Cockburn vs Hitchens - Significantly different

Louis Proyect lnp3 at
Sun Nov 14 07:05:12 MST 1999

Jared Israel:
>It is true that Cockburn and Hitchens are not Caldwell, but they are
>SOMETHING: that is while neither of them have much to do with Marxist theory
>(a reflection of the times, obviously) they DO occupy very different
>relations to Imperialism.  Cockburn's COUNTERPUNCH was the best of the US
>antiwar websites during the bombing of Yugoslavia; it influenced a lot of
>people who otherwise would have fallen for the humanitarian horse manure.
>Hitchens is the most vicious of the Serbophobes; his recent article in
>Fair is truly beyond belief, refering to the "demented plan" for a Greater
>Serbia (the former simply racism and the latter simply fabrication) and so
>on.  Hate pours from his writing; saying he NO LONGER is a Marxist is like
>saying Mussolini was NO LONGER a Marxist in 1928. Actually, Mussolini is too
>nice a comaprison for Hitchens.  Mussolini wasn't OPENLY as racist.

I agree with this completely. Cockburn has been one of the most reliable
anti-imperialist voices in the United States. He and Noam Chomsky have
influenced thousands of students and working people to take stands against
US interventions in Central America, the Mideast and Yugoslavia. I think
that Cockburn needs this kind of challenge in order to rise to the
occasion. By contrast, Hitchens is really a conventional left-liberal who
adapts to US foreign policy on all major questions. Perhaps this is rooted
in his "State Capitalist" education as a young man. Their tendency to adopt
a neutral stance between various capitalist conflicts  such as the US and
Cuba [sic], Great Britain and Argentina, North and South Korea seems driven
more by liberal moralism than genuine Marxist politics.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: (

More information about the Marxism mailing list