Trotskycons? (Neo-Con Scholar Confesses Neo-Conservatism Was Founded By Trotskyite Communists)

National Review ^ | June 11, 2003 | Steven Schwartz

[Destro]

He did not only say he was an ex Trotsky he said-and others too-that teh movement had its origins in the Trotskyism. If you can't read and undertsand such an obvious statement and you indicate you can't then the problem is with you.

[Dr. Frank fan]

he said-and others too-that teh movement had its origins in the Trotskyism

what "movement"? The four guys Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen Schwarz, and David Horowitz? Uh, fine. All those guys were socialists at one point.

So what?

Tell me what any of these people believe now that is similar to "Trotskyism". WHY CAN'T YOU DO THAT?

[Dr. Frank fan]

I did but your not the brightest bulb.

No you didn't. (And if you're gonna call me a dim bulb you should at least know the word is "you're". ;-)

You could help yourself and you know read--a libraty or Amazon.com are good places to visit.

Never heard of this "libraty" thing. Sounds quite informative.

Anyway, it just seems pretty pathetic that you can't actually tell us all what "Trotskyist" beliefs the "neo-cons" have. It should be so easy, since the link between them is so well-established and important. But alas, you can't. All you can do is point at Stephen Schwarz and say he used to be a Trotskyist. The sad part is that you actually seem convinced that proves something. All it really proves is how desperate you are to smear these "neo-cons", whoever they are.

[newwahoo]

"I may add that during that time I was in the midst of my transformation from being a Stalinist, and I can assure you a Stalinist can spot a Trotskyite a mile away. "

Wow, you've come a long way baby...

[Destro]

So I'm typo prone. Since My earlier half dozen attempts failed you might like to move on to a better source.

I also think you are being disingenuous, in your feigned lack of knowledge of neocons. You seem to be bothered that a group you don't know has some sort of origin in a leftist past.

Let me know if you find any good books on the subject.

[Destro]

Before I go:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

An Introduction to Neoconservatism by Gary North

[bruinbirdman]

Re: Bill Kristol and neocon pejorative

Obfuscation and confusion is one of the left's better tricks as is co-opting the language.

Neocon seems to be a one way street. From the left to the right. This cannot be, say the commies. After all, it is their agenda to convert all to the left or else. The left defines neocon as they please. They must be commies who convert to the right, therefore, they still are. Second, if they are hiding in the conservative movement, they have a world domination agenda.

On the second point. There are plenty of young conservatives who believe The Constitution is devinely inspired and it would be a good idea if more countries were guided by it. They might even have come to the conclusion that sooner or later there will be dire international tests of culture, we might as well get it over by the least costly means, including force. The left labels these realists who, may never have been anything but conservative, as neocon in the pejorative since (they must be former commies or are now nazis).

"Those who control language control minds." - - Ayn Rand. What is political correctness?

The Frankfort School is alive and well. Schwartz and this Trotsky dialog is the perfect example. The left spends a lot of time on the dialectic.

yitbos

[nopardons]

BRAVO; well put !

Now, would you care to take on those here, who misuse and abuse the term neo-con and still call themselves Conservatives ?

[DPB101]

Could this neocon-Trotskyite nonsense come from Trotsky's view that only a proletarian revolution could bring about the creation of a Jewish state? It is twisted thinking to compare that to the policies of the Bush administration but many on the left and a few on the right do think everything Bush does revolves around Israel. If they also believe that Trotsky was using revolution as a means to create a Jewish state (as his writings suggest) the leap isn't far to claim Neocons have simply changed tactics to achieve the goal of advancing rather than creating the Jewish state.

It is late and maybe this makes no sense. I'm open to other explanations behind this "neocon/Trotskyite" nonsense.

One thing is certain. It can't be ignored. Too many people are repeating it. Does anyone know who began it?

[nopardons]

It may be late, but what you wrote makes some sense.

IIRC, Irving Kristol, one of the original/FFs of neo-cons wrote about neo-cons first and it was more or less ignored until recently. Now, the left and the fringe eliments, such as Pat Buchannan, have picked up the term to use as a perjorative.

[DPB101]

And, as I'm sure you know, Irving Kristol's use of neocon and was totally different than how it is being used today. As I recall, he wasn't even into marxism and Trotsky that much and rapidly signed on to fighting communism. Would like to find the first written claim that Neocon Trotskyites are running Bush. Bet it comes from ANSWER or other crazies on that side of the aisle

[nopardons]

I vaguely remember reading it, when Kristol first wrote the thing. It was about his transpositing of his beliefs; that's all.

I have NO idea just where or who strated today's polemic/ propaganda using the neocon stuff. I think it first started to appear last year sometime, in full throttle.

