Posted on 06/16/2003 5:03:58 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Trotskycons?
Pasts and present.
By Stephen Schwartz
EXCERPTS
".....This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine. Burnham was joined at NR by Suzanne LaFollette, who, piquantly enough, retained some copyrights to Trotskyist material until her death. But they were not the only people on the right who remained, in some degree, sentimental about their left-wing past. Willmoore Kendall, for example, was, as I recall, a lifelong contributor to relief for Spanish radical leftist refugees living in France. Above all, Burnham and Kristol, in a certain sense, did not renounce their pasts. They acknowledged that they had evolved quite dramatically away from their earlier enthusiasms. But they did not apologize, did not grovel, did not crawl and beg forgiveness for having, at one time, been stirred by the figure of Trotsky......"
"......That is, of course, insufficient for some people. There remain those for whom any taint of leftism is a permanent stain, and who cannot abide an individual who, having in the past been a Trotskyist, does not now caper and grimace in self-loathing over the historical truth, which is that, yes, Trotsky commanded the Red Army, and yes, Trotsky wielded a sword, and yes, Trotsky, a man of moral consistency if nothing else, took responsibility for the crimes of the early Bolshevik regime. But of that, more anon......"
"......Well, I consider Beichman's intent more sinister: to exclude Hitchens and myself from consideration as reliable allies in the struggle against Islamist extremism, because we have yet to apologize for something I, for one, will never consider worthy of apology. There is clearly a group of heresy-hunters among the original neoconservatives who resent having to give way to certain newer faces, with our own history and culture. These older neoconservatives cannot take yes for an answer, and they especially loathe Hitchens. But nobody ever asked Norman Podhoretz to apologize for having once written poetry praising the Soviet army. Nobody ever asked the art critic Meyer Schapiro, who was also a Trotskyist, to flog himself for assisting illegal foreign revolutionaries at a time when it was considered unpatriotic, to say the least. Nobody ever asked Shachtman or Burnham, or, for that matter, Sidney Hook, or Edmund Wilson, or a hundred others, to grovel and beg mercy for inciting war on capitalism in the depths of the Great Depression........"
".....One might also add that nobody ever asked Jay Lovestone and Bertram Wolfe, ex-Communists whose company Beichman doubtless would prefer, to apologize for having defended the Soviet purge trials and the Stalinist state, long after so many of the brave band that carried a banner with the strange device of the Fourth International were murdered for their defiance of Stalinism. And I have yet to read an apology by Beichman for his own involvement with the Communist network......"
"......To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling of Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state, as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists, and Stalinists in their second childhood, make of it what they will......."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Iraq is a gray zone that allows several competing views to both come to the same conculsions. The neocons, don't seem to be able to cache the Iraq war into a wider neocon envisioned conflict.
I guess I just don't understand why Trotsky is singled out
Because this group-while communist was independent. They were outside of mainstream movement headed in Moscow. Not belonging to an organized communist party, these Trotskyists were able to eventually question communism (some became Maoists but that did not last) without the party getting involved and keeping the members in line. Pretty soon criticism of Stalin led to criticism of communism and then the movement-while keeping the goal alive - dropped the communist economic ideology. They attached themselves to democracy and free markets and see those as an instrument of world wide revolution. The goals of said revolution are stated above.
If you think that my conclusion is wrong please pont out what and why?
Thanks.
In English please? I have no idea what the hell you just said :-)
[why Trotskyism in particular has been selected for inclusion in this conspiracy theory..] Because this group-while communist was independent. They were outside of mainstream movement headed in Moscow. Not belonging to an organized communist party, these Trotskyists were able to eventually question communism (some became Maoists but that did not last) without the party getting involved and keeping the members in line. Pretty soon criticism of Stalin led to criticism of communism and then the movement-while keeping the goal alive - dropped the communist economic ideology. They attached themselves to democracy and free markets and see those as an instrument of world wide revolution. The goals of said revolution are stated above.
Actually they are not stated above unless I really misread your post (which is possible). Anyhow that is a nice thumbnail sketch of some (non-specific) aspects of "Trotskyism" I suppose but I have no idea what the hell any of that has to do with "neocons".
For the record my original question was and remains: (a) What exactly is "Trotskyism" and (b) what supposedly "Trotskyist" views are held by so-called "neocons". Funny how no one can answer this. It should be pretty easy.
