Interesting interview from an defecting Leftist;
And of course, most of it is a valid critique of Western Liberals/Progressives throwing out the baby with the bathwater, of jettisoning the family and moral principles derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
But there is a Socialism on the Right, as Engels even admitted, and Spengler talked about in his book; ''Prussianism and Socialism'', and even goes so far as to say this, that Marxists are not the real Socialists;
''People who aim to change the word continually fall into the error of confusing what ought to be with what shall be. Rare indeed is the vision that can penetrate beyond the tangle and flux of contemporary events. I have yet to find someone who has really understood this German Revolution, who has fathomed its meaning or foreseen its duration. Moments are being mistaken for epochs, next year for the next century, whims for ideas, books for human beings.
Our Marxists show strength only when they are tearing down; when it comes to thinking or acting positively they are helpless. By their actions they are confirming at last that their patriarch was not a creator, but a critic only. His heritage amounts to a collection of abstract ideas, meaningful only to a world of bookworms. His "proletariat" is a purely literary concept, formed and sustained by the written word. It was real only so long as it denied, and did not embody, the actual state of things at any given time. Today we are beginning to realize that Marx was only the stepfather of socialism. Socialism contains elements that are older, stronger, and more fundamental than his critique of society. Such elements existed without him and continued to develop without him, in fact contrary to him. They are not to be found on paper; they are in the blood. And only the blood can decide the future.
But if socialism is not Marxism, then what is it? The answer will be found in these pages. Some people already have an idea of what it is, but they are so diligently involved with political "standpoints," aims, and blueprints that no one has dared to be sure. When faced with decisions, we have abandoned our former position of firmness and adopted milder, less radical, outmoded attitudes, appealing for support to Rousseau, Adam Smith, and the like. We take steps against Marx, and yet at every step we invoke his name. Meanwhile the time for fashioning ideologies has passed. We latecomers of Western civilization have become skeptics. We refuse to be further misled by ideological systems. Ideologies are a thing of the previous century. We no longer want ideas and principles, we want ourselves.
Hence we now face the task of liberating German socialism from Marx. I say German socialism, for there is no other. This, too, is one of the truths that no longer lie hidden. Perhaps no one has mentioned it before, but we Germans are socialists. The others cannot possibly be socialists.''
Oswald Spengler's ''Prussianism and Socialism'' can be found here for a fuller read;http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaste ... ialism.htm
But as far as i'm concerned, this is just fake as hell and essentially Fascistic, despite my interest in Spengler and the insightful things he had to say. After all, he did influence both Nazism and the ''Conservative Revolutionary'' movement in post-1914 Europe, that the German Revolution occurred in 1914 and was the counter to both ''1789'' and ''1917'', that is the French and Russian Revolutions. I believe that there's some truth to that...
So why am I mentioning both of these things in the same post? It's important that when rejecting the trajectory of the modern ''Left'', one does not fall into an essentially hyper-capitalistic Right that slaps a label on itself as being a ''Socialistic'' phenomenon.
But as John Lukacs noted, Socialism and Nationalism are both Populist and Mass Movement in their appeal. And there are ''Leninists'' on the Right as well as the Left, with October 1917 being a model of a coup-de-etat, a revolution, from either political cluster of ideologies.
Therefore, it goes back to what I've written before, that the real divide that I accept as more real is between not the ''Left'' and ''Right'', but a Right composed of what the Objectivists and Libertarians and Anarchists call ''Statists'', and a Left essentially composed of the previous mentioned, shading into those of the Liberal and Classical persuasions...
I say, ''persuasions'' rather than ''ideologies'', because at heart, I think most Liberals are Libertarians at heart, who when in power are feckless and confused and when out of power, are almost Anarchist or at least Minarchist when it comes to social issues.
But man is a fickle and disreputable creature and perhaps, like a chess-player, is interested in the process of attaining his goal rather than the goal itself.