The Left left Hitchens (not the other way around)
I was going to try to start this post with as few cliches as possible, but I realized that in itself was a cliche. I first heard from reading Christopher, in a comment about his friend Martin Amis, that Martin despised the cliche and almost set down 1984 because he read one on the very first page. For those of you who haven’t heard, or haven’t even been aware of his existence, Christopher Hitchens died on the 15 of December. He is one of the authors closest to my heart and someone who influenced me in ways so many others have experienced; but that doesn’t cheapen the influence. I was lucky enough to have met him after one of his talks, and he even recited a few of his famous limericks for me (I still hold this as a point of pride).
In an odd and somewhat self satisfying manner, I find myself inadvertently living a life similar to him. While in England for the past year, I was associated with the Socialist Worker’s Party, the current version of his International Socialists. I consider myself a Marxist and have a taste for radical politics as did he (even in his later years). I think of myself as understanding his later positions far better than anyone one on either the right or left. The left say he betrayed them and supported an imperialist war, the right embraced him as a fellow neo-con. But both miss the point. I agree with his analysis that he never truly departed from the left in supporting the toppling of Saddam, the left departed from him. He wasn’t a Bush supporter in the way people think he was, he simply agreed with him in the stand against dictatorship, a stance many leftists rightfully sympathize with. But instead of supported the toppling because of a defense for America position, he supported it for the liberation of the people and showed solidarity with Kurdish leftists. He was clearly not anti-Middle East on the face of it (like other supporters of the invasion) or a proponent of American imperialism. He was, after all, an anti-Zionist and a supporter of both Kurdish and Palestinian rights. So pegging him as an ally of Bush misunderstands his position.
I must also say, he would have exactly predicted the responses to his death. The loving thoughts from strangers, the excitement of his death from orthodox leftists, and everything in between. He saw through the cliche, which is important. He thought dialectically and lived dialectically.
Isn’t it an odd feeling now, after reading his article about being waterboarded, reading his thoughts on cancer and dying while he was experiencing it, and so many other experiences the rest of us have not, and hopefully will not, have, that we don’t get to read a final article on what it is like to actually die? Of course it would contradict his stance on religion, and all logic and reason for that matter, but I somehow weirdly expected to read about it when I heard he finally buckled under the cancer. But before I fall into any other cliches that have already been written about him, go read some of his work for yourself. I promise, it won’t disappoint.
If you consider yourself a Marxist, you should then consider Hitchen’s role in Western cultural an political debate from a wider, historical perspective. I invite you to read (and disagree, if due) my post, written from a non European point of view. Maybe you’ll find a number of cliches, which is not uncommon when you try to do an articulated reflection about a complex matter pertaining to a strange culture in a language other than your native one.
Regarding Hitchens’ stand against a dictatorship (of which there’s no shortage being supported by the Bushes of this world) the question is: why he opposed the first Gulf War while supported the second one?. I hope my answer make sense to you. My best. http://wp.me/psnoA-9A
Bob Row
December 18, 2011 at 3:18 am
Thank you for your comment. With regards to his opposition to the first gulf war, I’m not sure that he was (at least in recent years). I have not read his writing from when the first gulf war was happening, but I can specifically recall him on the Daily Show saying that our mistake was not getting Saddam the first time (aka in the first Gulf War).
Also, I forgot to mention this in the first post, the problem with the invasion of Iraq is not that Saddam was taken out of power (I hope we can all agree that he needed to go), it was the fact that it was done unilaterally and done with Bush’s desire to institute a capitalist economy in Iraq that would then serve US financial interests (see Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine). These are the sides of it that I wish Hitch would have realized and addressed, because they are what made it such a bloody and devastating war.
Intervention can occur that does truly serve the interests of the people. I still argue that the NATO intervention in the recent Libyan conflict was justified. The rebels supported outside help, the attacks against the Gaddafi regime were agreed upon and executed multilaterally, and it helped in successfully toppling a dictator without a decade long occupation.
ps Read you post an enjoyed it. You make an interesting point about the foreign policy stances of new atheists being linked to their stand against religion. However, Hitchens and Dawkins adamantly disagree about Iraq, Dawkins taking the modern liberal stance against the invasion.
dan
December 18, 2011 at 11:19 am
I read some testimonials about Hitchens’s stand on the first Gulf War. Have to recall that Saddam was a secular dictator that had fought (with the massive support of the West) Khomeini, who had had threaten the life of Rushdie just two years before.
The problem with Iraq, Libya and many other former colonies is that where artificially drawn in a map (as Churchill boasted) gathering fragments of unfriendly communities (so never was a Kurdish state, for example). Dictatorship where repressive (as our own Latin pro-American regimes where) but not backward. They provided jobs, stability and welfare services while investing in infrastructure and development. Besides, they where armed by the West who had make business with them just till the day before. Moreover, both Saddam and Gaddafi opposed adamantly to Al Qaeda fundamentalism. Foreign intervention brought destruction, deaths (way beyond its military proclaimed intention) and mayhem. No advance for the cause of Freedom and Democracy is in sight and even the National Debt of the Nato states became increased. It seems the sole beneficiaries turned out to be a tiny group of friends of the Power. Those nicknamed “the 1%” now.
Its interesting the different stance by Dawkins but I never heard of a serious quarrel between the two because such an “anecdotic” point. At least not with the depth of the one between Hitchens and his former friends in the European Left, right?
Bob Row
December 18, 2011 at 11:34 pm