If you think that my conclusion is wrong please pont out what and why?
I can't do that. I have no real idea what your "conclusion" is, if you have one. If it involves linking "Trotskyists" with "neocons" then I would have problems on several levels, including but not limited to:
-there's no real such thing as a "neocon", it's a label without a precise definition. As far as I can tell there are about three or four historical figures who would embrace the term for themselves; as for the rest of the people who get called "neocon", it seems to be in the eye of the beholder. One can't expect a theory about "neocons" to be taken seriously if one can't define the term in a consistent, agreed-upon way. (For example in recent discussion Christopher Hitchens seems to have been drafted into the ranks of "neocons", which is ridiculous since he would likely describe himself as a "Liberal" and/or "man of the Left".)
-a theory intended to link someone to "Trotskyists" had better actually describe some ideas unique to "Trotskyism" and then establish that that person holds to those ideas while others don't. All I've seen here is "Trotskyists aren't pacifists... neither are neocons". Or equally ridiculous "links".
Until at least the two things above are remedied I'm afraid I haven't seen any "conclusions" worth giving the time of day in this thread, in the first place.
Trotsky was also a great military leader, and Schwartz finds support for the idea of pre-emptive war in the old Bolshevik's writings. "Nobody who is a Trotskyist can really be a pacifist," Schwartz notes. "Trotskyism is a militaristic disposition. When you are Trotskyist, we don't refer to him as a great literary critic, we refer to him as the founder of the Red Army."
Paul Berman agrees with Schwartz that Trotskyists are by definition internationalists who are willing to go to war when necessary. "The Left Opposition and the non-Communist left comes out of classic socialism, so it's not a pacifist tradition," Berman observes. "It's an internationalist tradition. It has a natural ability to sympathize or feel solidarity for people in places that might strike other Americans or Canadians as extremely remote."
Schwartz finds support for the idea of pre-emptive war in the old Bolshevik's writings
So, Trotskyism is at heart all about pre-emptive war? Ridiculous.
Anyone who believes in pre-emptive war is a "Trotskyist"? Ridiculous.
Hell not everyone who believes in pre-emptive war is even a "neo-con", even by the most broad usage of that term (i.e. one that includes people like Christopher Hitchens).
Trotskyists are by definition internationalists who are willing to go to war when necessary.
So it really had nothing whatsoever to do with all that "communism" stuff? Ridiculous. Give me a frickin' break, Napoleon was an "internationalist willing to go to war when necessary".
so it's not a pacifist tradition,"
So here's the "conclusion": Trotskyists are Not Pacifists, neither are "neo-cons", thus "neo-cons" are "linked to" Trotskyism.
This is asinine and an insult to the intelligence of anyone over the age of four.
You don't really believe this crap, do you?
If you do, surely you can explain it better than this, can't you?
Amazing. Lenin, Trotsky and Zinoviev were the Hitler, Himmler and Bormann of the early Bolsheviks yet, for some reason I can't figure out, you excuse Trotsky.
Maybe Dr. Frank had the answer. It was the glasses.
Trotskyists believed ___, and this belief was unique to the Trotskyist ideology. Nowadays, "neo-cons" also believe ___, and this too is what distinguishes them from others. That's why there's a link between them.
Keep in mind that blank 1 and blank 2 should be identical when completed.
If no one can figure out any way to consistently fill in blank 1 and blank 2 in an identical way, and have the above paragraph still make accurate sense, then I submit that this "Trotskycon" stuff is a complete load of stinking crap.
Let me know.
Uh, but "Trotskyism" DID. See, that's where the analogy breaks down. (Right at the beginning.)
just the techinques of revolution
What "techniques of revolution" do the "neo-cons" have in common with "Trotskyists" pray tell?
and the endgame.
The "endgame" for Trotsky was global communism. Are you suggesting that this is the "endgame" for neo-cons as well?
Seriously, just fill in the blanks of my #186.
Have you invested in some sort of hero worship to these neocons before you knew their origin and can't accept this linkage or something?
Stephen Schwarz admits to having been a Trotskyist. That's not the same thing as "Necons"[sic] admitting to "Trotskyist origin and influence". You need to learn to distinguish between individuals and groups of humans.
Ted Kaczynski admitting to killing people. That doesn't mean that "white guys" or "mathematicians" have admitted to killing people. To fail to understand the distinction is bizarre.
