….. The combination of Karl Marx’s earlier writings and critical theories and Sigmund Freud‘s psychiatric theories would be a special mark of this “neo-Marxist critical theory,” not only in the writings of Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, but also in the “anti-authoritarian” psychology of Erich Fromm.
Morris Janowitz was at the time (1960) a sociologist at the University of Chicago, and he seemed to want to form a “new kind of military professionalism” and a new kind of military officer. That is to say, a military officer who would be a “suitable” instrument to serve those who are truly “governing a modern democracy.”
These last few words in quotation marks were taken from a recent essay by the candid Irving Kristol (the neoconservative patriarch and patronus and former Trotskyite) who has for some years been writing about, and promoting, “the emerging American imperium,” first in the Wall Street Journal in the mid-1990s.
In the 25 August, 2003, issue of the Weekly Standard, Kristol wrote a forthright article entitled, “The Neoconservative Persuasion.” In this essay he uses words that could also be retroactively applied to the larger, long-range re-education and cultural project of the Frankfurt School, of Morris Janowitz, and of his kind of “neo-military sociologist.” Kristol speaks in somewhat elevated but bluntly candid language as follows:
The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism [and also of the “new” military sociology and psychology?] would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism [and also the American military culture?] in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics [and hence a neo-imperial American military and its Global Expeditionary Force?] suitable to governing a modern democracy.
In the article Kristol further argues that, “like the Soviet Union of yesteryear,” the “United States of today” has “an identity that is ideological” (though he does not specify the content of this purported ideological identity).
Therefore, in addition to “more material concerns” and “complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest,” the United States, says Kristol, “inevitably” has “ideological interests” and “that is why we [sic] feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival [sic] is threatened.” (Israel Shamir, for slightly different reasons, also thinks that Israel is now threatened, at least as a “Jewish supremacist state” or as an “exclusionary, apartheid state.”)
However, is it conceivable that after our anti-authoritarian re-education in America’s purportedly tolerant, new “democratic military culture,” any active-duty military officers would now be permitted – much less long tolerated – to make any critique or have any moral reservation about this pre-eminent “ideological mission” for America, either for the protection of Israel or for the further expansion of, in Kristol’s own words, “the emerging American imperium”? It would seem not. The culture of tolerance would seem to be a fiction, especially when truth is taboo. Furthermore, a sign of real power is who effectively controls (or is intimidating about) what is permitted to be discussed and critiqued in open public discourse, and what must not be spoken………………