mensheviks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensheviks http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Glossary/Menshev.html

By: Ken MacLeod

Ken MacLeod — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:29:17 +0000

The Mensheviks were not bourgeois parliamentarians committed to ‘reform of Russia by constitutional means’; they were in favour of a revolution against Tsarism in alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie (which Trotsky wasn’t). Nor is it true that Trotsky espoused every mainstream ideology going, except Nazism. He was never, for example, a Stalinist, nor a liberal. His argument that the market remained necessary in the Soviet Union in the 1930s wasn’t an espousal of libertarianism, either, not even on the economic plane. It was purely an argument against what Marxists call ‘economic adventurism’.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:37:59 +0000

The claim that Trotsky was a “flip flopper” seems a bit misguided to me. Trotsky was never a Menshevik, except in the sense that he voted with the minority on the famous issue of definition of party member at the 1903 Congress. Until 1917, he was a “conciliator” seeking unity of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks while staying outside either faction. Anyway, it is anachronistic to think of the Mensheviks as social democrats (or, for that matter, the Bolsheviks as post-1917 Communists.)

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:58:52 +0000

“Did Trotsky ever espouse bourgeois parliamentarism?” The Mensheviks.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:56:47 +0000

“Connections between Trotskyism and neoconservatives” and “foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy” are two completely unrelated concepts. Similarity between Trotskyism and Neoconism is this dogma of a small morally superior vanguard force (be it proletarian party or Pentagon) that should lead (by force if necessary) dimwitted and reluctant world’s masses to their bright and happy future (be it communist paradise or democratic free market paradise). “Foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy” seems like a trivial observation.

By: Otto

Otto — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:37:29 +0000

“During founder’s lifetime, at one time or another, Trotsky managed to espouse every mainstream ideology going with the single exception of National Socialism.” Did Trotsky ever espouse bourgeois parliamentarism?