Is that not enough for you to acknowledge the fact
No, it is not enough. The fact that Stephen Schwarz used to be a Trotskyist is not enough for me to acknowledge that there is a "link between Trotskyists and neoconservatism". Any more than the fact that Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat proves that there is a "link between Republicanism and Democratism". It is silly, silly thinking.
Have you invested in some sort of hero worship to these neocons before you knew their origin
LOL... "hero worship"? Boy have you got the wrong Freeper.
Listen close: I don't even know who these so-called "neo-cons" ARE. I can never get a straight answer from anyone. As far as I can tell now, only the following people are on the list: 1. Irving Kristol, 2. Norman Podhoretz, 3. David Horowitz, 4. someone named Stephen Schwarz.
"hero worship"? I barely know who any of the above four guys ARE.
and can't accept this linkage or something?
I can accept the linkage between this guy Stephen Schwarz and Trotskyism because, after all, by his own words he used to be a Trotskyist. What I can't accept is that there is a linkage between whatever branch of conservatism is, as an ideology, being called "neo-conservatism", and Trotskyism.
The fact that those four guys or some subset of them used to be Trotskyists doesn't mean that "neo-conservatism" is linked to "Trotskyism". See previous Reagan/Democrat example.
Now, will you fill in the blanks of #186?
Can you? You can't, can you? That should REALLY tell you something.
The left would have you believe they are commies who converted so as to continue their hidden agenda under the conservative guise.
Schwartz is ticked at the perceived subterfuge. He thinks these neo-cons (to him that term only applies to lefty converts) should be democrats if they want to continue the fight for socialism.
Schwartz, himself, uses the facade of a conversion to socialist/fascist Islam. To him, that is being true to the cause. He cannot bring himself to believe that some have seen the true light; they must be duplicitous.
yitbos
You have me wrong buddy. I am not a paleo. I'm a libertarian though I started out life as a regular garden variety conservative but I found over time that conservatives have too much use for government so I switched labels. However even if I were a conservative I would not try to purge anyone out of the party rather I simply would oppose big government ideas. The point is to get people to think about what they can do in liberty not to think what government can do for them. Part of that process would be to critique proposals and actual policies and to pursue truth in labeling so people are not led astray by disinformation. It is called being true to principle and ever vigilant.
As far as the neocons reveling in their Trotskyite past is concerned all I can say is that I have watched Kristol, Podhoritz, et. al. on PBS and C-Span for 20 years on documentaries, booknotes, conferences, speeches, etc. and I based my comments from seeing them in action. Earlier this year Irving Kristol and some others were on a panel discussion and during Q&A from the audience someone asked him if he regretted being a socialist in his youth and he absolutely had none. In fact he said that socialism was a fair maiden with whom he had a passionate affair with in his youth and had no regrets whatsoever.
You asked me what revolution they support now. The communists of old found the world they lived in wanting and desired to destroy it and create a new one in their image. They would use government for the task once they gained control through armed revolution. Perhaps the neocons have given up on communism but they still seek to have the world remade in their image - this time it's called democracy instead of world socialism. Whatever it's called and however the details have changed since the original vision it can only be realized through government action. Remember government is force - it can be carrot or stick but it is still force. Paleos and libertarians see nothing conservative in all this. Especially on a global scale.
cordially,
P.S. Trotsky never rose to the heights of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. because he was out of power and therefore lacked the opportunity. But judging from his limited career he didn't seem too sqeamish about spilling blood and we can only speculate on what his brilliant career as dicator and world revolutionary could have been like. What a role model.
The French, who still don't have a clue, are calling Bill Kristol a neo-con. Now, since he was NEVER a Trotskyite, a lefty, nor even a Dem, but always Republican, it's a misnomer and further debasement of the term.
I don't know. Possibly. Certainly he used to consider himself a socialist, if not anymore.
Not that Christopher Hitchens has any relevance to this discussion, since he isn't a "neo-con" in the first place. (Contrary to what some might have you believe, supporting the war against Iraq doesn't make one a "neo-con".)
What "others"? All you've got is the Schwarz article. Stephen Schwarz (whoever that is) can certainly admit to being a former Trotskyist, but he can't "admit to" this being an alleged property of other people, any more than I can "admit" that you are a murderer. He has to PROVE it, which he has not.
Which reminds me, what is the "INFLUENCE"? (Fill in the blanks in #86.)
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.