[dennisw]

It is late and maybe this makes no sense. I'm open to other explanations behind this "neocon/Trotskyite" nonsense.

The Trotsky connection is designed to slime the neo-conservatives by making them out to be once and future commies. When reality is they are legitimate conservatives. Though obviously not paleo-conservative or libertarian. FWIW: I'm half neo-con and half paleo.

As far as Trotsky and Israel I know nothing. If it exists, it exists only in dusty old books. I've never heard of it so it has zero influence on Zionism or pro-Israel people

[dennisw]

what "movement"? The four guys Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen Schwarz, and David Horowitz? Uh, fine. All those guys were socialists at one point.

So what?

Tell me what any of these people believe now that is similar to "Trotskyism". WHY CAN'T YOU DO THAT?
____________________


TRUE! What are they up to now? GWBush gave up drink and these guys gave up socialism, Trotskyism long ago. People change. Would the Paleos prefer they remained leftist?

[Dr. Frank fan]

You seem to be bothered that a group you don't know has some sort of origin in a leftist past.

LOL, that's ridiculous.

The fact that "neocons" whoever they are have "origin in a leftist past" doesn't "bother" me at all. How could it? It's a completely obvious and boring fact.

After all the DEFINITION of "neocon" is, among other things, "former leftist turned conservative". So how the hell could they NOT have "origin in a leftist past"? To be surprised by this "discovery" would be like being surprised that Grant is buried in Grant's tomb.

No, what i was trying to discover was merely this: what beliefs do "Trotskyists" and "neocons" have in common. still waiting to hear. Perhaps the answer is "nothing", but you don't wanna just come out and say that, cuz then where will this thread be?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Could this neocon-Trotskyite nonsense come from Trotsky's view that only a proletarian revolution could bring about the creation of a Jewish state?

So "Trotskyism" was nothing more than a method of Zionism? News to me..

many on the left and a few on the right do think everything Bush does revolves around Israel.

How many is "many"? I've heard very, very few people say this.

If they also believe that Trotsky was using revolution as a means to create a Jewish state (as his writings suggest) the leap isn't far to claim Neocons have simply changed tactics to achieve the goal of advancing rather than creating the Jewish state.

To believe this I'd have to believe that "neocon" is nothing more than a code word for "Jew". But that can't be the case, people who use the word "neocon" are always insisting there's more to it than that.. ;-)

I'm open to other explanations behind this "neocon/Trotskyite" nonsense.

I'm open to explanations which involve filling in the blanks of my post #86.

One thing is certain. It can't be ignored. Too many people are repeating it.

Sorry, sentence 2 simply does not follow from sentence 3.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I'm starting to think that maybe we simply have a case where people have been fooled by their own phony circular definition. Consider what this all seems to boil down to:

1. "Neo-con" = former leftist turned conservative.

2. Many are now "shocked" to discover that some "neocons" used to be leftists.

This "neo-con" stuff just gets stupider every day.

[TradicalRC]

You fellas make for some interesting reading.

Dr. Frank has a point in asking for definitions. What is a Trotskyist? What is a neocon?

Someone who was politically active during the red decade of the 1930's could probably give you a good definition that distinguishes his thought from other versions of communism.

Regarding neocon; everyone seems to have their own definition which makes for sloppy logic and therefore sloppy arguments. We must be precise. The only thing off the top of my head that unites the aforementioned groups is utopianism. Anyone who is genuinely conservative would recognize the intrinsic folly in utopianism, and for that matter all ideologies. Man is imperfect and seems equally capable of doing evil as well as good. And willfully does both. There is an old joke about communists loving humanity, it's just people they can't stand. That actually puts them one up on environmentalists who regard humanity as intrinsically evil.

Neocons strike me as folks who like to be where the power is and are willing to adopt different labels depending on the zeitgeist. They also seem to be politicos who are pragmatically conservative but still believe that liberals have the monopoly on good intentions.

Finally, to say that one is unaware of certain writings or thoughts so therefore one is NOT influenced is to disregard culture. They say that a fish has no concept of water because he's never known anything else. People who've never read Shakespeare seem to quote him all the time. I've run across libertarians who have never read Ayn Rand but I'm willing to bet that they've been influenced by her. BTW, there is an interesting chapter at the end of Barbara Branden's book on Ayn Rand where she lists the various members of the culturati that have been influenced by her.

Thanks for taking the time to read this unusually lengthy post.

[DPB101]

Finally, to say that one is unaware of certain writings or thoughts so therefore one is NOT influenced is to disregard culture.

What R. Emmett Tyrrell and others have termed "Kultursmog." It takes effort to notice it is there. But when you notice, breathing it in is most unpleasant. And warning those who don't even smell the pollution is often a thankless task.