i.imgur.com/OrmpLny.mp4

(video has sound)

I don’t understand the Trotskyist-NeoCon pipeline. Plz explain

are those real words

real

when nis this from

open knowledge, not actually a meme (Jones has the story skewed but he's correct abstractly). you can find stuff on this even on Wikipedia. one of the origins of neoconservatism in the US was the social democrats and AFL-CIO. Disaffection with the emerging post-60s US new left among older socialists (namely SocDems), some of which were directly soviet union people against Stalin to the US, resulted in spearheading of policy which is now defined as what's known as neoconservatism. Many prominent neocons early on were open Trotskyists or ex-Trotskyists, to the extent that it was popular yellow journalism at the time to accuse the Reagan Adminsitration of being run by Trots, even by self-identified Trotskyists. Anti-Stalinist Socialists in the US eventually became conservatives. Many now identified neocon publications originated as Trotskyist publications. This was actually common in US history - sects of socialists who were not aligned with Mao or Stalin eventually all became conservatives; this was also true during the rise of political movements about black people in the US; many prominent black socialists (i.e. George Schuyler) who were not aligned with otherwise (semi-)global communist movements became conservatives later in life very consistently. i can write more if youre interested but more realistically if you just google "neoconservatism trotskyism" you can find tons of stuff on this, even like academic papers, articles, summaries, etc.

hmmm i’m curious on why all the socialist sects not aligned with Mao or Stalin became conservative

i can give you my personal opinion philosophically/abstractly but more realistically it was probably just a coincidence related to cultural and historical factors

would love ur personal opinion as well

give me a bit because im on my phone atm so i cant write out a giant essay like usual, but very generally i think its because trotskyism is essentially a compatible counterpart to neoliberalism, of which neoconservatism is just an offshoot branch of. i think on the more cultural side, it's just because among many left sects in the US - whether now or historically - there lacks a strong conviction in terms of applied ideology, and things to tend to fall - whether out of their own admission or not - on social conviction primarily rather than social capacities as a meaningful dialectic view. if you care primarily about social means, you're going to end up drifting within the overton window of those social means no matter how extreme the beginning or end of your ideology is since that then ends up being essentially arbitrarily. so you're going to lean into two directions eventually; either A) the reactionary party which supports those views inadvertently, or at least a world in which they'd be acceptable or B) a nihilistic sense of if everything is arbitrary then your view must be championed ultimately beyond question (i.e. fascism)

Maoists became neoliberals in Germany.

let me guess, was it because they obsessed over social policy as well? there are some examples of this in the US i guess, the whole "social policy turned leftists into liberals/cons" isn't completely limited to non-maoists/non-stalinists, i mean, angela davis being a prime example but i still don't believe she isn't an asset

Maoists were almost always tolerated because they were able to appear socialist without being pro USSR. Mind you China and the West were allies at the time. It was en vogue to say you are a Maoist, and you werent ostracized like a regular Marxist Leninist. So the Green Party founders were all maoists, like Jürgen Trittin oder Winfried Kretschmann.

There's a difference between calling yourself something and being something though - at least, like, generally. Like a lot of people on twitter call themselves communists and have no idea about any form of underlying theory besides "capitalism bad". maybe a wikipedia page, and then use that to justify insane social ideas. Were they like actual practicing maoists or were they aesthetic maoists? Like I know with the Black Panthers here in the US, there were actual maoists in the party, not just by name, they were (well at least early on) carrying the red book and putting into practice maoist principles, it's just that they later got f***ed by switching into a party of social dynamics and then dropped the maoist (and any real ML for that matter) angle in favor of what was essentially just "the system but the way we like it instead". The only thing I know about the Greens in Germany is that they have a history of absolutely batshit social beliefs like openly advocating for pedophilia normalization, and are now absolutely insane neoliberals beyond parody who think the Iraq War and being in Afghanistan was justified because of Women's Rights among other things.

that’s interesting idk about german socialist history that much but it’s pretty surprising considering the whole history of the RAF there, that maoist would be even tolerated

A lot of them were using it as an aesthetic, i would argue the trotskyists in the USA too

i more or less agree about the latter thing, hence why they all ended up as neocons lol

I kinda feel like he’s gotta have known something about this since early Alex Jones days

time to revive this image again

holy f*** I like trump now