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.
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.