Posted on 06/16/2003 5:03:58 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Trotsky sure sets you off. I guarantee he has little influence in America, little influence on the neo-conservatives and junior influence in the growth of world wide communism. You inflate him and give him too much credit. Just like his devotees. Perhaps in Europe Trotsky gets debated and discussed. Not in America.
Seems a lot of people are trying to denigrate neo-conservatism by tying it to Leon Trotsky.
And the common link with neo-cons is with emphasis on the 'international'. The earlier edition of the 'cons' sought to ride Communism as the world vehicle. In the USA they 'took over' the Democrat party and larded the Roosevelt administration (as McCarthy accurately pointed out).
Today's edition of the 'cons', recognizing the failure of Communism toward their world ends, jumped ship to use the GOP (and the USA trade and military) for their international quest.
It is quite obvious that this article, and similar, are bringing foreign isms into America, disputing who killed the most but uniting on ending Christianity. God Bless America.
Yes. The smart Trotskyites saw who was winning, and switched to the winning side. But they still will never promote a Christian society. It's ironic in fact that this article, written by an avowed ex-Trotskyite, is on the website of Horowitz, the guy who has just been attacking Christian leaders on the gay issue.
Oops, wrong thread. That was this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930315/posts
Maybe because the founders of neoconservativism never are able to say "I was wrong" - rather they revel in their Trotskite past and they boast of being intellectuals and how high brow they were compared to the Stalinists. Also they seem to have never lost the desire for world revolution. They change horses in mid race again and again to whoever will best suit their purposes. Their loyalty is to the revolution though the details of the final utopia get finessed from time to time. The are not and never were conservatives let alone libertarians.
BTW you seem to be defending Trotsky like he was some sort of respectable fellow being slandered. That doesn't come across well to old time conservatives (anti-communists) who you might be trying to win over to your side.
One more BTW - the "he was just a military leader during the revolution" argument doesn't cut it - the Reds Army killed a lot more than White combatants. They killed a lot of civilians in a reign of terror against any villages suspected (that's suspected not necessarily did) of helping the Whites to make examples of them so the other villages would fearfully support the Reds just like the Vietnamese communists did much later against their people.
Barely heard of 'im, is he the guy who's actually an Islamic convert? Anyway, I'm racking my brain here but having a really hard time figuring out why I'm supposed to care
And apparently it's an aspect of Christopher Hitchens and Irving Kristol as well.
Fascinating! This just gets more and more fascinating.
J. Edgar Hoover was a white guy. J. Edgar Hoover wore dresses. I suppose wearing dresses is an "aspect of being a white guy" as well? Let me know Dr. Logic
World wide revolution was preached by practically every communist. Lenin, certainly. Does the "ghost of Lenin" haunt "neo-conservatism" too? I guess I just don't understand why Trotsky is singled out
Neocon policy is to IGNORE national self-interest,
Yeah I guess that's why we pre-emptively struck Iraq
Sure they may dress up policy in patriotic terms
Ok I get it, what's going on is that you've got a policy disagreement with the "neocons" (they think attacking Iraq was in our self-interest, you don't) and because you can't argue with them on their terms using rational arguments and objective facts, you've decided to try to claim that "they're not really interested in national interest in the first place". In other words you're begging the question and assuming that the thing you believe (attacking Iraq not in our nat'l interest) has already been proven, which it hasn't.
I understand now.
Just like the "neo-cons"!!!1 /sarcasm
Both are murderers. And, I don't believe that one's guilt increases as a strict linear function of their crimes. Someone who kills merely 3 million is not "twice as good as" someone who kills 6 million. The moral calculations are difficult but I know that they do not follow these simplistic mathematical formulas.
Well after all, he Wasn't A Pacifist, and neither am I! Also, he believed in worldwide proletariat revolution... just like us Freepers!
Isn't it fascinating to discover just how "Trotskyist" we've been all these years without knowing it? ;-)
Nonsense. Got any names?
and they boast of being intellectuals and how high brow they were compared to the Stalinists.
Perhaps. Even you are more highbrow than the Stalinists.
Also they seem to have never lost the desire for world revolution.
And what kind of revolution are they busy promoting these days?
They change horses in mid race again and again to whoever will best suit their purposes. Their loyalty is to the revolution
And what kind of revolution are they busy promoting these days?
though the details of the final utopia get finessed from time to time.
The are not and never were conservatives.......
Others disagree. You are a paleo's paleo and busy trying to read some people out of the conservative movement. There seems to be some bad blood and your faction is as much responsible as the neo conservatives are.
let alone libertarians.
Finally you complement the neos!
BTW you seem to be defending Trotsky like he was some sort of respectable fellow being slandered.
Straw man argument. I'm saying he's not the totalitarian mass murderer that Hitler, Stalin Mao Lenin Pol Pot are. Not even close.
That doesn't come across well to old time conservatives (anti-communists) who you might be trying to win over to your side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.